Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Rockpocket block of Giano II/Discussion to address Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts

Moved to subpage; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rockpocket block of Giano II. Horologium (talk)

Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts Risker (talk)

Dealing with an attack page

I consider some of the comment here as attacks on my character - if an editor has a specific problems with my a) edits or my conduct, I invite them to file a RFUC or to come here and provide diffs. The elements I have problems with, are as follows:

• What if a cabal developed a strategy to distract the closure of abusive renominations by tendentious debate in AN/I, and other devices. They might use a "returned editor" to spearhead an effort, to be the fall guy if needed. Complete fantasy and I resent the accusation. If he has evidence this Cabal exists (which it doesn't), I suggests he presents it or he pulls those comments.

• And, indeed, withdrew the AfD, supposedly. However, he continued to argue tendentiously for Delete, so, in the end, it becomes difficult not to see this as a tactical move, to head off action against him. I was asked if I'd redraw the nom so I did, others objected, so the AFD continues to run. There was no tactical move on my part and if he has anything but inference to present I suggest he produces it.

• Thus the concern that he might be a returning blocked editor, which can be very difficult to prove, is nevertheless quite reasonable on the face of it. Abd is constantly repeating this accusation up and down the board with no proof at all. I was asked about having a previous account and I answered as soon as asked, so I'm really not impressed with him repeating this slander all over the place.

He can present factual accounts of difference and that AFD however he likes, but he should not be allowed to use it to make his slurs and unsourced accusations on other editors. If he has issues with my conduct or behaviour that he has both AN/I and/or RFCU open to him. If he wants to take a pop at me (and he clearly does), he needs to do it via the right channels. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The page is not an accusation, it is, as it states, a speculation, a worry. And most of the material on the page is pure evidence, the history of an AN/I report, and then a section about what it might all mean. In that, I do comment on some odd things I've noticed in examining the history of this event. I'll stand with the comments above, but, note, I did not make them in a public place and the only reason that Allemandtando would have seen them is that he would be following my contributions. Ah, yes, and I dropped a note on the Talk page for User:Majorly to ask for his comment. That's it. Quite obviously, from what I wrote, there is no proof of any of the things that Allemandtando claims are attacks. If I were recommending action, I'd need proof. If I were accusing, I'd need proof. The second item, though, is a plain description of his behavior in the AfD involved. What I'm describing are causes for concern and watchfulness, not causes for action, at least not without further investigation.

The third item is particularly interesting. He is a returning editor, blatantly so; he did not state it, though, until he was challenged, and he was defiant about that, as I think I note on that page. He is highly contentious and has been warned for incivility. He was the subject of two AN/I reports in two days: I had nothing to do with starting those. Many editors expressed suspicion that he might be this or that blocked editor. It is an obvious suspicion. For me to say that is not an attack. For me to say, "He is a blocked editor," would be. If I wanted to "pop" him, he'd be dead. But I don't, and I won't unless things become much plainer to me than they are. I did not compile that user page to get him. If I were compiling a page to RfC or AN/I him, it would be totally different. He's relevant to what I'm doing on that page because we had this huge flap of an AfD rapid renom because he (1) edit warred with an administrator over closure of it, and (2) successfully, with the cooperation of others, diverted the AN/I report over edit warring into a discussion of a content issue, the notability of an article. Which is not an AN/I issue. Somebody let me know if I need to look further here, if I keep AN/I on my Watchlist, I can't see anything else. That is part of the problem, indeed. So perhaps I'll thank Allemandtando for bringing the attention of that beginning of an essay to everyone's attention. It's not really about him. Watch it if you want to see where it goes.--Abd (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Every minute you spend on this kind of thing is a minute you're not spending on finding evidence that the article in question has any business being in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point it might dawn on Baseball Bugs and a few others that I care more about Wikipedia than about saving a marginally notable article. I've already spent many hours, maybe too many, working on recovering difficult-to-track down sources from the Wayback Machine, and similar activities involved with that article, such as trying to figure out what the bloody hell it is about. (It's actually interesting, eventually. Takes some work to get over the hump). But the work isn't done, yet, at least not for sure. As to wasting time, I didn't bring this report here. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and notable are not the same thing. I've seen easily verifiable national news stories shot down in a New York minute due to lack of "notability". In contrast, you've had lots of time to try to demonstrate the worthiness of this article, and if you can't find any verifiable info about this obscure computer language, then maybe there isn't any; which indicates that the original AFD was skated through in the hope no one would notice. Well, someone did, and he's to be commended for not allowing the spammers to get away with it. This is an encyclopedia (as you keep saying) and the value and appropriateness of the content is more important than anything else. Also, you didn't bring the report here, you were building it elsewhere, and that same alert user brought it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how much useless argument there is here. I mention that mKR is "interesting," with no claim that it was therefore "notable." Just a comment, it was. And, once again, we are arguing a content issue here. Stop it. Sorry I mentioned "interesting."

This is an AN/I report, allegedly I'm building something nefarious in my user space. So why did BB jump in? There was a point where Killerofcruft started editing what was obviously intended to be an RfC or AN/I report on me, and I saw it.[1] Did I bring it here? No, haven't mentioned it here before now, and this is not a complaint about that file, he had a perfect right to work on it. Instead, I found a friend of his and suggested that he help his friend to stop, because it was going to be practically wiki-suicidal. He did ask, and it stopped, and Killerofcruft behaved himself, at least around me, for a couple of days (And changed his name to Allemantando.) What's in my user space wasn't about him, it was about the breakdown of AN/I, and he's simply a character in that drama, not the center of it. It isn't being written to be an AN/I report or an RfC. It isn't like that at all. However, it is possible that there will be some kind of process come out of it. Not here, though, unless Allemandtando or others insist on bringing it here. AN/I is for emergencies, actually. Not for community discussion, preferably, other than issues of specific editor conduct that might require administrative action. Baseball Bugs, as to conduct, is the proximate cause for the derailment of the ANI report that is documented on my user page.

Take a look. Al_tally files an AN/I report on edit warring by Killerofcruft (now Allemandtando), and Baseball Bugs asks him to respond about the notability of an article, an actually irrelevant question, derailing the process, and then tendentiously argues about it. Disruptive, I'd call it. (But it was only disruptive because the community took the bait, or, an alternate interpretation, nobody with admin buttons was paying attention at that time. The real problem is an increase in scale causing AN/I to become seriously dysfunctional.) So, indeed, it may be time for some further process. Not here, though. Probably ArbComm, because it involves not just one or two administrators and overall policy issues. It's not really about misbehavior, but about some serious and deeply divisive disagreements over what's important, and that's why it might be necessary to go to ArbComm. But I'm trying to figure out some way to handle this short of that. There may be a way. ArbComm is not fun. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is far from irrelevant - it's a requirement for any entry in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, notability is a content issue, and AN/I is not for content issues. It's for behavioral issues. What isn't clear about that? This page isn't a "entry in wikipedia." It's a process page and it is focused on the behavior of editors, specifically where response might require admin tools. This is not a place to discuss content issues, period. That an article isn't notable, supposedly, is utterly no excuse to edit war over an AfD closure. None. Being "right" isn't an excuse for violating policy about edit warring. Multiple reverts without discussion and attempts to find agreement is edit warring. Once was bad enough. Twice was inexcusable. This was not a new editor, a clueless newbie. He knows. And he simply defied the policy and the closing admin and got away with it, largely because you helped him to, by continually turning the matter into a notability question, which it wasn't. Al_tally didn't close the AfD because he considered the article notable (though he may have thought that), he closed it because it was an abusive renomination. And he deserved support from AN/I, not irrelevant questions and arguments. And you are just digging your hole deeper, I'd say. --Abd (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I've "edit warred" on anything in connection with this article. And show me where notability and verifiability are somehow irrelevant to an article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't edit war. You supported someone who did. N and V are crucial for articles, never said they were irrelevant to it. They are irrelevant to edit warring. Used to amaze me, been writing on-line since the 1980s. This is written communication. One would think it would be clear. But quite a few people can only see what they think. --Abd (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When you start writing something that appears to be "building a case", where everyone can see it, you set yourself up for complaints such as this one. You're better off doing something like that on your own PC, until or if you're actually ready to file it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And I'm grateful to User:Allemandtando for filing it, in a sense. (But I regret the wikidrama part of it, the expansion of AN/I traffic.) It calls wider attention to his behavior, which seems to continue to be disruptive. Technically, "everyone can see it" in my userspace, but nobody would unless they were watching my contributions (or maybe the Talk page of the one admin whom I pinged about it for comment). Now, it's out there. Though I'd have preferred it be emblazoned across the sky when it's actually more than half done! And it isn't about Allemandtando. It's about AN/I. He just happens to be a player.--Abd (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And regarding your edit summary, "Thanks, Allemandtando and Baseball Bugs" - You're welcome. I'm always glad to be of service. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record I too have concerns about Allemandtando's behaviour with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination), which I have noted on that AfD page. I believe Allemandtando initiated an invalid AfD and then edit warred to prevent it being early closed. And I too have concerns about his refusal to be open about the identity of his previous account(s), claiming the "right to vanish" when he has obviously not vanished. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a separate issue you could raise here or at the sockpuppet page, if you care to. He explained the reason why didn't want his previous ID known, i.e. that it was his actual name. I don't know what the rules are in such a case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to write commentary on Wikipedia in their user space. Sometimes, solutions to problems or other good ideas come from it. That said, if you feel it's inaccurate, tell him why. Looks like you've already been doing this, on the talk page. I don't see that the mere existence of this page is any kind of problem. Friday (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Post closure of 2nd AfD

The second AFD has been closed with "no consensus", so the self-promoter gets to keep his article awhile longer. But how much longer? There are no wikipedia-valid sources for it, so a properly-done AFD should kill it. The claim has been made that the second AFD was opened "too soon", although there is no such rule. So the question is, how soon can another AFD be opened on this article and satisfy the ones who claimed the second one was "too soon"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OOPs, I spoke too soon. The second closure was again done by a non-admin, which is part of the trouble with the first one, and an admin has stepped in and reverted the closure. So the soap opera continues! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually started to reply to this here more extensively. However, this is all moot here. There is, true, minor misbehavior by an admin, referred to above, but it's minor and certainly not any kind of an emergency. (The reverting admin had voted in the AfD. Naughty, naughty! Kids, don't edit war! Let a neutral editor or admin sort it out!)--Abd (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. It's like dealing with kids. Yes, notability, sourcing major problems for that page. The first AfD didn't really touch on that, so it's really an issue of "should a DRV have been created instead". Yet there have been many megs of text typed opining various issues, agendas when quite frankly, you've a case on someone new to wikipedia not knowing the often arcane ruleset. All that really needed doing was a delete/userfy action, with an admin/experienced editor working with the guy to a) educate him in wiki protocol and b) attempt to rectify the concerns with the page in question prior to it possibly being mainspaced. Seriously, does anyone with an IQ higher than double figures actually believe the page required such megadrama? And people wonder why wikipedia is a laughing stock... Minkythecat (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I resemble that remark! >:( The AFD was re-closed, by an admin, as "delete and userfy", so hopefully everyone's happy now and this can be marked "Resolved". Or not. Either way, I'm done with this subject. Have at it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The notability issue is resolved for now, because the community of those !voting Keep, including 3 of the 8 administrators who voted, the overall total was 18:14 for Delete, are not contentious and gratuitously disruptive and seem to have no plans to go to DRV. That community discussion, in fact, was No Consensus, however. The decision was technically incorrect, in that there was no consensus behind it (but the admin, of course, had the right to make that decision, and I congratulated him for it, and no charge of impropriety could stand against him), and it seems to have simply depended on opinion as to relative primacy of the two issues involved: notability and process (which is why we had an unusual level of participation from long-time Wikipedians: We had one !vote each from accounts registered in 2001, 2002, and 2003.) I've not seen that in an AfD before. I disagree with Minky on one point: this was not a "new user." This is a sophisticated returning "vanished" user, who came in swinging, appearing on AN/I twice in as many days, being so actively offensive that he is being massively vandalized (which does not mean that he did something wrong, only that this simply points how he dove right into massive disruption, as his original user name announced, Killerofcruft. Disruption can be a good thing, but it's a very delicate issue, and he's not delicate. The name, however, worked, politically. It endeared him to the deletionist faction, who have rushed to congratulate him, barnstar him, etc. And I consider this very, very dangerous. He edit warred. He was uncivil. He makes massive edits to "cruft" articles without discussion, and largely ignores protests. Why should he discuss, after all? He's "right." Being "right" is one of the most dangerous positions for an editor to be in. It can justify, for starters, edit warring. It, indeed, has been used to justify the AfD itself. "Okay, it was out of process, but ... he was right, the article isn't notable." And Bugs did this from the beginning, with the edit report about Koc's edit warring: "What about the notability?" As if that admin was supposed to make, or even have an opinion, on notability. *Notability was, at that point, irrelevant.* Gotta pick up the kids. I'll be back later. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The contents of the encyclopedia are what matter the most, because that's what the public sees. Allowing articles with non-notable subjects that don't pass the verifiability rules does not serve the public well. That should be your primary focus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your constant sniping and obsession with me is getting getting frankly creepy and a bit scary. If we lived in the same country, I'd be getting stronger locks about now. Do you think you could fit *some* editing in between snipping and obsessing? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All this megadrama was because people didn't follow process. As a result, there were two WP:AN/I incidents filed, both still open and unresolved, and 44 letter sized pages (almost 24K words) of votes and commentary in the 2nd AfD. With more commentary elsewhere. This is far from resolved. There is still a WP:DRV for the article, and a WP:RFC/U for behavior. And potentially a WP:ArbCom case eventually. — Becksguy (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The megadrama was triggered by people's blind obsession that process is all. The first AfD ended unsatisfactorily as people clearly hadn't looked at the page, looked at who created the page, realised it's an area that needs expertise of sorts. People didn't address the notability or sources, didn't grasp that aiding the page creator, who is new to Wikipedia, would be beneficial for attempting to improve the standard of the article. Should a DRV have been created immediately? Maybe. Should the second AfD have been created? Possibly. Either way, the glaringly obvious, simple solution to the initial AfD was overlooked by blind obedience for process as be all and end all with a staggering lack of common sense applied by all. ANI threads? RFC/U? Possible ArbCom case? Dear gods, fish rights groups would be after my head for all the deserved trout slapping I'd love to apply over all of this. Delete/userfy, assisting the creator - who having written the language is clearly the best person to work with on the article - was the bleeding obvious way to have gone initially. Anything else happening is just process wonkery for the sake of it... people who have performed the minor miracle of environmentally regenerating a molehill into a mountain really need to consider if this makes Wikipedia look good... Minkythecat (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one object to being labelled as a"blind obsessive" and a "process wonk" just because I do not agree that the end justifies the means in cases like this. As the excellent essay Process is important says "If everyone acts outside of process, there is no process, no organization to our efforts. Then we do not have a collaborative project; we have chaos." The problem with making exceptions for editors such as Allemandtando because we believe they are "fighting the good fight" is that the exceptions grow, and this stance eventually degenerates into anarchy. Already I see Allemandtando has started yet another AN/I thread about a new wiki-drama below. The admin who closed the second AfD was brave - I wish the community were equally brave in tackling the reckless and disruptive behaviour of editors such as Allemandtando. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bangs head. Did you plainly not read anything other than a couple of quoted words? "End justifies the means"? No, although to deny there are always cases where that's necessary is somewhat unrealistic. FACT. The original AfD was mismanaged, focusing upon the wrong areas of concern. The notability, sourcing were always the real issues but got ignored - so sure, DRV could/should have happened, but then you'd be accepting the process (original AfD) was wrong... so then blindly following routine for that doesn't necessarily help. This was a simple thing to resolve, instead too many people got into a "how high can we piss" contest. CLUE. You might win, you'll still get wet. So, getting back to the original point, I assume the page has been userfied - are any admins/experienced editors assisting the page creator by helping him try to gather references to try to satisfy the article problems of notability and sourcing, or is that now secondary to the lulzdramaz? Minkythecat (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not quite done with this. Yes, the page was deleted and userfied: User:abd/MKR (programming language) The complaints about process were over a non-existent rule. There is no "minimum" wait time before filing a second AFD. And because the first one was swept under the carpet (or attempted to be), the second one was essentially a continuation of the first one. But one of the main objecters, User:Abd, now has it userfied to him, where he can work on finding sources, to his heart's content, and I gather he's OK with that. If the article proves to be worthy, it could always come back. Never say never. The issue of the article itself seems to be resolved. As far as behavior... well, you summarized it well. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs here, as with the AfD, made one of the more interesting wikilawyer comments I've seen in a while. The policy requires a reasonable pause between AfDs, and it is true, there is no specific period stated. Therefore, the argument goes, the period in this AfD did not violate the policy, because there is no minimum period. Yet the minimum period was violated. From WP:DP: Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.

The minimum time is whatever is less than "a reasonable amount of time ... to give editors the time to improve the page." Apparently Bugs likes his argument, because it was answered similarly before, so what Bugs been doing is justifying disruptive behavior, and encouraging it, which is disruptive, when he should know better, and may result in sanctions. At this point, since he hasn't been formally warned, he shouldn't worry, a block shouldn't come down because of what he's done in the past. This, here, should be considered a warning, if he shows that he's read it, so if he stops replying here, he could later claim he wasn't warned, so maybe somebody, maybe me, (better if it's not me) will warn him formally on his Talk page. If he doesn't repeat the behavior, then he can respond here, no worries about that either.--Abd (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trying to get revenge upon other editors, you need to focus on finding sources to justify the restoration of that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the warning, BB. Tell me, which is more important, cleaning up a single marginally notable article, or addressing disruptive behavior? A single marginally notable article, present or not, will make very little difference to Wikipedia. One disruptive editor can damage hundreds of articles, drive away hundreds of editors, get whole groups of Wikipedians fighting with each other, and generally make this a quite unpleasant place. And, more to the point, which is the subject for AN/I?

User:Arcayne was just blocked. Totally improper block. My jaw dropped when I saw it. An admin lost his marbles and could lose his buttons as well. Why? Provoked, I'd say. (No excuse for the admin, who may have protected himself by unblocking and making some attempt at an apology. Or maybe not, the admin may also have been edit warring.) What would have brought him to that? I'm not prepared to come to a firm conclusion, but, from seeing the immediate preceding history, he was faced with a user disregarding the consensus process that is the very foundation of how Wikipedia works. This isn't a complaint about Arcayne, whom I have seen try to tone things down, he actually tried to restrain Killerofcruft (now User:Allemandtando), though with a bit of wink-wink perhaps, but, even a very gentle and well-behaved dog, running in a pack, can become quite dangerous. What I saw forming around Killerofcruft was a coterie of cruft-haters, using battle metaphors, cheering when massive swaths were cut through articles, without discussion with other editors of the articles, without the gentle pressure toward reliable sourcing, the placing of cn tags, the attempt to serve the article's community by finding sources oneself, and the seeking of sources from other editors, explaining what RS means and requires, the extensive warning that text will ultimately be removed if not sourced, the seeking of consensus and the avoidance of edit warring, the acceptance of reasonable compromises, all the courtesies of peers editing articles as a joint project, if this is set aside in favor of "immediate clean-up," massive chaos and disruption and, yes, angry and impudent response can result. That admin may end up before ArbComm, but if he does, the whole affair will be examined, and, I'd predict, there will be other sanctions against other editors come out of it. That admin did not act in a vacuum, or, more accurately, he was sucked in, suckered into making a very bad move. If he's smart, he will listen carefully to all the criticism which arises, and completely abandon any defense of himself, acknowledging the mistake openly and completely, showing the community that he's unlikely to make the same mistake again, and, if he does this, I predict, he'll keep his buttons. As to the other editors involved, I can't make such predictions. Being a POV-pusher (and "deletionism," when it becomes a Holy Crusade, is a kind of POV) isn't a blockable offense. But disruption and aiding and abetting disruption is. Revenge doesn't interest me, I haven't suffered any personal damage here. Honesty, however, is an avenging angel, it's amazing what it can do. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints have been noted and logged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Abd is continuing to work constructively with the page creator, as he has done throughout this saga. I'm not going to waste time and space re-stating the legitimate concerns of myself and the other "process wonks" - they are already spelled out at the AfD page. Minkythecat and Baseball Bugs , we clearly disagree about identifying the "real issues" here, and there is no hope of finding common ground, but I suggest you try to be less derogatory and more civil towards editors who disagree with you. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would take to throw a civil comment in there. It's clear you're seeing only the words I wrote that you want to see. No big deal. This whole saga is nothing more than a total lack of common sense from day one, hopefully Abd will be able to either make a decent article or not be able to, to hopefully put this shambles to bed. Minkythecat (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was rightly killed due to lack of any apparent evidence that it belongs here, and now Abd has all the time he needs to try to prove otherwise, which was one of his primary complaints about the AFD. So everyone should be happy at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I plead guilty to sarcasm, although I've seen a lot worse. And I see nothing uncivil in Minky's comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now setting up a kangaroo court in his userspace - he does no editing that is not either about me or involves me - check his recent edits. How long am I expected to put up with being stalked? Do I have to approach the foundation about this? --Allemandtando (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A page designed to examine the behavior of the above editor neutrally has indeed been created in my user space, User:Abd/Allemandtando, but I'd suggest WP:AGF. It isn't a kangaroo court, it has no indictment or subpoena power, no authority to determine and impose sanctions, it is simply a place to collect a neutral description of the record, so the above hysterical response may say more about the user than about that page. What stalking? Looking at the contributions of an apparently disruptive user (alternative view: bold and brave user ridding the project of cruft and junk), and documenting them? I'd urge reading the page before jumping to conclusions about what it is (and the Talk page attached.) The above is a reaction to a mostly blank page! Wait until there is some actual content! --Abd (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He will get nowhere with an ArbCom. It will be seen for what it is: a personal vendetta. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that I wouldn't waste my time and theirs even presenting such a thing. It's correct, they would not accept a case that was a personal vendetta, unless they believed that there were issues worth their time and the community's time; if it was based on a personal vendetta, whatever they determined with respect to the user, they would surely censure or sanction me. I'd beware, though of considering me some vengeful nut case. I'm not, and most of what I do finds pretty substantial community support, at least lately. --Abd (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you try to bring my name into it, claiming I'm his "cheerleader", don't forget to point out where I had suggested on this ANI page that he be blocked for a week or so, for disruption on an earlier topic. I am no one's "cheerleader". I thought he was wrong on the earlier issue, and I think he was right on this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest not anticipating what I will do and then vigorously objecting to it. Users are not consistent, and may do one thing (a good thing) and then another (a not-good thing). What was mentioned here was the effect of certain actions. "Cheering" does not mean "meat puppetry." This incident report was based on allegations regarding a file I was preparing on how AN/I was diverted from its task, and the initial disruption grew out of a question posed here, in another AN/I report, by Baseball Bugs that was irrelevant to the issue brought there. The article could be utterly and unquestionably not notable and it would have been irrelevant (except that if this were the case, the whole thing would not have happened). Edit warring isn't permitted even if the edit warrior is "correct." This is a fundamental operating principle of Wikipedia, which can be set aside only for clearly necessary reasons, which did not exist here. Baseball Bugs has not actually addressed the specific point made here, which relates to the purpose of this report and an important point raised by it: how a legitimate AN/I request for admin support, by an admin facing edit warring in a reasonable performance of his function, was diverted over a truly minor issue: the notability of the article, which is clearly marginal, not utterly non-notable (there is at least one decent reliable source, when red herrings are set aside), but neither clearly notable (there is otherwise a paucity of RS, beyond minimal references -- listings -- by experts --, and only the personal testimony of several knowledgeable Wikipedia editors that it is, in fact, notable, even important, which is, yes, not sufficient in itself). Edit warring was the issue there, in the prior report, not notability. Was Killerofcruft edit warring? Nobody has claimed that he was not. Yet a number of users, including Baseball Bugs, have effectively condoned it by raising the notability issue, then and now. We have a process for determining notability, and edit warring is not part of that process, and neither is rapid renomination; Baseball Bugs has wikilawyered with an argument that, since no minimum time is specified in the policy, a few days violated no policy, an utterly preposterous argument that, again, has found no support. Here, the issue was, again, something different: the propriety of my working file, which was claimed to be an "attack page." The page has been judged, by the community, to be legitimate, but Baseball Bugs continues to claim that User:Allemandtando was "right on this issue." What issue? If Baseball Bugs is not again bringing in irrelevancies, this would only mean he is confirming the claim that the page was an "attack page." Yet he has not substantiated that argument. What about the page is an "attack"? Does it contain "personal attack" that violates policy? If so, I'd certainly need to know. Warn me, with specifics. Or stop filling up AN/I with useless distractions. Every post to this page postpones archiving by a day. This is not a trial of Baseball Bugs, and if he fails to defend himself here, it will not harm him. No proposal has been made for sanctions against him. All that has happened is that a specific behavior has been called into question; that may become relevant later, but he, and others, would then have the opportunity to question and correct any errors.--Abd (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Every minute you spend concerning yourself with this matter, is a minute you're not spending looking for sources for that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Move this thread

Although the 2nd AfD was closed, this thread has effectively become a continuation of the 2nd AfD debate. No admin action has been taken on this, and I think it's highly unlikely at this point that any will be taken. Therefore, unless there are objections, I will move this thread to a subpage of the 2nd AfD talk page and leave a link here. That way, this thread can archive and stop clogging up the AN/I board. Those that are interested in this thread can watch the subpage much more effectively. If someone wishes to file an issue that requires immediate admin intervention, they are, of course, free to open another thread here. — Becksguy (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, this is an AN/I thread, even though it was hijacked into "a continuation of the debate," and I, many times, attempted to return it to that topic. I don't think it belongs there, with the AfD, I don't recall much mentioned here that wasn't already discussed there. But a link from the 2nd AfD talk page, which does have some post-AfD discussion, to here, once this is archived, would be fine and, I'd say, more useful. So I oppose the creation of that page. This AN/I incident isn't about the AfD, it is about an alleged attack page, and it belongs here, in the archives, not there. What should really be done is to close it, since there appears to be consensus about its topic. I would do that except, of course, it's about me and so I'm COI on it. --Abd (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes

This user has returned to posting {{vandalism}} templates to various user's talk pages and reverting edits as part of various content disputes, where the edits in question are not vandalism.

A couple of cases currently active: in one, he is reverting valid edits by 71.103.160.53 in order to re-insert invalid PSIP channel numbers which had been removed from Los Angeles TV stations KABC/KCBS/KNBC. The US TV system (according to ATSC spec A/65 on psip.org) numbers channels based on the last analog channel used (so KCBS is 2.1, KABC is 7.1) so "2.1 / 60.1 || main KCBS-TV/CBS programming" is incorrect - yet he reverts to repost this nonsense and accuses the user who attempted to fix the problem of vandalism here.

In another current incident, he is removing information which he considers to be "trivia", accusing the original editor of vandalism here in what is not vandalism, merely a content dispute, and threatening to have the users blocked from editing Wikipedia. When confronted, he responds with "it's a personal attack on an editor that is not content-related, so you'd better think twice before contacting me again on any subject."

The problems are ongoing and have been raised here on WP:ANI a few times before for other incidents involving this editor or accounts used in apparent collusion. There have been issues in the past with this editor abusing WP:AIV to pursue content disputes and even an edit war on WP:RFPP at one point. I'd hoped that this had stopped, but it seems problems are indeed ongoing. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I crossed paths with this Rollosmokes guy a number of weeks ago, in the WGN-TV article. I don't know what he specifically "smokes", but among other issues, he's on this obsession about The CW, as per this diff [2] in which he says "proper grammar is paramount over 'what the network prefers'." In essence, he's saying The CW doesn't have the right to call itself The CW because it's "improper grammar". I really don't think it's wikipedia editors' place to tell companies what they can call themselves. This has to stop. He's got a long list of TV station articles where he's been edit-warring over this stupid issue. It's disruptive, annoying, and extremely petty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollosmokes appears to have some signs of wanting to own certain articles. He is quick to brand edits he disagrees with as either disruptive or vandalism, and frequently discounts any interpretation of form or style that diasgrees with his own pre-set notions. He has been informed on several occasions that the proper name of these networks is "The WB" and "The CW", and they should be referred to as such whenever possible. His comment about capitalization and grammar does have some merit, but only when it applies to usage in a sentence - his interpretation about usage in infoboxes, however, is completely in error, as are his actions in reverting any mention of them in that context. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

His last 50 contribs seem to contain a whole lot of this 'grammatical push'. Despite being told that it's how the company identifies itself, despite the clear 'the' in the logo, this editor doesn't seem to be interested in stopping. He's demonstrated a continuing willingness to edit war and not stop, and a healthy block is definitely in order. ThuranX (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) User has been notified. ThuranX (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. I had made the same point to him, over and over, that the logo says "The CW" right on it, but he won't listen. In effect, he's making the article contradicts itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been notified, let's see how or if he defends his actions. I do thin ka block is needed, however. ThuranX (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. And I'm trying not to get into any other edit wars with this guy. The one article was more than enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the block, or atleast a ban on parts of Wikipedia. I've seen Rollo's edits come up on my watchlist (not engaging in conversation or discussion as I'm usually very gnomish when it comes to editing) but it seems as if he's increasingly owning articles and totally ignoring any discussion about it (other than to rant and rave about the grammer useage), after reading the discussion here it also seems like he's becoming les and less civil. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just looked through Talk:WPIX (the article itself is full-protected)... ouch. It was bad enough when he was revert-warring over "KCBS-TV is the west-coast flagship of the CBS Television Network..." just because it's licensed *outside* New York State. He's also still threatening users with "If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing" for classic n00b mistakes like [3][4] which, while very poor form, are not intentional vandalism - this after the issue of warning template abuse was already raised here. WP:Do not bite the noobs, anyone? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Those examples predate others on the page, and do not represent continuation since start of this AN/I report. ThuranX (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

His activities in total have come to a screeching halt, at least for now. [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say taht. His not logging in is not the same as him stopping the pattern of behavior. ThuranX (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm just saying he stopped doing editing, and might be waiting for this discussion to end with no action being taken. Or he might just be on vacation. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The defense speaks

I never disappeared. Just spent the past couple of days tending to my non-Wikified life before heading to Kennedy Airport to see my wife off to Ghana.

One at a time, because I can't type to more than one person simultaneously:

• To Carlb and his sockpuppet IP 66.102.80.212 --

GET A LIFE. Your efforts to push your DTV transition changes were tharthed because you refused to discuss them with the Wikiproject TV Stations group and kept making the changes. I outed you as a sock because...well, that's what you are. You certainly have something against me because I put a stop to you, culminating with the deletion of your Template:Infobox DTV creation. Don't bring up other "problems" when your own house isn't in order. My advice to you: Get over yourself and leave me the heck alone.

• To that "wascally wabbit" Baseball Bugs, TheRealFennShysa, and all other grammatically-challenged editors --

I have said this before, and will obviously say it again until I'm BLUE IN THE FACE: The word the is a proper noun that only requires capitalization when it begins a sentence. (While this edit shows I did not think this at first, I was corrected of this after more research.) The CW Television Network may be the name of a business entity, but it should not be treated the same way as titles of television shows, books, or movies whose titles begin with The. Therefore, to say "WPIX is an affiliate of The CW Television Network" is still NOT PROPER GRAMMAR.

It is also not required to tack on the word in the title's short form, thus "The CW 11" is not correct either. Just because the word The is included in the logo doesn't mean it should be written literally as such. The same goes with MyNetworkTV, which should be written with the proper spaces between the words (and should be read as "My Network TV").

Lastly, the fact that an editor suspected to be a IP abuser brought about this BS is a joke. My edits have been primarily accurate and well-written, and have been well-received by most editors. I have no tolerance for innacuracy of any kind, whether it be grammatical or factual, and I have even less patience for vandalism. I have only labeled edits as vandalism when I feel it truly is, or unless it shows up repeatedly. We should all be focusing on proper writing style and grammar if we want Wikipedia to be taken more seriously by the mainstream. That has been, and will continue to be, one of my mottos. If you all don't agree with that, that's cool.

Perhaps it's jealousy on the part of these folks who can't handle someone who's a better writer, but I don't know. I will admit to being a tad rough on the edges, but that's just my style. I'm not here to please everyone, and I will offer no apologies for that. Rollosmokes (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We should put you in a ring with User:Saul Douglas Whitby and see which of you proves to be the more "superior". Regardless, it is not your place to tell "The CW" what to call themselves. Your grammar argument might be true for normal sentences, but for the infobox "The CW" is the correct usage, because that's what they call themselves. They decide what their name is not you nor anyone else here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, according to the Manual of style here (as well as the AP Stylebook), proper names of institutions are proper nouns and require capitalization. There is an exception for "the" when used in the middle of a sentence, but that is not the case in infoboxes, where all these problems have arisen. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. I love the 'I'm right and you're all too stupid to see it' response. attack those who report you in attempts to put them on the defensive, thus avoiding admitting any wrongdoing or errors on your part. Classic dodge. Not going to work, though. The CW is the proper term for the infobox. There's consensus that the network's self-identification and deliberate marketing style trumps your interpretation of Strunk & White's, yet you can't accept it. Do so soon. ThuranX (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not arrogance. I know a great deal about professional writing, both from direct personal experience and through my wife, who does this for a living. For the risk of sounding arrogant, there are some folks here who either don't know or choose not to understand the proper ways of doing things, those who believe that the Wikipedia Manual of Style and what the entity prefers is the end-all, be-all. When it comes to this issue, I'm not one of those people. I'm standing firm, so don't bully me on this. Leave this pettiness alone and let's get back to more serious, pertinent issues. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one fomenting the pettiness. What your supposed expertise has apparently failed to teach you is that people and organizations can call themselves whatever they want to, and that that decision overrides normal English grammar rules. "The Dalles", noted below, is a great example. I'm guessing you would also be arguing against calling Qwest by their chosen name, on the grounds that it should be spelled "Quest". Ya see, son, the name of the company is not just "CW", it's "The CW". and as with The Dalles, the "The" is being used as part of the name, effectively as a noun or an adjective. Therefore, it's capitalized. I say again: They decide what to call themselves, not you. You need to back off from this personal and misguided crusade. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.. .'bullying you'. yes, that' what we're all doing when we establish a consensus that goes against your intents. Consensus is just bullying! What a novel way to invoke WP:IAR and try to get your way. There are now, what, FOUR people opposing your edits, and you've got zero support. You can go stand firm in a field for a decade, consensus is against you. Invoking special knowledge "I know a great deal about professional writing, both from direct personal experience and through my wife, who does this for a living." does little to impress me, when I know you're just plain wrong. ThuranX (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess we all agree to disagree. I have the documentation to back me up. If you choose not to at least understand where I'm coming from then I feel sorry for all of you. I'll keep doing my thing (defiantly, if necessary) and you keep on doing yours. Don't cross me and I won't cross any of you. Rollosmokes (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What on earth kind of documentation do you think you have to "back you up"? We understand where you're coming from - however, you are mistakenly trying to apply rules for one circumstance to another where it most definitely does NOT apply. In the case of infoboxes, you are flat-out wrong, no matter how you justify it to yourself. Consensus and style guides are against you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Don't cross me and I won't cross any of you." ??? A threat now? Get real. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Snort. "The" is not a noun, it is an article, most definitely. And, as with so much with the English language, for every rule there is an exception: for example, the town in Oregon is "The Dalles", not "the Dalles". And the rock band is "The The", not "the The" or "the the". -- llywrch (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

changes to MOS

Notice that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Broadcasting was changed by one of the parties on this dispute [6] (mind you, the changes look to me like correct and reasonable) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate content hiding on Intelligent Design

would someone please come over to Talk:Intelligent_design and look into the weird archiving practices there. archives are being used as a tool to close any active discussion that suggests revisions to the page - this is clearly against the basic principles of discussion that wikipedia relies on, as well as being a rude page-ownership violation. thanks. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They have reasonable-sounding rationales for being closed this way. I took a quick glance and agree that some of what was closed was off-topic and irrelevant. These articles are plagued by some recurring problems; if people are trying to keep the talk page in line, this is generally a good thing. It's possible it goes too far sometimes, though. Which one specifically do you think is a problem? Friday (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As frustrating as this is, it has been a standard practice in this part of Wikipedia for years. For example, see my draft essay. And the archiving or hiding or userfying or removal of off-topic or repetitious material is allowed under Wikipedia policies. If an editor has dealt with the same complaint 100 or 200 or more times before, and someone brings up the same thing yet again, usually because they do not understand policy, then sometimes people are a bit curt in how they deal with the situation. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not acceptable. Explain it 100 times if you have to. Better yet, make an FAQ. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the big yellow box at the top of the talk page? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply redirect them to the archives. It is not fair to ask people to explain science 100 times, specially since most on those pages have their minds made up. Brusegadi (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) There's a whole bunch of boxes there, perhaps if things got tidied a little? (or make it the top box, and somehow different from the rest?) or... something. People ignore boxes :-)

If it's any consolation, if there's 100 new people, and we assume only 1 in 10 people "gets it" enough to be able to explain to others as well, that means you only need to explain 30 times. (less if you're better at explaining) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but half of them think its a culture war, so its not really "explaining" its more like arguing. I have seen honest questions, and we answer them happily at climate pages, but I have seen far many more just out there to prove science wrong (or religion right.) Strict TPG works best. Brusegadi (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, explain there's no culture war going on, explain we just post attributed stuff, show them how to help, etc... It's kinda worth it when you manage to get through to people. :-) (Otoh, I know how hard it can be ^^;;) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What Brusegadi is referring to when he says "culture war" is a US-specific thing. And yes, there is a culture war going on. That is exactly how it is described by those on both sides. And the courts are involved. And politics. And it is quite ugly. It has been going on in the US for many decades, and likely will continue for a long time to come. Think of it as having a Taliban right inside your country. If things continue down their current path, maybe Holland will get a taste of it eventually.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the term. I have been living in the US for too long now! Brusegadi (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I salute you for your optimism! I babysit if I see hope, but most of the time (at least in GW pages) people have their minds made up. No offense to anyone, but concerning Intelligent Design, I doubt wikipedia is as good at indoctrinating people as churches are, which have been going at it for a while. So, if they dont learn policy the nice way, they'll learn it from experience, or move to a more "conservative" project (if you know what I am talking about!) ;) Brusegadi (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In hard topics such as ID, where passions run high, it is a good idea to be strict regarding WP:TPG. This involves removal of tangential stuff. To keep coolness, anything remotely off-topic should be avoided and you should strictly focus on the article. Brusegadi (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself never userfied and did not hide material in this way. I would engage the person complaining and say it over and over and over and over. And you know what? People got extremely angry at me for doing so. And so now, I have topic banned myself from those articles. See? They got their wish. Attack me and see how much better it is now? --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Making a FAQ is a great idea, and I have suggested this to people in a number of cases. Might be nice if there were a standardized way of presenting them...? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. What's more, FAQs can sometimes be helpful. Either way, if the pith is so self-evident, it should be a breeze to either explain or see in the article text. I left a friendly note for User:Odd nature and undid the latest thread closure. Talk pages are for the discussion of sources. If the article isn't cutting it for some good faith editors, it only means the article is lacking, as highly nettlesome and tiresome as this may sometimes seem. Meanwhile if a user is truly being disruptive about reliable sources in the article, there are other ways to deal with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On FAQs: As far as I know, I was the originator of the first one on Wikipedia, for the evolution article. This idea was copied and there is one at the intelligent design article, where it has been for many months now.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has been referred to the FAQ, to policies and guidelines, and to WP:TALK, but has continued to present unverified original research with demands that the article be changed, in defiance of the talk page guidelines, while taking this alleged closing of discussion or alleged incivility in providing guidance with links, to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design#policy misuse. Ludwig was engaged in disputes with ID editors over civility and attempts to rewrite NPOV policy before starting to produce these extraordinary unsourced screeds on the ID talk page. Gaming the system comes to mind. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Still no need to close article talk page threads. If Ludwigs2 is pushing OR over and over, that's disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen. You can create sub talk pages for each repeated issue. If there is a post on the main talk page about a repeated issue, simply move the post to the sub talk page and leave a note on the main talk page such as "duscussion thread move to ...", providing a link to whereever you moved the discussion. Bebestbe (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Global Warming page we simply delete such talk page comments. Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig's actions do indeed look like disruption, and I'd appreciate another opinion on that. See the RfC thread I've linked above, and talk:Intelligent Design. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel I can look at this in an unbiased fashion, however, I would urge a previously uninvolved admin to please investigate this, as it has some tangential bearing on the ongoing OrangeMarlin saga... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rationale: Talk:Intelligent_design#Please_respect_other_people.27s_time_and_patience Ludwig2 seems to be playing the victim bully here. Odd nature (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Having seen this sort of drama play out, hundreds upon hundreds of times (many times with the same editor, banned, come back as a sock puppet), I can see that some in this thread just have no idea what it is like to be involved in this sort of discussion. None. No experience. Nada.

On one hand we always get the response "if they are pushing OR over and over, that's disruption, so just ban them", etc. Well you know what happens then? All kinds of charges of unfairness are made. Demands for leniency erupt! How dare those terrible pro-science brutes act like that!

In fact, did you know that the horrible alleged mythical ID Wikiproject cabal is under attack on all sides for just this terrible kind of behavior? There was a brutal attack at a WP:BLP, orchestrated from an off-wiki attack site, the article Rosalind Picard. There was an RfAr against the members of this alleged cabal for unfairness. This devolved into not one, but two RfCs (one of which is still active) against the members of this terrible putative cabal. And now there has been a secret trial against two members of the awful purported cabal where these editors were not allowed to present evidence in their defense. And their convictions from that secret trial were vacated, but now an expedited RfAr against the same evil ID Wikiproject editors has surfaced, which is to be followed by an expedited Arbcomm proceeding. And there have been hints that this is just the first of more such proceedings to come against the other members of this brutal cabal!

All because of acting the way you suggest. That is the entire point of User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. The culture that exists on Wikipedia will not let you just enforce the rules against this kind of disruptive behavior. The only thing you can do is maybe after the disruptive editor drops the "f-bomb" 3 or 4 times in a row, block them for incivility. That is your only recourse. And that might not even work.

This was the entire motivation for me creating User:Filll/WP Challenge. Because so many people have no clue what it is like to edit these kinds of articles and what sort of actions you can take. So I created the challenge to expose a wider range of people to this kind of environment that exists in some dark corners of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is tiresome. I believe that the problems with an approach predicated on hasty archiving and so on have been extensively discussed on the talkpage of one of the essays linked above, and alternative, workable, policy-compliant and tested approaches explained over and over. Perhaps a FAQ is required? (Irony alert.) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat my comment here that I made there. Unfortunately although you claim standard methods work, you have not presented any evidence that they work. And many people with 10 times or 100 times or more experience in these matters have said clearly to you, over and over, that you are mistaken; these "alternative workable policy compliant tested approaches" otherwise known as the same old methods do not work. By the way, archiving or usefying is policy compliant and has been used at Wikipedia and on many other online communities to handle this sort of thing for years and years and years. So in its own way, it is also a "workable policy compliant tested approach". --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Considerable evidence was provided, and ignored. Several editors pointed it out to you there, many of whom have considerably more experience than you in these issues, including myself. I believe IDIDNTHEARTHAT was referenced several times on the page. As for your similarly substantiated claim that over-hasty archiving is policy-compliant, no doubt you can point out the relevant mention here. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I must have missed it somehow. A group of editors with much more experience on contentious articles than me who claim that there is no problem with CIVIL POV pushing on Wikipedia? Who claim that the status quo is just fine? I have about 32000 edits and several thousand edits in the evolution, creationism, intelligent design, racial and alternative medicine areas, all of which are hotbeds of controversy. I would be very interested to meet anyone who has much more experience than I do on controversial articles who believes our current set of tools is completely adequate, and is just being implemented incorrectly or misused somehow. Please tell me who these people are. Please link me to the discussions I must have missed with the evidence that the standard methods work beautifully and efficiently and that everyone is happy with them, including FRINGE proponents and disruptive editors and those mainstream editors who are trying to maintain NPOV and other Wikipedia principles in these controversial articles.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we measure experience by more than edit count here. As I said, the userspace proposal talkpage above has several explanations, all of which have been made to you. This is the third time I've mentioned it: are you illustrating the problem through your behavior, perhaps? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok. So those with minimal edit counts are much more experienced. I see. I also guess I am just too slow to find what you are referring to without diffs.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

DGG has worked in areas all over this encyclopaedia for years. I've been here, one way or another, since 2004. If you wish to suggest that we have 'minimal edit counts' and thus are irrelevant, you will fool only yourself. That extends to the other people who explained to you and to others at length why your methods of dealing with disagreement were counter-productive, at the talkpage of Raul's absurd little essay. We experienced editors know that pretending to have forgotten where something was mentioned is Obfuscatory Method #34. (#34a is maintaining you don't know where even after being told.) --Relata refero (disp.) 05:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The very term Intelligent Design is a nest of worries and hardly worth the time spent. I've reviewed Ludwigs2's comments and they're mostly unsourced OR ramblings. My eyes glazed over. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be an agitator here, Gwen, but the ArbCom (or at least FT2) seems to take Ludwigs2's opinions quite seriously.... heh.. Seriously, though, you may want to consider commentting here... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed some of Ludwigs2's recent contributions at WP:WQA on subjects in which he doesn't have a bias, and I will admit I may have him figured all wrong. It looks like you've been doing a good job over there, Ludwigs.

I just don't know any more, I guess. Wikipedia is too effing confusing for me since the ArbCom imploded the other day :D --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've seen happen a couple of times. Perhaps part of the solution is to invite troublesome people to come help in some other part of the wiki for a while to learn the ropes? They can then get back to the troublesome article in a constructive fashion. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This of course is a great idea and one I have encouraged. Some even go to a related wikimedia project and contribute in severe situations. Unfortunately, traditionally things often have to become very unpleasant before such remedies are considered or imposed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, it is quite simple, really. Mrs. Picard is not even a scientist in the life sciences field, therefore her views on ID are quite irrelevant. POV sections and paragraphs on the subject are unwarranted. All it does justify is perhaps a single sentance midway through the article. That is the proper application of WP:UNDUE, nothing more, nothing less. Please stop obfuscating the conversation by bringing in the tired old WP:BADSITES argument, nobody cares. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am afraid that I am still allowed to disagree with you. And as for the BADSITES comment, I will direct you to my comments here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• The archiving practice needs to be spelled out clearly in the talk page headers. There is no reason that tired arguments need to be kept on the main talk page. However, that main ID talk page should have a clear table of links to existing talk subpages that allow new comers and others to express their views. The FAQs can be a subpage as well. Bebestbe (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I seem to remember reading somewhere that comments were supposed to be about edits, not editors. yet I keep seeing evidence that disconfirms that, from highly experienced users. I'm beginning to get a bit confused on this issue; can someone please clarify?  :-) (err... yes, that was sarcasm...)

now, I understand the need to keep talk pages under control, and normally I wouldn't have an issue with it. however, this has stepped over the line into abuse. the argument I am making is not some angry POV spiel that goes on endlessly, nor is it a rehash of some older argument. it is simple, direct, clearly reasoned, and not something that's been presented before. If you can respond to it as a reasoned argument, properly and thoroughly, then it and I will go away as soon as I realize that you're correct. but if you can't respond to it as a reasoned argument, then you have no right to squirrel it away and mark it as resolved. in fact, you have an obligation to let it sit there until someone comes along who can resolve it, or until you admit it's correct.

fact of the matter is, here, that I'm pretty sure I'm right. I might be wrong, and I'm always open to that possibility, but in this case it doesn't strike me as very likely. the only way we're going to find out for sure, though, is if we discuss the matter. sorry if that cases you inconvenience, but... --Ludwigs2 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2. On one hand, discussions should not be prematurely archived to win the argument because consensus can change. On the other hand, the main ID talk page probably should be reserved for issues not addressed over and over. The compromise seems to be to create topical ID talk subpages that allow editors to post their views and others to contribute as they desire. Bebestbe (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I think you're editing in good faith, but if you don't start citing some reliable sources in your talk page comments, you may be blocked for disrupting Talk:Intelligent Design. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bebestbe - that might be a possibility, but in this particular case it strikes me as another way of pushing an argument out of sight and out of mind. I'm willing to discuss the matter, though.

Gwen - I have cited where needed, but unfortunately my arguments get crunched into archives before I can really develop anything significant. also, I need point out (a) that this is a talk page, not article content, and so the rules of citation are somewhat more lax, and (b) that citations are support for statements that are being made by an editor, not claims in and of themselves. if I can't actually get a discussion going, there's no actual place to use citations, yah? if anyone cares to question any claim I make, I will be happy to source it as best I can. --Ludwigs2 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

P.s. Filll - I haven't really had any dealings with you to date, so I hope I'm not being rude, but it seems to me that your entire above post was about bad experiences you've had with other editors. however, I'd prefer to be treated as a unique individual rather than an amalgam of all the unpleasant people you've dealt with before, if at all possible. --Ludwigs2 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Perhaps you did not quite understand. My long post is an explanation of why we cannot easily block you. And you probably will not deal with me near as much as you would have a couple of months ago because I will not work on those articles. I have found that editing those kinds of articles leaves me open to attack.

Now if you would prefer that I not intervene to explain why you should not be blocked, well then, ...what can I say?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Ludwigs2, I suggest that you create a subpage of the article, or even a subpage of your own userpage and develop your argument to your heart's content in private. Then when you feel comfortable, invite others in to see it and comment on it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, I've already referred you to WP:TALK. Note that at the outset it states that Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies, and though there is some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

More generally, a request for advice. One of my replies[7] has been cited by Cla68 as a bad example, but to me it accurately summarises the problems with Ludwig's talk page rambles, and gives good advice on how to contribute successfully. What do others think? . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I love that example Dave. So you made a polite statement which was really deemed to be a hostile uncivil statement in disguise. And you, or for that matter KC wondering if it isnt a personal attack to unfairly characterize your polite statement as uncivil is itself deemed to be a personal attack: [8]. And I suppose someone else could come and claim it is a personal attack to say that it was a personal attack to say that it was a personal attack to mischaracterize your polite post as uncivil. And so on and so forth, as an infinite regress. And so I have placed this example in a place of honor as number 28 in my CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame: [9].--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, I see it all the time. I can only say that sometimes, an editor's PoV is so overhwleming and to them, self-evident, they either can't possibly imagine Wikipedia's sourcing policy has sway over their edits, or simply game the policies in the belief their outlook is so worthy as to trump anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry Filll - guess I'm getting confused by the unexpected welter of emotions here. my apologies if I offended; I didn't mean to.

Dave, you continue to miss the point. I've made a good argument, with proper sourcing to the extent I was allowed. you could have chosen to dispute it, you could have chosen to refute it, you could have chosen to agree with it, all of which would have ended this debate relatively quickly and cleanly, and probably without ANI. you chose instead to play the bureaucrat, and brush me off as though I was some annoying flea who dared to buzz into your office. well, it's not your office, and I'm not a flea, and if you are unhappy with the confrontation that we are having now then I suggest- respectfully - that you go take a good long look in the mirror. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Friday was right on as always. The talk pages are not a free expression zone, megaphone, or soapbox, but a space to concisely discuss concrete and specific improvements to article content. People who enjoy debating the ins and outs of the scientific method (and I'm not solely addressing Ludwigs2 here) have any number of other online forums in which to do so. Stop fighting about the archiving, and open one thread briefly addressing one problem with the article and proposing a specific solution, ideally with sample text. Do not base your argument on your personal beliefs about the scientific method, but on what reliable sources have said. MastCell ^Talk 00:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with MastCell and Friday as usual. Oh well. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ludwig2 is still at it with the OR there, ignoring all calls to find sources or move on. Would someone do something about this please. Odd nature (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, even discussions about stylistic changes to the lead (which can be in no way construed as OR) are now being archived peremptorily. see this diff which shows Professor marginalia's response to a discussion about a change in style for the first paragraph of the lead, and this diff which shows my response, and the immediate archiving of the section, even though Professor marginalia and i are having a productive conversation on the topic. this is pure absurdity... --Ludwigs2 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Ludwigs2

Resolved.

Note: see User_talk:Ludwigs2#blocked_for_disruption_at_Intelligent_Design. Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for 55 hours (his first block) for alleged disruption. On that page I asked for, but have not yet received, the specific diffs, that support the block. I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On further review of this, after review of the diffs supplied, I do not think this block is justified, and I call for its immediate lifting. I suspect that if uninvolved admins (that is, admins who do not regularly and have not recently participated on the ID page or its talk) review the matter, they will agree. I could be wrong of course. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse removal of the block at this time. While this is a complicated matter, I'm just not seeing the justification here, even with the diffs cited on the respective editor's talk page. RFerreira (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the evidence, I don't see any reason for a 55 hour block, if any block was called for in the first place. I strongly recommend an immediate unblock. Dreadstar † 20:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited ID-related stuff, though I have engaged Ludwigs2 on policy talk pages, e.g. WT:NPOV and WT:FRINGE, and at Talk:Royal Rife. My concerns about his editing are pretty much those expressed by Gwen Gale, and have to do mostly with ignoring the talk page guidelines and arguing at length about beliefs, the scientific method, and so forth rather than discussing concrete article improvements. This kind of talk-page abuse is really tough to deal with - everyone gets mad and cries "censorship" if off-topic posts are removed or archived, and blocks seem awfully blunt of an instrument.

I think there is a real issue here, albiet perhaps not one warranting a 55-hour block. Ludwigs2 hasn't requested an unblock yet, so I'd like to see his response to the block. Ideally, he could agree to focus more and respect the talk-page guidelines, and the block could be lifted. I do think it should be shortened (or lifted) regardless as the length seems excessive, but I don't think that should be perceived as a complete vindication of Ludwigs2, since there is a real issue needing improvement. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 disrupted the article's talk page for many, many days with an endless stream of Original Research challenges and proposals. He rejected input from many others to provide sources and later to abide by consensus. He repeatedly reverted the archiving of OR discussions. And lastly he ignored warnings about the problems with his actions. Ludwigs2 met 3 of the 4 definitions of a disruptive editor given at WP:DE and was given chances to reform which he dismissed. The only question is not whether he should have been blocked, but for how long. 48 hours seems reasonable to me considering he wasted at least that many man hours at Talk ID. Odd nature (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you an "uninvolved admin" by my definition? I'm personally more interested in the views of those who are uninvolved in judging whether there is a consensus to unblock, although I thank you for your input in any case... ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has already been unblocked. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Ludwigs2 following this thread. The consensus for it was too highly mixed and I don't think a 24 hour block would have been meaningful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone objecting except Lar, and I disagree with him. However, I'm not interested in arguing about it. If Ludwig continues to disrupt the ID talk page, we can always simply ignore him and/or remove his comments, depending upon how blatantly off-topic or repetitious they are. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've objected. But I'll be happy to re-block if the disruption continues. Dreadstar † 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I read your post as a block review, supporting Lar, rather than as a separate objection. The difference is negligible, at any rate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that this ill-thought out comment of mine might read as less than respectful to Dreadstar, and/or insinuating that he is merely a follower of Lar in this, rather than having given the matter his own attention and come to his own conclusion. I commented thoughtlessly; I hereby retract and apologize for the comment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen, I think it was a compassionate and understanding decision to unblock. If Ludwigs2 proves to be a disruptive, tendentious editor, I will support a re-block. I think all the other editors involved in ID and other editors that edit the same articles and policy/guidelines that Ludwigs2 edits should be examined for WP:TE, WP:HARASS as well as other Wikipedia policy infractions. I see some editors and so-called "groups" or "cabals" are already under community and ArbCom scrutiny. This entire situation over WP:FRINGE and paranormal articles needs to be investigated in detail and the paradigms for what Wikipedia presents should be clarified. We are not here to promote truly fringe OR, nor are we here to debunk. Some here seem to be confusing scientific methodology with debunking. That dichotomy needs to be addressed. Dreadstar † 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I so agree with everything you say. It's clear we need to find more consensus as to how to go about dealing with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how those editors could possibly be under more scrutiny. One was just the subject of a completely secret ArbCom "case", and was deemed so uniquely dangerous that he was not even allowed to know that a case was being considered until after it was "finalized". Others have presciently just left, rather than deal with the current psychosis that seems to be afflicting the community from top to bottom. There are multiple RfC's and AN/I threads on a daily basis. What additional scrutiny should these editors be placed under? Or maybe our existing dispute resolution mechanisms are actually sufficient to deal with this if we don't lose our minds over it? MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no psychosis, there's just a bunch of people who own a bunch of articles and talk to everyone else like they're "anti-science". This pisses people off, and since this unch of people have played off each other for a while and developed a fondness for the fine art of troll-bashing, they've pissed off many non-trolls over time. Most of those people would like this behaviour to change. You help them change that, the problem goes away. Its not fixed yet by a long shot, so even more scrutiny is required. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>People over and over have said that the standard methods work fine, that there is no reason to have the discussion at User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing, that removing offtopic posts from talk pages is wrong, that I am just stupid, etc (see above comment, which is quite representative). The atmosphere around the controversial articles is quite different than around regular articles, and quite poisonous. And now we had a little tiny demonstration of it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, so you do know where the discussion took place! hooray! --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the atmosphere around some controversial articles is indeed quite different, and indeed quite poisonous. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To make it clear what Lar says, he is assigning partial responsibility for that to your methods. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not my methods. I have never hidden posts or userfied a thread. They were in use long before I came to Wikipedia. And they have been in use on other websites long before Wikipedia existed. I have merely watched these techniques in action. And I am one of those claiming the current standard methods are inadequate; remember? And I have topic-banned myself for the most part, and do not edit these articles any more, so if you want to blame anyone, you better look elsewhere. And I am still waiting for a link to the evidence that the standard methods work and are adequate. I find the claim that those who have few edits on Wikipedia have more experience editing Wikipedia than those with more edits on Wikipedia to be somewhat dubious, but you are free to make that assertion.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Without my putting words in anyone else's mouth, I think it might be useful if you admitted the possibility that what is referred to is not anything that are not your methods, but strictly things that are. For instance the last time I encountered you, re: two sourcing issues, was this outburst an accurate reflection of my editing at that point? My reaction: [10]. The thread in full at this point: here. That section apart, the talk page demonstrated no consensus on these issues, indeed John Carter had alluded to similar concerns, though had been rebuffed with a statement by you more absolutist than any I had yet made.

Endevouring to never encounter you again, I wandered off. Some hours later, feeling uneasy leaving an article possibly mis-sourced so easily, i asked for a third opinion here. Soon after, five days after my first raising my points on that busy talk page, many involved editors chimed in, meaning that i felt i had to withdraw my TO request.[11] Out of all of them, you included, I feel only Hrafn made any attempt to seriously engage with what I was saying. I soon left the page.

Since then, one source has been very moderately strengthened, by linking to the paper in full rather than a footnote that did not support the assertion (this was a suggestion of mine in response to Hrafn [12]). The other remains untouched, despite its having nothing to do with the assertion that it supports that i can see, or that has been explained to me.

This is my experience with checking two of the first four sources on the article. There's every reason to believe other ones are similarly problematic. I certainly will not be checking to see. Perhaps this is an example of what might be called your "methods"? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos

Resolved

 – No merit to this report --Jaysweet (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos is coming after me for my edits. Let's start off by saying I'm a conservative (completely for fairness and neutrality on Wikipedia) and Blaxthos is a liberal (from his edits, discussions, talk page) with an apparent axe to grind. He will not allow liberal bias to be added to the NBC article, but staunchly defends the conservative bias entry to be added to the FOX News page. Now, I've had this problem before with a liberal administrator who found it "necessary" to put me in his cross-hairs just because I was a self-proclaimed conservative. Now, it happens again. Other than Talk pages, I have kept my neutrality high. I removed quotation marks over words which makes one side seem right and the other wrong. I put liberal labels where needed. I changed progressive to liberal once because they are the same thing and "liberal" is a much clearer label. I don't like it when a liberal admin tries to abuse his power in order to ban me from editing just because I'm conservative. That is all.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links to the edits that you are concerned about. FCYTravis (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just check his talk page as it should give you a clear idea of his obvious liberal bias.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're filing the report, you need to provide the DIFFs. Just glancing, it seems like you're upset with him for filing an ANI report at you earlier. Some context and examples would help. Dayewalker (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We're really not concerned about someone expressing a personal view on a talk page. Unless Blaxthos is abusing his admin tools in order to enforce his POV, there's nothing actionable here. FCYTravis (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the NBC/FOX thing. Read that part and read the discussion on his discussion page. His DIFF didn't include specific example of MY editing behavior, yet other admins took it at face value. Why the double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, specific DIFFs please. It would help your case if you could show specific examples of this bias from an admin, and how he used his tools in a biased manner. Dayewalker (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What I see on the talk page are unsupported accusations of bias based on an editing conflict. You obviously disagree with Blaxthos' position on these edits. Work on the article talk page to discuss the dispute, and perhaps use the request for comment process in order to bring more editorial viewpoints into the page. FCYTravis (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is blatant trolling and clearly a retaliation for this. Blaxthos is an excellent editor of long standing and PokeHomsar has a short history packed with POV edits that have been reverted by other, more contentious editors. We should not entertain this nonsense further. Gamaliel (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging from his recent edits, he appears to have abandonded this thread when he was asked for actual evidence of his claims. His next seven edits all seemed to be POV pushing, or accusing others of bias. Dayewalker (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The trolling and harassment and battle mentality continues even as we discuss the situation here (I notice I now have a new message on my talk page, doubtless from him). I've also referred this matter to WP:WQA, though I think it's now escalated to the point that blocks may be in order. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Classic POV pushing. His view is neutral, everyone else is POV, and there's nothing to be discussed. He doesn't seem to respond well, either. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now he's insisting that others carry out extensive reading assignments before they consider themselves fit to have a discussion with him [13] [14]. Classic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy obviously watches Bill O'Reilly too much. It's poisoned his brain. I weep for him, I deeply sympathize. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Behave yourself Bugs. You know better - especially for a newbie. That's not a good example when we are challenging their behaviour is it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand. I used to be an O'Reilly watcher myself. He turned me into a newt. But I got better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had interactions with Blaxthos in the past, including at least one case where I helped mediate a dispute between him and another user, and while his personal allegiances are quite obvious, I find that he always makes an effort to be fair and unbiased in his edits. I feel he tries hard to see the other side of the argument, even though he clearly feels quite strongly about United States political issues.

Those are my general opinions on Blaxthos. In this particular case, there is no merit to the complaint whatsoever. I have marked it as resolved, even though I admit I may be slightly involved, as there appears to be unanimous consensus here that the thread is meritless (if not outright retaliatory). --Jaysweet (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some sort of process to discourage users from wasting everyone's time at ANI? In addition, from a cursory review of his edits in the past week, it appears that any attempt to deal with this user will just garner more attacks or dismissals because "he hates Liberals" which he defines as someone who disagrees with him. Community action should be taken against PokeHomsar immediately. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If a user repeatedly files spurious reports at noticeboards, it could potentially result in a block. However, the community is reluctant to do so for a number of reasons. For one, sometimes it's very hard to judge if somebody is making a frivolous report, or if they really just didn't understand the process. It would also be a lot of extra work for not a lot of benefit. Lastly, there is concern it could have a chilling effect, where users are afraid to report their problems for fear of retaliation (and in fact, I worry sometimes this is already happening... it's hard to avoid it, but it's frequent enough that somebody is causing trouble, and they decide to report the object of their vexation, which then results in the community noticing their troubling behavior for the first time and taking action. Happens shockingly often.)

That said, I have recently heard from a couple of users who feel we should come down harder on people who file frivolous reports. I am not sure if I agree. It's a tough one. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Ramsquire was referring to his battlefield mentality and POV warriorism more than just the meritless ANI post. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

whiel wikipedia should never fee; like a battlefield, blocking someone for passionate ideologisticism seems rather timeconsuming. if and when a user ivolates a preexisting rule then they should be blocked but just beause someone has a strong POV and is very occasionally obnoxious then we can let it slide with a warninGS? Just my two sents. Smith Jones (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible implicit legal threats?

We seem to have a comparatively new editor, User:Dem1970, who seems to have a pronounced interest in ensuring that the content of the Steve Windom page meets his own personal standards, and he has recently implied on both the talk page of the above article and my own user page what seem to at least me to be at best thinly veiled legal threats. It should also be noted that the editor has shown little if any interest in any other articles, leading me to believe that it might be the subject himself. I would welcome any other input in the matter on the talk page of the above article. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

this is... familar.. (anyone???) --Allemandtando (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am a relatively new editor, I have not insisted that content meet my own standard and I am certainly interested in more than one topic. I have not and will not threaten John Carter, legally or otherwise. In fact, as I am not the potential target of defamation in the instance at hand, I cannot legally threaten him, even if I wanted to. I encourage other editors to read the history of this on the relevant discussion page and in the historical versions of the article. I have merely pointing out that there are land mines one must avoid when editing biographies (e.g., defamation) and that certain parties seem to be running right in to the same ones repeatedly. Dem1970 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He may in fact be interested in more than one topic, but as per his contribution history here, he has in fact to date dealt with no other subjects. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation is inappropriate. The user has clearly stated now on multiple occasions that he is not the subject of the article and to continue with these accusations is less than civil. Moreover, the editor's geographical location, which he seems to have inadvertently exposed in an IP edit, is completely inconsistent with that of the article's subject. This is a new editor, why don't you assume some good faith and give him a chance to edit some other articles? Please, don't bite the newbies, per WP:BITE. Cleo123 (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A better example of WP:BITE (as well as WP:CIVIL) violation would be if someone writes something ludicrously and unacceptably self-important such as: "I see from your editorial history that you have only really been actively editing Wikipedia for a few months, do not appear to be a member of the biography project and have unfortunately been blocked multiple times during that short time frame. I'm sure that you are a fine editor, but you are still a relative novice to this forum, comparatively speaking. I have read your remarks on various talk pages related to this subject matter and am somewhat concerned by statements you've made that seem to fly in the face of policies relating to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:STALK, WP:NOT and WP:HARASS." Like [here] perhaps? Tendancer (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been in communication with the page's subject, and I have made him aware of what is happening. If there was any legal problems on his end, he would have notified me, which he did not. Therefore (unless things change over night), there are no possible legal actions for "defamation". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I wanted to note that I have asked Swatjester for his opinion on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please tell Jossi to not deal with me

Hi, User:Jossi blocked me last for dealing with sockpuppetry. Since we have had run-ins in the past, I'm asking the community of administrators to request that he not use his administrator functions against me. This is especially true because he is a practitioner of a religion that has been subject to skeptical inquiry (one of my areas of editorial focus) and I feel that this compromises his ability to be objective and evenhanded in his treatment of me. I am particularly upset by his most recent block of me.

Query: He and I have interacted extensively both in talkspace and in mainspace. Do you think it is reasonable to ask that he get uninvolved administrators to take action against me if he thinks I deserve it, instead of doing so himself?

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is some reading material: WP:FRINGE#Refactoring of talk page comments. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Jossi's rationale. Note that despite our long history of being opposed to each other, Jossi sees no problem trying to teach me to not be police, judge, and executioner, but to me it appears that he has not heeded his own advice. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the further apart these two are kept, the better. I thoroughly support Jossi ALWAYS seeking out another admin, preferably through AN or AN/I, to handle any and all problems with SA from now on. I'm tired of seeing these two go in circles, and think that a guaranteed third opinion before blocks would alleviate a lot of the hassles. ThuranX (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That would make me feel much better. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I also note that declaring your vendetta "I'm going to put you on trial" is stupid. You need to refactor those comments as well. Jossi's easily provoked, so don't feed the troll. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If this isn't putting someone on trial in the Wikipedia sense, I don't know what is. I'm simply trying to be honest. I'm pissed off at Jossi, I think he shouldn't be an administrator. I'm not going to hide that this is my point-of-view. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether Jossi's easily provoked or not, SA saying (see Jossi's talk page) "wikipedia crimes" and "I'm going to put you on trial" is over the top and should indeed be refactored. I also agree this two should separate, wiki is a big place, there's plenty of room. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I give you permission to refactor that comment, Rlevse. I was trying to be honest. I'm really mad at Jossi and think he should be subject to punitive measures. That's just how I feel right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. SA's primary goal on WP is to get a clear rational scientific view into any article in which it belongs, while Jossi's got a religious group whose articles and ethoses (ethoi?) he strongly watches over. These overlap, and neither will let go short of a community ban. Jossi's got a lot of admins who will circle the wagons at that, and SA has a lot of general community support preventing him from being tossed, so there has to be a careful set of rules for them both to edit. SA needs to learn to avoid provoking Jossi, and Jossi needs to learn that one, SA's often right about factual information, and two, his admin badge isn't a 'do what I want' ticket. ThuranX (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm proposing to put you on trial for the Wikipedia crimes you perpetrated against me.[15]. Science Apologist needs to take a deep breath, or a wikibreak, or both.
2. @ThuranX: I am not a troll, and I do not need not to be fed, FYI.
3. @ Other admins: Science Apologist needs to be told not to behave like a vigilante: there is enough strength in the community to deal with fringe POV pushers, and not all editors that disagree with him are fringe POV pushers. Science Apologist needs also to learn to utilize the admin boards when needed, and be patient that his reports will be taken seriously, rather than make reports and while reports are still open, refactor comments in talk page discussions as he did in this last incident. I warned him three times, and he persisted, and earned himself a 24 hrs block, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a "crime" about which I need to be put on "trial". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you're behaving like a vigilante when you block me after being so incredibly involved with me over the years. Your "warnings" were met with explanations for why they made no sense. I think you behaved very badly and are basically a hypocrite. I don't know why you always feel it necessary to shill for Fringe POV-pushers, but your massive history in regards to this seem to me to indicate that you are not someone who should have ever been given the administrator tools. You abused your mop-and-bucket when you blocked me without getting anyone else to review the situation. In short, I don't want to see you doing anything administrative toward me ever again. I'm sick and tired of your excuses. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By now, SA, almost every active administrator has been "involved with you", so pleas, spare me the hyperbole and the badmouthing. If you are tired of my "excuses", imagine how tired the community should be of your behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that is hyperbole. There are 1800 administrators. I can name maybe a dozen who have been involved with me. Stop invoking the "community" as if you are some sort of spokesperson. Where do you get off being so rudely supercilious? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And you call this an "explanation"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other diffs I could also point to. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• SA's hyperbole is unhelpful. However Jossi is no longer an uninvolved admin regarding SA. In the most recent block, Jossi and SA were reverting each other. It's not right for an admin to engage in an edit war and then block the other party. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • Hyperbole? Have you ever been blocked by someone who has been in a long-running dispute with you across multiple article spaces, Will? I took a weeklong break. I'm still fuming. I need to have out with it and I'm venting. I'm going to do it on Wiki too. I think Jossi is one of the worst administrators we've got here. Just get him away from me. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If so, then yes, Jossi should walk away and leave blocking to others. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Will. Enigma ^message 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I was not "edit warring", Will. And I don't think Will needs to get involved in this discussion, given our recent disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Really, Jossi? WP:EDIT WAR seems to say differently especially with regards to the fact that you were continually reverting my removals of a Davkal sock. I don't know what your definition is, though. Maybe no one was edit warring. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First, let me echo the sentiment that some of ScienceApologist's statements to and about Jossi need to be refactored. Second, in the last few days I asked Jossi to get outside admin help in the future if he thinks he needs to block SA. I explained my rationale at that time: namely, (1) If Jossi is right about the need to block, other admins will agree and can do this for him; and (2) SA responds better to other admins than he does to Jossi, which may obviate the need to block. I stand by these rationales. I would add that Jossi and SA have previously been engaged in editing the same contentious articles [16] [17], though in a very limited way I stand corrected. Antelan^talk 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I also give you permission to refactor the statements, Antelan. I'm just being honest with my feelings. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, Jossi's history with me goes way back to the plasma cosmology wars where he reverted to a "preferred version" and then protected an article to appease certain POV-pushers who will not be named. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That was back in .... 2005? Please... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • As I said, LONGRUNNING dispute. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Jossi is clearly involved and should always get another admin with deal with this user in terms of "use of buttons". Oh and SA, you now have the communities attention on this matter, so I suggest you shut up, sit back and let us discuss it. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll shut up. Thanks for being civil and all. I'll remember to use that one later. I'm out of here. Sorry that you had to see me so mad. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the sequence of edits. SA apparently believed he was deleting the remarks of a banned user.
  • SA: 00:45, June 23, 2008 [18] Undid revision 221091176 by Ludwigs2 (talk) sorry: BANNED users don't get to post.
  • Jossi: 00:47, June 23, 2008 [19] [no edit summary]
  • SA: 00:49, June 23, 2008 [20] Reverted good faith edits by Jossi; Jossi, we're trying to clear the air about WP:SOCKs of User:Davkal..
  • Jossi: 00:54, June 23, 2008 [21] Second warning: Please do not refactor talk page
  • SA: 00:57, June 23, 2008 [22] Undid revision 221093093 by Jossi (talk) see WP:3RR#Other exceptions. This is a User:Davkal sock.
  • Jossi: 01:03, June 23, 2008 [23] last warning
  • SA: 01:11, June 23, 2008 [24] Undid revision 221094604 by Jossi (talk) WP:3RR#Other exceptions. Also, you removed my post.
• It appears that Jossi reverted SA three times, then blocked him for violating 3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I appears that (again) you miss the context. SA filled an SPS report, and while the report was still opened, he decided that it was a SP and refactored the comments. This despite the fact that there is no policy that calls for refactoring talk page comments for such SPs. I warned him not to refactor talk pages, on that basis. But he "knew" better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned users may not edit any part of Wikipedia, and their contributions may be removed. See WP:BAN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the SPS report came back positive, so SA was correct in regarding the IP as a sock of a banned user. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/210.194.40.149. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you have cared to do some due diligence before these accusations, Will, you should have noted that the block was not for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What policy did SA violate that justified a block, if not 3RR? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, if you don't mind, Will, let other admins comment. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once my questions are answered I'll be done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Your questions"? or your questioning of me? I do not see it appropriate that you get to try to impeach my character here, given the massive content disputes you and I are engaged in. Leave it to others, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SA's unimpressive conduct of labeling an editor as a sockpuppet to amp up an edit war aside, Jossi's choice to edit war with somebody he'd blocked shortly before is frankly disappointing. Was there any reason he simply didn't seek the assistance of uninvolved administrators at WP:AN3 or WP:AE and avoided this perception of impropriety? Jossi, I'm hoping that you see the sense in my concerns and pledge to avoid sanctioning SA in the future if you continue to edit against him, opting instead to make a case to a neutral body of administrators rather than engaging in such behavior. Anyway, this specific block is in the past, and I will reserve opinion on a pattern of mutual combativeness for now. east.718 at 00:03, July 2, 2008

It was a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/210.194.40.149. Hal peridol (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement

Clearly SA is pissed off, and a week-long break did not helped him. So, sure, I will not block him in the future directly, but if I come across any disruption by him, I will dully report it at WP:AN/I. IMO, it is about time that someone stands up for the community and does the right thing regardless of who the user doing the disruption. So, SA: I am not going away, I am here and will be here for as long as I find this project worth of my time. And if I see disruption, I will report it. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what you are supposed to do, if you want. Be careful, though.--Abd (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Davkal was banned for disruption. How does re-instating comments from a banned user count as standing up for the community? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When the refactor happened, the SSP report that SA filed was not closed. SA could have simply waited, but he did not. And even if the SP was of a banned user, there is no policy that calls for refactoring of talk page comments, which is done only in extreme circumstances. Learn the policy pages, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am familair with the policy. It says: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. That is what SA was doing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how this comment is so disruptive as to warrant removal? It does not. See also Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits which basically speaks of edits to articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So you edit-warred and then blocked a user who you have a known history with because he was removing the comments of a banned user? and you didn't think that someone uninvolved should have taken that action? --Allemandtando (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not met you before, so I am not sure you are aware of this incident. You may want to read User_talk:ScienceApologist#Unblock including the comment of the admin that reviewed the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BAN does not require that the edits be disruptive. It says "any edits". I also see what it says about those who reinstate edits by banned users:
  • Users may reinstate edits that were reverted due to being made in defiance of a ban, if they sincerely believe the edits are beneficial to the encyclopedia and compliant with policy. Users who reinstate such edits take complete personal responsibility for the content by so doing. Note that editing on behalf of a banned user is strongly discouraged, and may in some cases be viewed as meatpuppetry, especially if the edits in question are similar to those that led to the ban in the first place. If in doubt, think twice and consult others more familiar with the situation first.
• Why was Jossi so confident that the IP was not a banned user that he blocked another user who'd already made a case? Jossi has said he didn't block SA for 3RR. What policy did SA violate to justify the block? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All that SA had to do was to be patient. And your insistence, Will, it is most unwelcome. Should I make a case for retaliation from you? Leave it to others, please. The admin that reviewed the block could have unblock him, but he did not. Stay out of this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, an active admin can (will?) have its lapses of judgment, and with hindsight, I should have let it be and not block SA for that behavior. At the time, I saw it to be necessary, but I may have been wrong although the admin that reviewed the block did not see it that way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't said why you blocked the user. You did say it wasn't for 3RR. Is it too much to ask why you felt it was necessary for you to block the user, despite having edit-warred with him? The two admins who approved the block appear to have (incorrectly?) assumed that SA was blocked for 3RR, and two others who reviewed the block said that it was inappropriate. As for pursuing this matter, you posted a statement above basically saying that you are acting on behalf of the community by standing up to disruption. That's a big claim, especially when you're restoring postings by a banned user. If you aren't following the blocking or banning policies then that's a legitimate cause for concern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you twice to stay out of this, clearly you are attempting retaliation for our current disputes between you and I. I have already made a statement that I will post an AN/I any behavior I see as disruptive rather that action it myself. I have already admitted that I may have been mistaken, so what is your intention with these comments, Will? Do you want three nails and a cross? Please stay out of this, it is most unbecoming of you to keep pressing these points after what I have said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note, FYI that SA was already in breach of 3RR in WP:FRINGE: [25] before the incident with the page refactoring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

May have been mistaken? You're not sure? You're apparently not even sure why you blocked the user. SA has questioned your judgment as an admin. So far you haven't given shown that you correctly understand two core key policies, WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Do you now understand that it is correct to remove postings from banned users, that admins may not block users with whom they're involved, and that they need to be able to justify their blocks? I won't ask again, but this is a very poor example of admin responsibility, in my opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep pressing the point, but you do not see your own fallacies, Will. The user was blocked for what I assessed at the time to be disruptive behavior. The user comments that SA refactored where not assessed to be of a banned user at the time. SA was also edit warring in the policy page itself. So, yes, I admit may have made a mistake at the time. What else do you want, Will? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, and also it appears that Davkal has himself a third enabler, and an admin to boot. Shot info (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an "enabler" of anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I reports have a nasty habit of getting derailed. User:ScienceApologist came here with a totally reasonable request, one so reasonable that the community should have immediately said, "Of course. User:Jossi shouldn't be dealing with you using admin tools, because of the history, and if he does, he could be sanctioned." And Jossi should have responded as well, "Of course." But we end up discussing everything and the kitchen sink, and the plumber who installed the kitchen sink, and whose fault it was that it overflowed. If the original block was right or wrong, that doesn't matter, there is process for dealing with that, and AN/I is not that process. We don't have to decide who was right, SA or Jossi. Administrators are not judges, they are police, and their job is to keep order. Want judges? Ask the community with an RfC, or go to mediation or ArbComm. We definitely need to start restricting AN/I to its proper function: dealing with situations which need immediate administrative assistance. SA came here for that, and he should have been given the assurances he sought, and this report promptly closed. Period. Because we don't have the discipline to do that, and to enforce that, AN/I has become seriously dysfunctional. --Abd (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I need to add a comment here. shortly before ScienceApologist was blocked, he was edit warring on my talk page with a user whom he suspected to be a sockpuppet (and as of now is still only suspected, though the user page has an uncontested indef block). near the end of that nonsense he began accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Davkal as well (see this diff, which covers 6 reversions and the sockpuppetry accusation), and if he had not been blocked at just about that moment I feel confident that he would have begun tearing through all of my edits without any regard for the truth of the matter. he was out of control, and needed a time out, and I for one am glad that jossi was paying attention.

I will agree with Abd, above, to the extent that AN/I needs a refocus - even as a novice, I can see that way too much space here is devoted to spitting at each other over long-term beefs. I will disagree with his comment about the reasonableness of SA's request. allowing users to ask for exemptions from administrators they think might be tough on them can only lead to users who have carte-blanche to act as unpleasantly as they like - all they need to do is find one admin who puts up with them, and then actively alienate other admins who work on their topics to exclude them, and there will no longer be any consequences for bad behavior.

honestly, every wikipedian ought to act as though he has to live up to the expectations of his worst opponent; that's really the only way to guarantee civil interaction in a place like this. if that makes it hard on ScienceApologist (or anyone else) because he suddenly has to be careful not to tick off someone who doesn't like him, well... that's sad, but it can only result in a more polite and civil wikipedia. frankly, I already think that Wikipedia is far too lenient on hissy fits; I can't tell you how many times I have seen wp:civility used to bash someone else over the head in a fit of temper. let's not encourage them more by rewarding them. --Ludwigs2 04:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In a word: Bullshit. That sort of 'worst enemy's standard' is the crux of the Civil POV Push. If that sort of pollyanna mindset were made the core value of civility, no one would accomplish anything, WP:BOLD would be in ruin, and we'd have two million articles full of bullshit. ScienceApologist and Jossi have a problem with each other that is well known to experienced editors and admins. They should NOT be in the same room with each other. Think Golda Meir and Eva Braun, or a drunk Ted Kennedy and a handcuffed Sirhan Sirhan. the results are always bad. BAD. all caps, no exaggeration. The community clearly supports them being kept apart. Adults who cannot be around each other, in the real world, avoid each other. On Wikipedia, some like to stir drama, and don't do their half of staying apart, though they should. We, the community, have to be parents. That you can't see this, and make provocative (at best) and inciting (at worst) comments as an involved person shows that you're not as novice as you think, or at least not as mature as you want us to see.

As for the main issue, I think the consensus is there. Jossi needs to get an uninvolved admin for his problems with SA. My only other concern in this thread is Jossi's continuous 'go away i don't like you and don't have to answer' attitude towards Will. Should Jossi also get a 'get an admin' tag for dealing with Will? When an admin can't clearly and concisely explain their actions in a few AN/I lines, it says to me that they can't explain it ata ll ,and made a bad call. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo ThuranX's comment, but without the bovine fecal part. SA, having been blocked by Jossi, possibly improperly, asked for assurances that it wouldn't happen again, and since what he is asking for is under the circumstances something he should not even have to ask for, it is policy, the answer should have been very, very simple, and SA's alleged incivility is irrelevant. SA isn't asking for special exemption, he is asking for policy to be enforced, and, specifically, for assurance that it will be enforced. So, putting my time where my mouth is, if *Jossi* blocks SA, for anything, aside from a true emergency, where WP:IAR would apply and can be shown, I would support sanctions against Jossi. But he's not going to do that, and by not doing that, he is not going to cause us to become distracted from the underlying issue, which is alleged incivility or edit warring by SA. This AN/I report is not about that underlying issue, and so attempting to address it here, alleging it, and all that, is utterly improper, and I'm saying that this impropriety, the distraction of AN/I reports from their purpose, is seriously damaging Wikipedia, and we will need to address that. It's not personal, it is not about SA and Jossi, it is about us, and our lack of discipline here, i.e., focus. We need better process, badly. --Abd (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd - you're right. I'm pissed off already this evening by other WP:S%#T, and I should have known better than to open my mouth tonight. my apologies, and I'll bow out now. --Ludwigs2 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, and thank you for the feedback. As I said before, with hindsight I should have avoided intervening in that incident. I will leave it to others to address any other such incidents in the future with the hope they act upon them if necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It did not take long, did it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And I note that after a month off from that page, you sure enjoyed jumping in, didn't you? Can't you read? ThuranX (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi, if you've answered the question above for why you blocked SA (if not for 3RR), I can't seem to find it. You and I have no history that I'm aware of, so I hope that you'll be able to fulfill this request. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever looked at ScienceApologist's editing, I think. I can't speak for Jossi, but I would have blocked ScienceApologist for edits such as these:

• [26] - uses Twinkle to revert a fairly innocuous and referenced statement that Atropa Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) is used in homeopathy (true), labelling it as "Most disruptive editing".
• Edit-warring, again with Twinkle, on Quackwatch [27] [28] [29] [30] [31], chiefly to remove criticism of Quackwatch (and then accuses others of POV-pushing: ([32], and is rude [33])

  User:QuackGuru [34] [35], User:Shot info [36], User:Levine2112 [37] [38], User:ImperfectlyInformed [39] [40], User:Itsmejudith [41] [42], and User:Jossi [43] were all guilty of edit warring on the article to some extent, also, but not to the extent of SA.

• "Remove lie" - no, if an article is tagged for a balance concern, discuss it on the talk page.

Based on all that, a block was probably appropriate. Based on ScienceApologist's prior history of edit warring blocks, a week was also probably appropriate. It really, really, should not have been Jossi making the block, though. Neıl 龱 09:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to know the history, the belladonna edit is very typical of the homeopathy dispute. The logic is that mentioning quack uses of plants in every plant article creates an undue impression of legitimacy for the quackery. SA is quite right and justified in removing all such references, even if his edit summary is a bit hyperbolic. I also find your logic that one editor struggling against a gang is a worse edit warrior that the gang itself a bit strange ... block SA, then then block Itsmejudith, Levine2112, ImperfectlyInformed, and Jossi as well. I don't much like either version of the article ... SA's is sanitized, but the other one tries to present criticisms of prose style as if they cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the information presented.
Kww (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kww, it was three editors (SA, Shot info, and QuackGuru), not one editor. You seemed to have missed that. Neıl 龱 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kww. The homeopathy thing's been round and round and round. SA opposes the inclusion of homeo-cruftish additions, like 'some homeopaths use this plant for homeopathy' as if that makes it legit. I've also seen SA agree to the inclusion of such material where it's fully supported and relevant. The problem there is well discussed in other areas; I'm sure SA can point you to the important discussions. The upshot of it all was that homeopathy ought only be included where it really is relevant, not just the 'is used in' crap that advocates try to get onto about every single plant article on WP. Further, while I'm not as sure as Kww about the line-up on each side, I did already note that Jossi ran to get involved in a dispute with SA after being told in this thread to get out of each other's hair. Jossi, by that action alone, looks to be acting in bad faith where SA is concerned. ThuranX (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's ignore that one edit on the plant article, then (I do not know the background, you're right, even though it seems reasonable to me to add anything citable given how sparse the article is at present). Irrespective, the edit warring alone would be good for a 24 hour block, and coupled with the previous history, 48 hours is not particularly harsh. I have the distinct impression ScienceApologist is still around because a lot of people tacitly agree with many of his intentions - I'm pretty sure I, like most, want our science articles to be accurate and not mixed up with fringe mumbo jumbo - but his methods are not right. Don't make excuses for him - ScienceApologist is no martyr, he's an edit warrior, and he needs to change his ways, grit his teeth, and make an effort work constructively with others (yes, even those he considers to be POV-pushers). Neıl 龱 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And Jossi isn't much the same? I'm no big fan of SA myself (his "help" on What the Bleep Do We Know frequently backfired into making the article worse than it was before he edited it), but it does always surprise me that he gets blocked so often and the people that work against him do not.
Kww (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, Kww and I continue to ask: What about Jossi's actions? ThuranX (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What about them? What would you like to happen? I could urge Jossi to stay away from ScienceApologist, but there's no guarantee he would listen. Neıl 龱 08:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Block/talk page protection sanity check

Something tells me this user may become a thorn in my side... anyway, 68.149.139.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has otherwise often attempted to edit in good faith, vandalized the article on Dion Phaneuf on June 17. I reverted and left a standard L1 warning template. This was his response. I didn't see it at the time, but noticed those comments today when I again reverted his vandalism at Dion Phaneuf's article. Given the comments clearly violate WP:BLP, and the re-inserted vandalism, I dropped an L4im template on his talk page. His response was to restore his comments on his talk page, and left some odd vandalism on my user page. Thus, I blocked him. this was his response. I reverted and warned him I'd protect his talk page if he persisted. He did, I reverted again, and protected his talk page for the same 24 hours I blocked him. IMO, the block was fairly straight forward. Just doublechecking on the talk page protection. Resolute 02:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You posted the wrong diff at the start of this - it had me confused for a while. Perhaps you meant this? Other than that, it all seems sane enough - I'm not sure that it was going to play out any differently. The IP tried to paint themselves as gay-friendly, but the initial comment just wasn't. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He is blocked again because he immediately went back to his attacks soon as the block lifted. -Djsasso (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle uncle uncle and PouponOnToast

I recently came across the disruptive single-purpose account Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor who claimed to have 92 sockpuppets according to his userpage. His sole contributions to the project consisted of popping up in contentious discussions, and updating a "sock counter" on his userpage.

Looking at Uncle's early contributions, it's clear he's an alternate account of DepartedUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka "Hipocrite"; Uncle's initial edits to the project were to articles DepartedUser had previously worked on, and Uncle started getting involved in Tor-related discussions right after DepartedUser announced he was leaving the project due to frustration at our policies on blocking open Tor exit nodes.

However, DepartedUser also returned to the project as PouponOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (implicitly confirmed on his talk page). This user has also contributed to many of the same areas of contentious discussions as Uncle; PouponOnToast has also recently admitted to sockpuppetry on his userpage, where he says "Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all, I'll be gone in a flash." (He also ends with the cryptic, trollish comment, "LAWL I DO IT AGAIN!")

It seems clear to me based on this evidence that User:DepartedUser == User:Uncle uncle uncle == User:PouponOnToast. If true, not only have they been engaging in long-term bad hand sockpuppetry, they have also been double-voting (e.g. in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2). I have thus blocked Uncle and Poupon indefinitely. I welcome any further review or community input into this matter. krimpet✽ 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion below, I've personally unblocked Uncle, as new, solid evidence suggests he is indeed unrelated to DepartedUser/Hipocrite/PouponOnToast. Investigation into DepartedUser's sockpuppetry is, however, still continuing. krimpet✽ 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an arbitrator emeritus and experienced checkuser confirmed to me some time ago in confidence that Hipocrite/PouponOnToast was "trolling with socks" for an extended period of time, but declined to identify any accounts. east.718 at 04:37, July 2, 2008

Support Block. Krimpet has a pretty solid case here. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely consider what he's saying here, but it's a far cry from a solid case. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still support block of PouponToast, there is still some abusive socking going on here. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. I don't see sufficient evidence to indef block User:Uncle uncle uncle, only suspicions, nor do I see the account doing anything disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have questions over the alleged connection between PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). While I have no comment on PouponOnToast and his own possible sockery, myself and a number of other checkusers are examining all the data right now. More later - Alison ^❤ 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... based on this and other evidence I've received, I'm going to agree that Uncle uncle uncle is probably unrelated, and though his conduct has still been problematic, not worth an indefinite block, so I will remove it. However, evidence still seems strong that DepartedUser/PouponOnToast has been sockpuppeting - hopefully the checkuser evidence will shed light on this. krimpet✽ 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimpet. Ok, this checkuser says that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs) are  Unrelated to each other. More on Poupon later ... - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some checking as well, probably not as extensive as Ally's, and the most I could come up with was "possible but not all that likely" based on technical. Could have missed something but I didn't see the strong link. So I concur with Alison. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle uncle uncle has asked that a link be placed to his talk page so people can see his response to the sockpuppet accusation. It starts at about User talk:Uncle uncle uncle#Yow! and includes a few other sections below that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have received a message from PouponOnToast, and have been asked to repost it here;

Thanks - Alison ^❤ 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that at least one of his socks was created for self protection. I also have to agree that while his style left something to be desired at times, he got it correct more times than most and I love it when editors cut through the bullshit like this guy.--MONGO 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was fairly common knowledge that PouponOnToast was Hipocrite. I have found PoT to be a constructive, good faith editor. Hipocrite/User:DepartedUser was never banned, rather he chose to leave under that name and return under another subsequently. If the only remaining reason for this block is that PoT and Hipocrite are one and the same, the block needs undoing. However, if Poupon/Hipocrite is using other accounts, still, then that's different. I guess we wait got the Checkuser stuff to come back. Neıl 龱 10:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did find evidence of other accounts being used by PoT. The sock policy does not absolutely forbid use of other accounts, it only forbids their use to evade or confuse matters or disrupt. More extensive research into contributions would be needed to see for sure. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, such research is done BEFORE deciding whether a block is placed, not after placing the block. Unless evidence is forthcoming that PoT has abused multiple accounts fairly soon, suggest an unblock until and unless that evidence is provided. Neıl 龱 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle created the userbox saying he had 92 sockpuppets just because he thought such a userbox should exist, so people can say how many accounts they have, as at the time no such box existed, he told me this himself and it will be written somewhere so you can see our exchange. I think I said 'do you really have 92 accounts?:)' as it was obvious most people would only say that as a joke. I doubt he has and think it was just a test of the box and an unrealistic number he didn't think anyone would take seriously. Of course, someone could checkuser him to get some proof before saying such things. At the time I became aware of this userbox it was the User:!! debacle, a lot of us including !! as you can see from his userpage were being ironic about sockpuppet paranoia, and you can see it says on my user page I have 9000 accounts in accordance with policy:) Sticky Parkin 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Except neither UUU nor PoT are anything like User:!!, PoT being mostly here to cause trouble and hassle those who oppose the WP:TE of WikiProject ID. PoT has even felt the need to reignite the long-since-dead WP:BADSITES debate by keeping a naughty log of comments individuals make on Wikipedia Review. PoT is at best a gadfly like myself and DanT, at worst he is socking to cause trouble. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying, I was saying Uncle says he has that many as a joke, as I do. I didn't see any prob with Uncle's edits in the brief time I was chatting and if you look in his contribs he advises people to look at his contribs further back, rather than making assumptions based on his more recent ones. But I don't know enough to comment on Uncle's actions any further than that- I was just commenting on his being called an admitted sockpuppet based on that box being absolutely daft. I mean he may have socks for all I know but they can't be assumed from that. As for Poupy I don't know enough to comment but believe his recent actions have been trouble-making, take that or leave it though as I don't know the details of what he's been doing. Sticky Parkin 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted my misunderstanding. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[44] honestly, irony seems to be lacking here:) Oh it was via email but this is when I asked him User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#email. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, PoT has definitely been using multiple accounts abusively. No question. I hope to have an answer shortly re. checkuser, and he's already 'fessed up to some of them off-wiki. He should definitely remain blocked for the moment - Alison ^❤ 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• And while Uncle is probably mostly trolling, there are some throwaway accounts on his IP such as Versaversa (talk · contribs) which seem more along the lines of silly buggers accounts as opposed to dedicated disruptive accounts. This is complex and still under investigation. Krimpet erred in blocking Uncle and Poupon as socks of each other, but neither account is lily-white. Thatcher 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Prod, prod, prod - anything on this, yet? Neıl 龱 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

The following accounts are  Confirmed either through checkuser or directly, as being sock-puppets of PouponOnToast (talk · contribs). There are some other, older accounts, which had all been previously blocked:

1. LegitAltAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Archfailure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actually pre-dating the unrelated banned account, Archtransit (talk · contribs)
3. Throwawayarb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. MusingsOfAPrivateNature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. MOASPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution, I think trolling is an accurate description of the behavior of many of them. Combined with POT's contributions under his own account, this is an editor I think that we are better off without. Heck, even the contributions of these reveal more puppets, such as Semiprivatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Does anyone think we should do more paperwork to memorialize a community ban? GRBerry 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the community, of course. But I'd like to point out that the guy apologized to me in full for this incident. It should also be pointed out that for all his trolling and disruption, this was relegated to projectspace talk and user talk and he never once, AFAIK, vandalised an article - Alison ^❤ 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognising that he never vandalised an article, or ever abused anyone, I would like to see Poupon unblocked, and asked to restrict himself to a single account on pain of a ban. I would be willing to mentor him if he'd accept me. Neıl 龱 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Chinese government website notable source?

Hi, I have once again seen what I believe to be neutural, factual edit, removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=222969997&oldid=222929185

The reason given is "inserting Xinhua", however both citations are from Chinese Foreign Ministry.

I've undo the rm. Please let me know if I have done something wrong to garner the rm, or my undo is wrong in any way. Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be considered that Xinhua or the Foreign Ministry are not neutral sources with regard to Falun Gong, in which case they might need to be used carefully and in appropriate context; however, there can be no basis for objecting to their use in citing the claim that the Chinese government considers Falun Gong a cult. Indeed, the Chinese government is the best possible source for the Chinese government's official position on Falun Gong (or anything). Everyking (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The removed edit looks fine to me, but the sourcing isn't so good. For the record, the removed statement was:

The Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be a cult while other countries do not.

and the reference was to http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cese/eng/zt/xjflg/default.htm , however, and this contains rather crude propaganda rather than official government statements.

This is better: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceat/det/zt/jpflg/t105141.htm

It is in a fairly sober tone and quotes the Chinese ambassador to Austria outlining his government's views on the nature of Falun Gong, thus supporting your statement. The Xinhua news agency is a perfectly reliable source on the statements of Chinese government officials.

Obviously the attitude of the Chinese government towards Falun Gong is highly relevant to Falun Gong so in my opinion the statement probably does belong in the lead.

This isn't really the right place to bring such a query, by the way, but it's okay. I'll make a note on your talk page on the best way to get help and advice in future. --Jenny 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that basically all mainstream western newspapers and academics who have researched this topic state that the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) statements about Falun Gong, (whether on their websites or through state-media mouthpieces) post 1999, are purely propagandistic. As far as I understand, wikipedia can make it clear that the CCP holds these views and has made these statements, but it is not a vehicle for promoting them in their own right. These statements, according to the sources I refer to above, are all made within their context of the propaganda campaign against Falun Gong. Given that, specifically in terms of the lede, there kind of isn't enough space to give this context, so the media-campaign against Falun Gong is treated in its own section on the persecution of Falun Gong page. If editors think this particular point ought to be hashed out in the lede though, I guess that's another thing.--Asdfg12345 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think the statement is fine, and should be in the lead. As a great deal about Falun Gong is the controversy with the Chinese government. And Jenny is on the spot about the sources two. The second one looks much better. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys really might want to look at what academics and mainstream newspapers have said about all this. I won't repeat what I've just said in the paragraph above, but there could be a bit of recommended reading for those unfamiliar with the subject. There is much of this information on the persecution of Falun Gong page. Might also refer to the part from what wikipedia is not: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." -- I interpret this to mean that we are to make clear that the CCP has made these statements, but to qualify them within the context of what academics and journalists have said. As the sources themselves say, that is within the context of a cultural-revolution style propaganda campaign to vilify the discipline, as an element in orchestrating a successful persecution against those who practiced it in China at that time.--Asdfg12345 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What you said about use of Falun Gong's newspaper is exactley what the admins are saying. Epoch Times is paid for by Falun Gong, and is purely propagandic and political - but you insist it can be used for Falun Gong's view.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are significant differences, in that the thrust of the "Falun Gong view" here is essentially human rights and freedom of belief. That happens to align with the whole ideological foundation of western civilisation, and therefore basically all western media and academia too--generally speaking, people value these ideals. It means, broadly speaking, that it has turned out that western institutions have come down "on the Falun Gong side" in terms of freedom of belief and human rights. Or you can read the Holocaust page--do you see a "well, Hitler said this... and other people said this...", a kind of evenhanded weighing up of the two sides? WP:UNDUE requires taking the overall context into account, and that's why I had made reference to the persecution of Falun Gong page for a large number of high-quality sources who clearly put forward these views. I'm just explaining, in my understanding, the differences in the situation. Falun Gong sources are still not reliable sources when it comes to this subject, and they merely present the Falun Gong view, whatever that means. But I think ignoring the wider context that certain statements were made in is ignoring WP:NPOV. These are just some thoughts I had, they may not necessarily be correct. If you have a different understanding I may be enriched by it.--Asdfg12345 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Wikipedia is not a democracy or human rights organization to begin with, and your moralizing and comparisons with the Holocaust is invalid, considering that's a widely accepted fact proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the extent of FLG's crackdown is still very much disputed and up to debate.--PCPP (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

other thing about this might best be demonstrated by a rhetorical question: "would it be normal to have on the Chinese Communist Party page, something in the lede about how Falun Gong practitioners actually believe that the CCP itself is an evil cult?" -- I assume the answer is no. The CCP isn't a reliable source for commenting on Falun Gong, though it can comment on what its "position" on Falun Gong is. The Falun Gong pages are about Falun Gong, not about what the CCP says about Falun Gong. It gives far too much emphasis to their view to put it in the lede. What the CCP has said about Falun Gong is an element of the persecution of Falun Gong; its comments do not constitute remarks about the nature of Falun Gong independent of that. I'm making the same point, but trying to illuminate it differently. What is the subject of the page? Falun Gong. What if there was no persecution? Would it matter what the Chinese Communist Party says about Falun Gong? What about comments from other governments, political parties, or whatever, shouldn't they also be included? The lede should basically be about the subject of the article, and the CCP is not a reliable source for commenting on Falun Gong. Its remarks ought to be treated within the context of the actions they have taken against Falun Gong practitioners. Or do we start the article on Judaism with...--Asdfg12345 04:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Look Asdfg12345, the most important thing about Falun Gong, for us totally unaware of its practice is the controversy with the CCP. One single statement about it on the article, does not fail WP:UNDUE, specially, as I said on your talk page, for THIS specifically piece of information they are a WP:RS. And about your bit about propaganda. I read that article almost as an altar and a praise to Falun Gong practices. It totally fails WP:NPOV, and I'm deeply worried about a possible WP:COI from you, since the only contributions I could see on your history are related to Falun Gong. Samuel Sol (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'm most interested in this particular topic. I'm interested in Chinese culture generally too, though I have prioritised contributing to the Falun Gong pages. I think possible NPOV problems should definitely be addressed on the relevant pages. About the other things, I won't repeat what I have said, but since the arguments have not been responded to, I think they are outstanding. Forgive me for asking, but is it professional to play the man and not the ball?--Asdfg12345 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Writing as an onlooker who has no dog in this fight, Asdfg12345, your argument against using CCP or Xinhua here strikes me as an act of wikilawyering. While these websites are not considered neutral or accurate about the Falun Gong itself, as Everyking pointed out above they are reliable about what the Chinese government thinks. And since no one here (as far as I can see) denies that the Chinese government is acting in a hostile fashion against the Falun Gong, inclusion of their opinion is relevant (as opposed to, say, the Larouchies or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church). The only gain I can see here if these sources are excluded from this article is to suppress mentioning what the Chinese position is at all -- which does not help our users. Suppose a user wants to know what the Chinese POV is in order to debate & refute it: by not including a link to this source, we have made it more difficult for this person to prepare for this debate. I believe this responds to all of your objections, even the ones you do not want to repeat. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please allow me to clarify. Of course I believe that the CCP's stated views on Falun Gong are relevant to these articles, and ought to be included in a fashion. However, I was questioning the reasoning behind putting them in the lede. Since the CCP is in this context a reliable source only for its own views, not for Falun Gong itself, I don't see how they should be accorded a place in the lede, (they are not representative of mainstream academic opinion, for example) given the context etc.. I have just read about wikilawyering, and that is really not my intention. In all these difficult discussions over edits, I do not believe I have ever turned the discussion personal, or engaged in any personal attacks. I am not just cooking up arguments and throwing up roadblocks, that is not how I operate. In my view, I had raised legitimate concerns as to putting the CCP's view in the lede, and they weren't addressed. I apologise for not explaining more clearly what my problem was.--Asdfg12345 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quote they are not representative of mainstream academic opinion, for example, you have any proof of this?--PCPP (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

CarolSpears has been blocked indefinitely by community consensus. Sarah 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John but I'm reclosing this. Several admins have said they support the block but oppose a ban and have indicated they would be willing to unblock under certain circumstances, thus she is blocked indefinitely rather than banned. Sarah 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol Spears' edits

At Carol Spears' RFC talk page a few editors are working on a list of only her new contribution and correcting them. There are about 150 and a small number of editors working on them. They appear to contain major factual inaccuracies, such as northwest Africa being confused with eastern African volcanoes, taxonomies that say the almost complete opposite of what their source says, and other issues. I have asked her to stop adding new information and new articles until all of the existing ones, most of which appear to have problems, can be corrected, and until she can start working with her mentor to understand plant taxonomy well enough to insert information that is at least in the vicinity of what is correct. She refuses and is resorting to personal attacks.

Can an administrator ask her to take a break from adding wrong information to articles? Her response to the RFC has been to post a question, what rhymes with species, so it's unlikely anything will help.

--Blechnic (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted that she is still refusing to engage, and effectively wants us to do things her way. She will add what she wants, unsourced, or going beyond the source, and it stays there until somebody finds a source to prove her wrong.

Her response to her RFC has been flippant, arrogant, and dismissive.

I can see no reasonable hope of her becoming a productive and constructive editor, despite many people expending a huge amount of time trying to guide her.

At this juncture, I feel that I must propose an indefinite community ban. Mayalld (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to search for a source that can prove her wrong, just use her sources, which don't actually say what she writes, even she's plagiarized it, because she applies it to the wrong thing. So, finding a source that disagrees with her is easy: use her sources. --Blechnic (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate. She has confirmed that, after a week of not responding at all to the request for comment on her conduct, she posted a riddle whose answer was feces.[45] After several editors asked her to seek a mentor's guidance before resuming mainspace work, she archived the discussion,[46] then declared at a wikiproject talk page that she considers it more important to fill in red links than to identify species correctly,[47] and resumed editing article space.[48][49][50] Please see this discussion for a summary of the seriousness of this problem. In the words of one edior: Yes, many of the copy-pastes are from unrelated topics, like the West African continental margin geology just flung across the whole continent. So, after everything is checked for plagiarism, it must all be checked for accuracy, because there appears to be a bigger issue with inaccuracies than even the plagiarisms. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Everyone at the RFC who has commented agrees except for CarolSpears, whose statements express a combination of confusion and mockery. Since she refuses to cease creating cleanup tasks, I earnestly ask an administrator to give those who are performing the cleanup a respite from fresh problems. Durova^Charge! 08:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This has gone on far too long, with little sign of improvement or even understanding from the editor concerned, and I feel that resuming mainspace editing is the last straw, so I have indefblocked her. Productive editors, as patient and understanding as they have been, should not have to endure this type of disruptive activity indefinitely. EyeSerene^talk 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wow. People like this are what gives Wikipedia the back eye its critics say we have about unreliable information. Fully endorse this indefblock and would not support unblocking because we shouldn't have to automatically assume an editor isn't telling the truth with edits. SirFozzie (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - D.M.N. (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - after reading the RFUC and the links within - words fail me. The woman is a danger to wikipedia. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• You all are too late, by an hour. :) [51] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - what's too late? EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements for a block that has already happened. JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Carol's response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It must hurt you deeply to be labeled "ignoranat". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I was just bringing it to the attention of the readers here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block and/or ban proposal. She was given another chance and has fooled around and squandered it. That's enough now. Sarah 12:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose I was unaware of this discussion, or I would have been here sooner. This last month Carol has been trying to work whilst other people have been going through deleting most of her contributions. In the last few days it has reached the point where someone is reverting every mainspace edit she makes. I'm not exaggerating. Every mainspace edit Carol makes is reverted virtually immediately, citing an apparent need for it to be fact-checked. Evidently she is being held to a editorial standard that very few Wikipedians come close to meeting. She has been harassed and stalked all over the site, and you people wonder why she responds badly; why she thinks, and says, that the RFC is a pile of faeces. No-one, including me, has defended her, because the copyvios really do need cleaning up; that is important, unrewarding, under-appreciated work. So she has had to deal with this in isolation.

You know what this reminds me of? The Australian media has today been running the story of a convicted paedophile who had been released but was facing new charges, and whose case was abandoned because he couldn't get a fair trial. It turns out that certain rabid media outlets had hounded this guy from town to town, repeatedly publishing his whereabouts, driving him underground, creating fertile conditions for him to reoffend; and when charged with a new offence, they beat the story up, publishing details of his criminal record prior of the trial, and had generally walking as close to the contempt-of-court line as they possibly could without getting charged themselves. So the judge abandons the case, and the same rabid media outlets that caused the problem have a field day carrying on about how wrong it is that he has got off.

I see something similar going on here. A group of aggressive editors, draped in the self-righteousness of fact-checking and copyvio-cleaning, hounding someone all over the site, never giving them a moment's peace, creating perfect conditions for her to lash out. And when her admirable restraint slips and she lashes out just a little bit, we bay for her blood.

Hesperian 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

what's your answer for an editor, who in their own words think that we shouldn't worry about copyvios until we get sued? That attitude is so wrong and frankly downright dangerous (morally and legally) I don't where to start. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, please don't think I made this block based solely on the comments of a few editors. As I said in the CarolSpears thread higher up this page, I've been watching this for a while now, on and off, and am pretty familiar with how things have developed over time. I'm also about as uninvolved as it gets, never having interacted on any meaningful level with her, you, or any of the other editors in this thread, before. I rarely issue blocks, and when I do I try really hard to make sure I get it right... and am very open to correction. However, her talk page replies pointed out by Durova above, and her unblock request, are typical of the type of non-communication she indulges in - misdirection, deflection, and refusal to face up to the consequences of her actions. I'm genuinely saddened that I felt I had to act to protect both the encyclopedia and those editors that make us what we are, because she has invested a lot in this place and is undoubtedly upset, but Wikipedia just isn't the right place for everyone. EyeSerene^talk 12:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse EyeSerene's view of the situation. Carol's edits were massively problematic, and needed a huge amount of attention to fix. But we accept that people can make genuine mistakes, and we don't block them for them.

Once it became clear that Carol had made a large number of problematic edits, it was an entirely reasonable course of action to investigate all her edits, which is what is being done. There is no knee-jerk "revert in case" attitude. Each edit is being checked, and reverted only if it is problematic. To try and paint this as stalking is to seriously misrepresent the situation.

Hesperian talks about admirable restraint. No, I don't see that. I see Carol operating in two modes. She either ignores people and continues to edit without heeding advice on the problems she has created, or abuses them for daring to question her edits.

This is no rush to a community ban. Many editors have done their utmost to guide Carol, but they have been soundly rebuffed.

What else would Hesperian have us do about an editor who refuses point blank to accept our policies? Mayalld (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld, you have erred in saying "each edit is being checked, and reverted only if it is problematic." Carol's edits have been presumed incorrect and reverted pending checking.[52][53][54][55][56] Hesperian 13:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I wouldn't have done it that way, although I can understand doing so (even if I think it was the wrong thing to do), given that Carol was pressing on with problematic edits even as others were trying to fix them. Mayalld (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I earnestly ask you to reconsider your advice to Carol maybe throw yourself into Commons etc for a while unless you are willing to actively mentor her there--and preferably assist with the massive cleanup. A good place to begin would be with images she attributes to An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British Possessions, which happens to be public domain for reasons wholly unrelated to her PD rationale (she had attributed authorship to a US government agency that did not come into existence until 22 years after the book was published). The volume is over 700 pages long and although it's available online she never attributes page numbers; so far we aren't sure that the uploads even came from there. That represents one tiny fraction of the problem; it will probably be necessary to mass-delete large portions of Carol's contributions. If you help with confirmations and mentorship then the scope of those mass deletions may be smaller. Please join us in this tedious and thankless task. Durova^Charge! 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol's contributions to Commons currently consist of the restoration of (mostly Ferdinand Bauer) botanical illustrations from a U.S. scan of an 1811 volume of Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. This is unobjectionable, and where she does her best work. As I have said elsewhere recently, I do not mentor people because I do not see myself as upholding a standard of behaviour that others should aspire to; and Carol would never accept a mentor anyhow. To the extent that she will accept a friend, I will help.

Um... if AifotnUSCatBP is in the public domain but her rationales are wrong, wouldn't fixing those rationales be a low priority job? Why is that a good place to begin? And why does this imply that it will be necessary to mass-delete large portions of Carol's contributions? There have never been any problems with Carol's attributions; even the copyvios were attributed. So why are you unwilling to take Carol's word for it when she says she sourced them from that book? Is the absense of page numbers that big a problem? If Carol's attributions are not in question, and this work is in the public domain, then isn't the task reduced to the trivial matter of retagging them with the right rationale?

Hesperian 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If that were all her contributions consisted of then of course there would be no problem. Her links to U.S. government websites are generally either broken or link to pages that do not support her claim of public domain status: often enough the material does turn out to be public domain in a willy-nilly fashion--if one has the patience to thread through a maze of blind alleys. The concern is that a substantial portion of her public domain claims may be groundless because she does not appear to understand what constitutes public domain or how to document it. For instance, it appears that she presumes all work funded by U.S. government grant is public domain--although that's actually a case-by-case matter determined by the funding agreement--and lifts images from personal blogs on that basis. It drops my jaw to see you encourage a prolific copyright violator to become more active at another WMF project while shrugging off responsibility for the result: cleanup and hassle aside, there is a nontrivial legal risk to the Foundation here. Durova^Charge! 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, when you put it that way, it drops my jaw too. :-( Hesperian 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of support for Hesperian. There are two issues that come up here, and it is terribly easy to confuse the two. Almost all editors have focused on one, except for Hesperian, who focused on the other (originally). They really are independent issues. One is the behavior of the subject editor, which, without investigating it myself, from the breadth of comment from other editors, I would strongly assume was outrageous, blockworthy, and even banworthy, though a ban should not happen, in my opinion, without the banned person having some opportunity to defend and justify her actions. (Block is clearly appropriate, though. Indeed, block is a kindness, if the condition of the second issue is true.) The second issue is harassment. Was it harassment? On its face, we have an editor who is making massive numbers of problematic edits, in spite, I presume, of warning. There are members of the community who will respond to such by watching her contributions, and, indeed, the contributions then are sometimes subject to a higher standard, which is unfair, perhaps, but also probably unavoidable. It's difficult to tell the difference between that and harassment or wikistalking. One of the editors commenting here, approving the block, has complained about wikistalking based on far less. My suggestion is that whenever an editor starts to follow another around, reverting contributions as may have happened here, that such massive reversion, without community involvement, is a form of edit warring, only based on an individual rather than an article or topic. And no individual should do that without community support. (3RR rules?) So, just as we expect an administrator to come here when faced with a COI or edit warring to resist an action, any user who does more than occasional reversion for a single editor should not continue without community involvement. The other editor I mention, were I reverting him more than occasionally based on watching his contributions, without involving the community (and not just sympathetic editors), I should be warned and, if I continue, blocked. But the picture changes if the community has become involved and my opinion or actions have been approved. Then I become merely a servant of the community, taking on a particular project; but, in fact, at that point, this work should be unnecessary, the user would have been warned and blocked. Any editor making substantial numbers of properly revertable edits is disruptive. Specifically, what I could do would be to (1) warn the user myself and then, if the user continues, (2) bring the matter here (if it is not already brought by someone else, such as the editor I'm reverting). The only difference in rights and responsibilities between regular editors and administrators is the buttons. An admin can, if uninvolved, block without consultation, which will come afterwards if the user complains, requesting unblock. If the admin is involved or becomes involved, the admin becomes like an ordinary editor. My point is that we all have quasi-administrative powers, but we depend upon a servant to actually push the buttons. A voluntary servant who is otherwise just like us. Hesperian had a point, which I've attempted to address, instead of addressing the other point, which the community seems united on.--Abd (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read through the extensive history of this case (3 separate ANI cases, and an RFC/U), it is clear that this was not, at any point an edit war between Carol and another editor. Once it became clear that there was a problem, it was brought out into the open, and many editors attempted to resolve things, including attempts to engage with Carol, which were soundly rebuffed. Let me be clear, and say that I do not believe that Carol's edits were remotely blockable in the first instance. What is blockable, and the reasons that I support the block are;

1. Refusal to engage in a civil fashion with editors who were trying to clean up her mess
2. Persistent Wikilawyering ("oh, but I didn't actually say the word")
3. Tenditious editing, by persisting in the edits that had been pointed out as problematic.
4. Plain and demonstrable refusal to accept WP policy

I don't like it coming to this (it means that all the effort I and other put into trying to help Carol was wasted), but I am convinced that there is no alternative. Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "stalking" consisted of reverting 5 or 6 plant articles, not all of her articles that she had edited during the time. Please, as much inaccuracy as Carol has included in all of her articles, and as she is now apparently issuing wishes for those who disagree with her to die,[57] I'm not sure that editors should be working under the assumption that Carol has accurately represented any situation. Simply check the edit histories of the articles she edited during this time, and the articles of hers that I reverted. --Blechnic (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a bright line distinction: wikistalking (a term I hate) consists of tracking and interfering with an editor's regular contributions--such as CS's disruption of my featured content work; by contrast, legitimate cleanup occurs where there are clear and demonstrable policy violations that occur over multiple pages. Copyvio, plagiarism, and misuse of sources are serious matters: we are obligated to correct them. All reasonable efforts were made to communicate with both the editor who created the problems and with the community. One does not simply count reversions to determine whether history-reading is blameworthy: one asks the reason. The people who reverted CS had the best of reasons and were proactive about supplying both evidence and rationales. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. My comments about wikistalking were not intended to imply, in any way, that she had been wikistalked. I simply addressed the issue, and suggested a bright-line, simple definition of wikistalking which is merely an interpretation of WP:3RR. What this would mean was that an editor would not go beyond 3RR for a user, in a single day, without at least announcing that they are doing so to AN/I. But it's just an idea, and that would not define wikistalking any more than 3RR defines edit warring. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I have simply reverted because of the how incredibly wrong her edits have been, and because I don't have time to check them. In addition people are now only checking her plagiarisms. Please read the article on the Liabeae, p. 3 of the primary reference, and Carol's conclusions from it. Carol wrote that the mountains of East Africa are like the Alps based on a source she had that said the mountains of northwestern Africa are like the Alps. I don't have time to check every edit she makes, and she has been offered a mentor to work with to get them correctly done.

It is no help to Wikipedia if we have articles saying the mountains of East Africa are related to the Alps because people want an editor who doesn't care if east is west or vice versa to continue editing.

If she works with a mentor, if she establishes she can edit accurately, if she can not put false information in articles, then by all means, she can edit. But that is not what is happening. I'm astonished you want misinformation in articles to protect Carol's right to edit, and I looked at some of your articles. You seem to be writing very well, researching accurately and very informatively, the precise opposite of Carol. You also seem to be communicating clearly with other editors, another opposite. I don't understand what is the alternative to Carol, who won't work with other editors, who has her facts wrong, who misses things like the hundreds of major articles on two species, and just assumes if they're the same genera, even if they are on different continents, facts can be interchanged between the two.

I don't have time to check every edit of Carol's, and almost every edit I have checked has been bad, has included bad links, has included factually wrong information, really wrong information, has included matters of convenience to Carol, "both mountain ranges are in Africa, so anything said about one is true about the other," "both species are the same genus, so anything said about an insect pest of one applies to the other." There are a lot of people correcting her already created problems; but these articles are only be checked for plagiarisms, not for accuracy. The task is huge, asking her to take a break while others clean her mess is reasonable. Asking her to learn to use facts accurately is reasonable. --Blechnic (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, Hesperian, I have to ask where you draw this assertion of admirable restraint. In March you blocked her because she followed an editor to a single article to disrupt his work; for more than half a year she has been following me across two projects, disrupting featured picture nominations I'd spent up to 30 hours preparing. She's been harassing newcomers to FPC merely because they supported my work. I endured all that for a very long time without making any formal complaint. Only when it became clear that she was also a serial plagiarist with deeply problematic contributions to nearly everything she touched did I seek remedy. CarolSpears has not been restrained at all; she's made many unfounded accusations that my featured content candidacies are corrupt and even hinted that I trade sexual favors for votes. If that constitutes admirable restraint, I'd hate to see anything that merits your reprimand. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My "admirable restraint" comment should be interpreted only in the context of the RfC, which she ignored for as long as possible, commented only when threatened over it, and then said "what rhymes with species" rather than "this is a pile of shit". I have not defended her behaviour here - for those who like to draw closer parallels than necessary between allusion and reality, she was the paedophile in my "outrageous allusion" above. I have seen what she has said about you at Commons, Durova, and I believe she should have been blocked for it at the time. I have seen countless failures on Carol's part to show reasonable (let alone admirable) restraint. But I am still not happy with the way she has been treated these last two weeks. Do you comprehend how it must feel to have your entire corpus of contributions deconstructed and forensically analysed, while all your new contributions are reverted, all the while 12-year-old administrators are flousing you with threats and unrequested advice? And in the midst of that she gets indeffed for saying "what rhymes with species?" (Okay, that's not really the reason - EyeSerene has articulated the reason quite well - but that one statement does seem to have been the tipping point that made the difference between last week's no consensus and this week's consensus to ban).

Anyhow, the community has spoken, I'm clearly out of touch with community sentiment, and there's nothing further I can do here. My apologies to Shoemaker, Blechnic and Durova — I really do appreciate your willingness to take on such horrible work, work that I myself declined, and I am uncomfortable having been so critical of you over it. The problem for me is when I look at this last month from Carol's POV, I can only conclude that she has been most terribly harassed, and I can't shake the sense of how that must feel.

Hesperian 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(UNDENTIf her “entire corpus of contributions” is wrong, consider how Wikipedia readers of her articles must feel when they think they’ve gotten useful information. I think that when you're showing up number one on search engines you bear some responsibility to at least try for accuracy. --Blechnic (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Despite the colourful hyperbole above and outrageous allusion to people hounding a pedophile, if Carol is in a hole full of "feces" it is entirely a hole of her own digging. If the copyvios were not bad enough, it's now apparent that a whole bunch of her edits are wrong. And not just a little wrong. Wildly, hopelessly, ludicrously incorrect. She is making this encyclopedia worse, not better, and much harder for other editors to edit and for people generally to trust. So endorse block. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban Even being indef blocked hasn't made Carol waver from her conviction that our policies don't matter Mayalld (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, well. I ask her to engage the community by responding to her RFC and this is what happens? I have to admit, after seeing her "riddle" on her RFC, I was pretty close to proposing a community ban myself on the grounds that she was unapologetic about her behavior. I can only conclude that we had a female version of Primetime brewing here. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Anyone who believes copyvios and plagarism is alright is a detriment to this project. Her attitude suggests she will not change. Resolute 13:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse The block prevents further danger to Wikipedia's legal standing and reputation, neither of which needs any extra danger. Good block. _{1 != 2} 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse too comments above and the editor's comments shown on her talk page [58] seem to confirm this is a good move, sorry to have to agree to this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Carol, if you are reading this, I find it interesting that you are capable of writing -- within a couple of minutes -- paragraphs of invective about the wickedness of administrators and ignorance of various people, without copying and pasting those paragraphs from other web sites, or having others write them for you. Why don't you try to write material for the encyclopedia in your own words, rather than copying and pasting from other web sites? That's the problem here. You clearly have the ability to write but you don't do it. Antandrus (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• The handwriting was on the wall before. Continued bad behavior is not acceptable. Not everyone is capable of being a Wikipedia editor. Hesperian's objections are long on emotional hand-waving, but quite lacking in reasons why she's the kind of editor we want around here. Endorse ban. Friday (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't quite endorse a ban (though I won't be unblocking), mainly because this combines conduct and content problems. I sympathise with Hesperian's comment regarding how the conduct has been affected by the recent close attention, but as shown at the RfC (and Durova's section in particular), these are long-standing conduct problems. Looking at the content problems, I don't think anyone here should be endorsing a ban on that basis until they have gone and checked the sources themselves - I do believe Blechnic is pointing out genuine problems, but we need to be sure that more people have gone and verified these problems. Ideally, Carol would attempt to rebut what Blechnic and others have said. Indeed, defending and explaining the content of her edits (if she can) is probably the only way back, though the one possibility would be a topic ban from plant articles combined with mentorship, but at this stage the community has probably had enough. On a more general note, I'm not sure whether the community normally hands out bans based on good-faith content problems. The only case I remember where the content was so clearly problematic without actually being vandalism (or something close to vandalism), was the Sadi Carnot and PHG cases. Those ended up at arbitration, and at least the latter case was confirmed by careful examination by another set of editors (ie. the arbitrators). I would be more comfortable if another set of editors independently reviewed Carol's edits and confirmed they are as bad as we are being told. Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • By all means, Carcharoth. Please help review her edits. Durova^Charge! 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I should have seen that one coming. :-) <throws away plan of work for the afternoon> Is there a convenient place to start? Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a long list at the RFC talk page, and that's just the articles she created. Nearly everything she expands that's been checked has turned out to have problems too. But if you really want me to kiss your feet, please review her Commons work. It looks like she may be pulling copyrighted photographs off private blogs and sticking PD tags onto them because the photographer happened to have had a government grant. Sometimes, by terms of the grant, that type of work turns out to be public domain and sometimes it isn't. You could write to the National Science Foundation and double check, if you think it's worth the trouble. Durova^Charge! 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It's quicker to just e-mail the scientist. If the pictures are not PD he/she may be willing to send Wikipedia a release. At my work if we produce something partially supported by a grant we freely release the images upon request. --Blechnic (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
          • When you can get contact information...(the obvious has already been tried). Durova^Charge! 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The plant names are making my head spin. I think I will have to try helping out at Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Oh, and The votes are from unreal people who did not exist before Thanksgiving 2007. Enigma ^message 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I existed before then. Is there anything else to discuss here? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ignorable Endorse. I played Unreal for a while, but it didn't support co-op well, and I never really got into the whole "Unreal Tournament" thing, so I wouldn't describe myself as much of an Unreal person. Hence my comment on this block may be ignored. It looks like there was an ongoing problem with this editor despite mentorship, so the block is perhaps the best way to prevent future disruption. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I am of the opinion that admins should be used so very sparingly as to need maybe two. It is an unfortunate condition that there should be so many needed here on this ANI page. I try to avoid any situation where I might need an admin to step in for me. I hope that indicates how seriously I take Carol Spears' contributions that do not improve the encyclopedia, and in fact, work against it. I stated before that copy violations, plagiarism, and now I'm including deliberately including misleading and false information into articles—should be comparable to posting someone's personal information or threatening them with harm. Nothing should diminish the quality of the encyclopedia. --Moni3 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask the question: Is there any admin who is willing to unblock? Will wait a little, but I think we have a community ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reluctant endorse I hate to see an indefinite community ban of an editor who makes good-faith contributions but gets things wrong. I favor progressive discipline, in which a shorter block is used, then progressively longer ones, unless it is for threats, blatant repeated vandalism and the like. The practice of cut and paste copyvios is unacceptable, and the unwillingness to conform to the policies and guidelines established by the community, or to take seriously RFC tip the balance toward endorsement. I confess that I once created an article about a fish, American plaice when I noticed that there was no article about the species, and I know virtually nothing about taxonomy. But I noted that fact on the discussion page and asked others more knowledgable to verify my infotable, since my sources did not give the info in the form it is shown in Wikipedia. That is the sort of willingness to be corrected that Carol should have adopted. Edison (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I've not come across this user before but having read the RfC, I'm actually rather surprised she wasn't blocked earlier. I must admit that I'm rather puzzled about how this situation arose in the first place; Carol seems to be sincere about wanting to contribute but doesn't seem to fall into the usual categories of a POV-pusher adding biased info or a vandal adding bogus info. But if she doesn't seem to want to follow basic rules about plagiarism and copyright, then I'm afraid we have to block her to protect the project from the risk that presents. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Ban please - I'm amazed it's gotten this far. How can one defend or trust someone who has added copyrighted or utterly wrong information with every scrutinized edit? Grandmasterka 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an exagerration to say that her every edit is a copyright violation or factually incorrect. See, even, the RFC. (There is however a definite pattern of making statements that are not valid inferences from the source material.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban or indefinite block per Resolute. The copyright violation history is a serious issue and not one to be taken lightly. RFerreira (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban - user shows no remorse and thinks that copyvios are acceptable until the WMF is sued for them. This has gone on long enough and having this user actively edit is a potential liability that we cannot afford. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I reluctantly endorse the block, but would serve notice that I would be willing to unblock CarolSpears (with the consensus of the community) upon being satisfied that there are mentors capable of fulfilling that role, and that CarolSpears agrees to such mentorship - which would necessarily include addressing the matters brought up here and previously. My impression is that this means that CarolSpears is not banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite (not permanent) block -- Hopefully a few of us can keep an eye on her talk page in the hopes that she'll calm down, speak plainly, and try to work with people to overcome the problems, but for the time being she's just making more work for others as opposed to helping others with their work. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Indefinite block for now. Defiance in the face of much evidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have to confess, making this block did bother me slightly. However, having slept on it (hmm...) and this morning seen Carol's ongoing lack of constructive engagement ([59]), I think we should be very cautious about unblocking her any time soon. I'm not calling for a formal community ban, as I don't think it's necessary, and serves no purpose that is not served by an indefblock virtually no-one is prepared to undo (other than to add the final insult to the injury). It greatly concerns me that, even after all this drama and the extreme censure of so many respected editors, Carol has apparently failed to recognise that this is one of those 'crossroad' moments, where she needs to stop playing word games and get serious. We needed to hear a sincere apology, a recognition of the dangerous legal and academic position she put Wikipedia in, an offer to help undo the damage, and/or perhaps a promise to stop editing in the mainspace until she had worked with a mentor to gain an understanding of how to follow our policies. None of this has happened. It's a real shame to see such enthusiasm, intelligence, and technical ability (her image restorations are excellent) go to waste due to ego. <sigh> EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  The two recurring questions I have when reading about these incidents would be addressed to the incredibly patient admins who are reluctant to block unrepentent, defiant editors - "Why are you messing with this guy?" - and to those corresponding unrepentent, defiant editors - "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" The latter is a question that someone could pose to the editor in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Veiled threats now? [60] I have to say that this editor appears to be unwilling or unable to work within the framework of this project. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And the unrepentent, defiant editor's answer to the question "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" is "Not badly enough to change my ways." Permanent block Indefinite block which is already in effect anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

People change, even if they personally swear up and down that they won't. For now, with no admin willing to unblock, she is effectively banned. But I'd prefer to refer to it as simply "indef block," which is accurate, and the only thing that has happened here is that it is no longer a single administrator who made that decision. There is one problem I see with a ban. Editors who are banned sometimes come back with different behavior, making only useful contributions, but then someone notices some linking characteristic, she is checkusered and the new account is blocked for "evading a ban." Without a ban, the new account would be judged on its own merits. Sometimes indef block, with no unblocking admin appearing, is called a "community ban," but a default ban that could disappear at any moment if an admin appears who changes the situation is different from a community ban that has been properly considered, which should be an adversarial process requiring a lot more fuss than a simple defacto ban based on a brief discussion here. Basic standard: only put the minimum community effort necessary into a process, don't try to permanently decide situations without broad involvement (and most editors don't watch AN/I, and issues here are too transient to reliably attract necessary comment for a more permanent solution.) As it stands, it is all moot. She's blocked, the project is protected, let's not "legislate" -- i.e., decide on ban. We *have* an effective ban, already. --Abd (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting all caught up in terminology here. Carol is indefinitely blocked. If it becomes apparent after a reasonable time that no admin will unblock, a community ban exists. A community ban isn't some sort of next step up that we have to move to from an indefinite block, merely a way of noting that the issue has reached a conclusion for the time being, and that the conclusion was that the user should remain blocked. Mayalld (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block: This user is more drama than is needed. seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It might be best to close this thread, unless anyone has anything important to add, or opposes the block: At this point, I suspect this thread isn't going to serve any purpose other than to upset Carol further. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur My one faint hope for turning this around was that we might see some sign of a change in attitude once the gravity of the situation had sunk in, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I don't doubt a few of us will keep tabs on her talk page - I know I will - and are prepared to reconsider if circumstances warrant, but I don't think prolonging this is serving any useful purpose. EyeSerene^talk 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur And, please consider blocking her talk page if she continues with the death wishes for other editors. --Blechnic (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I think protecting her talk page would be an overreaction to the rather vague comments she's posted, and considering she's not banned, she may wish to get in touch at some point. It will be watched and if she becomes genuinely abusive, it could be protected, but I don't think circumstances warrant that at this point. EyeSerene^talk 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Just to be clear, what I said was, "consider blocking/protecting her talk page if she cotinues," not let's protect it now based on the two death wishes. In other words, I believe I said what you just corrected me to, my point being, it should be noted in this discussion for archival purposes what her response to this is, and monitored for further like responses, that's all. --Blechnic (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I do apologise, I'd misinterpreted your post as calling for protection now. However, you're quite right; we're in complete agreement. Feel free to point and throw stuff ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I think "Go forth and die" is not any kind of threat, but a bowdlerised version of a phrase commonly seen in its abbreviated form F.O.A.D. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur, Sheffield. She's parroting a Metalocalypse episode (badly, badly out of context, I might add) in order to say "FOD", but its not a death threat. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

POV spamming on user talk pages

Hi. Can an admin please take a look at the actions of HagiMalachi (talk · contribs) who took it upon himself to spam the same message to multiple users, addressing them all as "Rabbi," to complain and try get his way: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] with a lengthy canned message about a "Zionist offencive (sic)" and "Zionist intolerance" messages that reflect his own POV agenda. IZAK (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended — in part that he missed me. I guess I'm not Zionist enough for him to bother. I noticed some of his edits suggest that a Jewish homeland should be set up in Provence? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I need that on my talk page. I've always wanted to be "Rabbi Rabbit". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I missed this too? I am deeply hurt :P I also liked how he was too lazy to type out the users' names. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wabbi Wabbit? Sounds wascally. --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh-heh-heh-heh. Oops, I was channeling Elmer Fudd for a second there. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I must thank for IZAK (talk · contribs) for his showing anybody how productive he is. I have started an article about Yishuv haYashan and every word was challenged agressively as to fit the Zionist idealogy. Everybody knows that the Yishuv haYashan rabbi's and leaders strongly opposed Zionism and even the Hovevei Zion from the begining, because of religious reasons explained in Wikipedia articles Anti-Zionism and Haredim and Zionism and even more. This is a fact that could be verified by the sourcesI posted, by Google or any research but not neccesary since everyone here knows about it. But the Zionist writers are trying for all costs to deny it. This could be verified from the fact that a Yishuv haYashan article didn't exist, and such a Portal or WikiProject doesn't exist even today. This shows biossy on the highest standart, and they may merge with the denyers of the Holocaust. I didn't respond to the practical jokes posted here on my account, but I will if I'll be forced to. HagiMalachi (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Elonka using blocks and threats inappropriately

By virtue of this block and its attendant threats, Admin Elonka is essentially decreeing that I cannot dispute or undo any edits made by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Because her language is vague and incorrect, without clarification, this could be interpreted to apply to any and all edits of his, in any article. The problems with her reasoning are given in my unblock request. In brief, she is misinterpreting the nature of my reverts of some of RAN's edits, calling them "blanket" when they are completely specific, and she is acting in defiance of an ArbCom [finding of principle [76] that the edits in question involve a "legitimate disagreement over content".

The underlying problem here is one of misunderstanding. Elonka has acquired the mistaken notion that I'm opposed to all quotes in footnotes, or perhaps all such quotes written by RAN. The evidence that this is incorrect is abundant in the long paper trails of the involved conflicts, but Elonka has missed that, and decided that I'm pursuing an irrational vendetta rather than trying to make legitimate improvements to articles. Since this notion of hers is incorrect, it's difficult for me to know when I will have overstepped the line. Wherever that line may be? is it fair? If RAN makes an edit involving a footnote quote which I believe to be detrimental to an article, am I simply and flatly forbidden to correct it? With or without discussion? If I discuss the issue, and RAN (as he often does) simply stops responding, am I then allowed to make my edit? If, by virtue of one Admin's decree, I am suddenly placed under some special restrictions, I have a right to know what those restrictions are.

I'm willing to accept a restriction that I not become newly involved in articles that RAN starts slathering his footnote quotes all over, although such a restriction against barging-in-to-edit-war would be a greater one than has been enforced on RAN and his partner Alansohn; see here. But as it stands, Elonka's threats apply to all articles, including ones I have a long history of involvement with, such as Elizabeth Bentley. RedSpruce (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a leftfield suggestion here, RS, but why not leave the quotes for other editors to decide whether or not they warrant inclusion? Just for a couple of weeks, at least? Neıl 龱 11:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, as long as the default decision is that they do not warrant inclusion, until some third party has determined that they do. RedSpruce (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please let Elonka know about this thread? Maybe then she'll explain the block in more detail (diffs and such). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do. RedSpruce (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I helped out at one of the disputes between these two editors (RedSpruce and RAN). Elonka followed that up with a suggestion which might be relevant here, and which can be seen at User talk:Carcharoth#RedSpruce and RAN. My view was that such restrictions need to be voluntarily agreed to, not imposed. Not sure whether what Elonka has done here is related or not. Will have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My explanation of RedSpruce's 3-hour block is at his talkpage.[77] This block was reviewed and upheld by PhilKnight (talk · contribs).[78] In a nutshell, this is something that will probably end up at WP:LAME: For months now, RedSpruce (talk · contribs) has been following along behind Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs), blanket deleting quotes out of footnotes, making personal attacks, and quibbling about other details on a variety of articles, most recently G. David Schine, William Remington, Elizabeth Bentley, and now Frank Coe. They have discussed this ad nauseum, but without being able to find a mutually-agreeable compromise. There have been multiple RfCs, multiple ANI threads,[79][80][81][82][83][84] and even an ArbCom case that got kicked back to the community as "content decision, work it out at the talkpage". The problem is, that even when it does get worked out at one talkpage, such as when a clear consensus was confirmed at Talk:G. David Schine,[85] RedSpruce just follows RAN to another article, and starts up again. A few days ago, I tried mediating between these two users at Talk:William Remington, but then the incivility started escalating (especially from RedSpruce)[86][87][88][89] and then when I asked him to tone it down, RedSpruce just blew up and left. Then yesterday, he engaged in a particularly blatant violation of WP:POINT, moving the dispute to yet another article that RAN was working on, and deleting quotes[90] without any attempt at discussion at the talkpage, or even trying to find a compromise (such as shortening the quote). I therefore opted to place a brief 3-hour block on RedSpruce to prevent him from further disruption.[91] He requested an unblock,[92] and it was reviewed by PhilKnight and the block was upheld.[93] Now RedSpruce is continuing to escalate, with this newest ANI thread. My own feeling is that RedSpruce's behavior is heading for a complete community ban. He has been following RAN around in a violation of WP:HARASS, and a glimpse at contribs: RedSpruce (talk · contribs) shows that this is pretty much all he's been doing for some time now, is obsessing about RAN's edits and these footnoted quotes. RedSpruce needs to take a break, and go work on something else. If he disagrees strongly with a quote at some new article, he can bring it up on the talkpage, suggest a compromise, or make minor changes such as condensing a quote or changing it to something better. But this practice of blanket deletion, and this pattern of following RAN around, has to stop. --Elonka 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Elonka

• "RedSpruce (talk · contribs) has been following along behind Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs)," This is not correct, After Annie Lee Moss, RAN started editing a series of articles that I had a long history of involvement with.
• "blanket deleting quotes out of footnote" This is not correct; the deletes are not "blanket" as I gave clear reasons for all of them (albeit abbreviating in some cases due to repetition)
• "falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)" This was not false, there was an RFC in support of this edit, as well as extensive discussions [94] here] and elsewhere.
• " even when it does get worked out at one talkpage, such as when a clear consensus was confirmed at Talk:G. David Schine," There was nothing like a consensus at G. David Schine. I gave up on trying to discuss the problems there because RAN and Alansohn were engaging in utterly absurdist stonewalling (see here). This, combined with a few drive-by comments on both sides of the various issues, has somehow become "consensus" in Elonka's opinion.
• "Then yesterday, he engaged in a particularly blatant violation of WP:POINT, moving the dispute to yet another article that RAN was working on, and deleting quotes[15]". Mea culpa. I shouldn't have done that. However, it was not a case of WP:POINT and this was in an article that I edited and had on my watchlist long before RAN ever edited it.
• "He has been following RAN around in a violation of WP:HARASS," This is completely false. RAN has been "following me around", editing many articles in my general field of expertise, the McCarthy Era. I don't believe be has done this out of malice, however. Given the number of his edits, it's natural that from time to time he will follow "threads" of subject matter like this.

RedSpruce (talk)

Funnily enough, at the earlier ANI thread (just after the arbitration case closed), which RedSpruce started, a lot of editors seemed to support RedSpruce, and Alansohn eventually got blocked. RedSpruce was also claiming that the arbitration case decision vindicated him, and I then told him I saw things differently. It seems a bit of a turnaround. From what I have seen, RedSpruce does make good points on talk pages (some of the edits of RAN and Alansohn are debatable and should sometimes be restrained), but the behaviour laid out by Elonka is troubling. Having said that, I would like to hear what RedSpruce has to say, first. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"RedSpruce was also claiming that the arbitration case decision vindicated him". I never claimed that. Use a diff if you believe otherwise. RedSpruce (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• He is doing it once again, post 3-hour block here. Again it is harassment and testing authority. A quick glance shows that footnote 85 also contains a quote but only my entry has been targeted. He is also reverting to an inaccurate title for the article that is the source of the reference. He is making no attempt to trim the quote, he is just removing it, again. The pattern is to just move to a new article to avoid the consensus at the previous article. How long is this going to go on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce disruption to make a point

• Here is a summary of the same deletion multiple times, despite 3 editors reversing his deletions. Saying he is just removing quotes from references is a red herring. Even if consensus is established the edit warring continues: Here Redspruce removes facts not added to article by himself on May 01, reverted by AlanSohn and again the same deletions here back to his version on May 08. Again during an active Arbcom on this very subject. He does it again on June 02, reverted by AlanSohn and once again on the same day here, again reverted by AlanSohn; again here on June 06 reverted by me; June 15 reverted by BioPhys; and again here on June 19 and it is reverted by me. The only common thread to the deletions, is that the information was added by me. I believe that is why Elonka is calling is disruption and harassment. When consensus is reached at at one article to keep the information, the same disruptive behavior just moves to a new article. We are now at the 5th article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Here RedSpruce explains why he deletes what I add to articles: "I would agree that the use of quotes in footnotes, in any single article, is a minor, even trivial issue. As I noted in my first statement regarding this case, what makes Richard Arthur Norton's behavior non-trivial is that he is repeating this "minor dis-improvement" (as I called it) over literally thousands of articles. I wanted to convince him that this was wrong, and since he has at times been profoundly, insistently resistant to engaging in discussion, the only way to force a discussion was through edit warring [my emphasis added]. If you look at this as a dispute over one or a few articles, I'd agree that this particular instance of edit-warring over a stylistic issue was lame. I looked at it as an effort to stop the dis-improvement of thousands of articles." RedSpruce admits he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• RedSpruce hasn't been particularly civil in getting his point across either:

If you can't explain and justify your edits, then you are admitting that they are meaningless and unjustifiable. Continuing to make edits that you admit are meaningless and unjustifiable is, shall we say, not the most intelligent behavior imaginable.

Continuing to make disputed edits while refusing to engage in a discussion about those edits is a form of disruptive behavior, and will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you.

RedSpruce, these diffs from Elonka and Richard Arthur Norton are pretty damning. It sounds a bit like you should be grateful that the block was only three hours. Am I missing something? Do you have something to support this persistent behavior that has been going on for months now? If not, I'm sensing a longer community ban (topic ban or otherwise) around the corner. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing what you usually miss when you get one side of the story. I have at times been incivil toward RAN, but only after the most grotesque and prolonged provocation. He on the other hand, uses distortions or fantasies to mischaracterize my actions and statements at every possible opportunity. I first called him an "idiot" after our first meeting, after this highly bizarre exchange in which he repeatedly reverted my edits and "responded" to my attempts to discuss the issue with a series of frozen non-sequiturs. I have never repeated an insult of anything like that magnitude toward RAN, but he has repeated the tale of me using that word literally hundreds of times over. RedSpruce (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All three of them (RedSpruce, RAN, and Alansohn) are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's disruptive to spend so much time fighting over footnoted quotes, and that includes both obsessively adding them and following RAN around to remove them. Alansohn specifically was sanctioned by ArbCom because his behavior in a variety of spheres was unacceptable, but RAN and RedSpruce just need to disengage with each other. Ideally, this would be voluntary: RAN moves on to work on some more pressing encyclopedic need besides adding footnoted quotes, and RedSpruce stops monitoring him. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• "All three of them (RedSpruce, RAN, and Alansohn) are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"? User:RedSpruce seems to have taken WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to McCarthyism and has been involved in extensive edit warring, removing sourced content that has been added to a series of articles, most notably G. David Schine, Elizabeth Bentley‎ and William Remington. In all three of these articles, RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed content added by other editors. The pattern is that other editors, including myself have added content and sources, and then RedSpruce has removed it. While it takes at least two to edit war, the cycle here is that of an arsonist who sets new fires after the firefighters have put out the previous one and a new building has been constructed in its place; the arsonist then blames the firefighters for causing the problem. This can be best seen by User:RedSpruce's recent edits during the month of June, during which other editors added content and sources and every single one of RedSpruce's edits removed sourced content: June 1st) this diff of William Remington‎ (rm repetitious & unnecessary footnote quotes); June 2nd) this diff of G. David Schine‎ (rv); this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with the classic edit summary of "rv for the usual reasons..."); June 3rd) this diff of William Remington, removing sourced content without bothering to provide an explanation; this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with an edit summary falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)".); this diff of William Remington‎ (again, based on an unsupported claim of "RV per RFC and general consensus"); June 4) this diff of William Remington‎ (again, an unsupported claim of "RV, per RFC and general consensus"); this diff of G. David Schine‎ (with an edit summary of "RV per general consensus. Editors can look at the history and the discussion if they want to see what the issue is" after deleting content uder discussion at RfC). On June 5, User:RedSpruce swept through all three articles -- Remington, Bentley andf Shine -- again deleting sourced content without explanation or justification, a continuation of the edit war on these articles. After taking a week-long break following the previous ANI, User:RedSpruce returned, sweeping through all three articles again -- Remington, Bentley and Schine -- using the edit summary of "restoring to better version" as a justification to remove weeks of work on improving, expanding and adding sources to these three articles. This time around User:RedSpruce added some more arbitrary deletion of content at Joseph McCarthy, and then some WP:wikistalking at Lizzie Borden, deleting content from an article he had never previously edited that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been actively updating. During the month of June, dozens of edits adding sources and sourced content to these three articles has been removed by User:RedSpruce. In no case has RedSpruce indicated why this content violates Wikipedia policy nor has he added any content or sources to any of these articles. I and other editors have shown a sincere interest in improving these articles; User:RedSpruce has shown a persistent objective of interfering with any effort to change these articles from what he has decided he will accept. MastCell, I have already identified dozens of RedSpruce's edits (and can provide dozens more) that meet your standard of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you insist that I or other editors have disrupted Wikipedia in adding sourced material to these articles, I hope you can provide evidence to support your claim. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Could I promise a simpler community injunction - if RedSpruce removes a quote from any article, he gets blocked for 24 hours. Then 48. Then 72. And so on. That's the problematic behaviour, it's what is causing all the issues. If the quotes shouldn't be on an article, in his view, he can point this out on the article's talk page. I would rather see this than see any kind of block or civility parole - it's black and white, there's no grey areas to quibble over (was that message uncivil, was it not), and if RedSpruce is as smart as I think he is, he'll voluntarily agree to this. Neıl 龱 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's reasonable to address one side. I'd also suggest that, since the onus is generally on the editor adding material and since footnoted quotes are obviously contentious, that RAN seek consensus on the relevant article talk page before adding more footnoted quotes. If he doesn't, or if he keeps edit-warring to re-add them, then he should similarly be subject to blocks. This isn't a one-sided problem - it's a interaction from which they both need to disengage. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is already his third block over the same issue. And he has just deleted another footnote after coming back from his 3-hour block. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Footnoted quotes are contentious here simply because RedSpruce has turned them into a arbitrary controversy. Despite your contention, the edit history shows RAN and other editors adding sourced material and expanding these articles, while RedSpruce makes blanket reverts. This is a rather one-sided problem here. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I would agree with that, and would go as far as also asking RAN to abide by the same restriction as RedSpruce - if he wants a quote adding to a footnote, put it on the talk page and ask others if they would consider adding it. Redspruce asked to stop removing quotes from footnotes, Richard Arthur Norton asked to stop adding quotes to footnotes. Same for Alansohn. Neıl 龱 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That seems to be a perfectly reasonable solution. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no restrictions in WP:Verifiability to using quotes and the consensus at WP:Footnotes has been that they are there to use. RedSpruce is following me around to make a point, I am just trying to add verifiable sources. I am following the rules of verifiability and he is disrupting Wikipedia to make his point, and been blocked three times for doing it. To say we are both wrong is incorrect. Arbcom had a chance to decide that quotes are not to be used in footnotes and made no such decision. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• He is doing it once again, post 3-hour block here. Again it is harassment and testing authority. A quick glance shows that footnote 85 also contains a quote but only my entry has been targeted. He is also reverting to an inaccurate title for the article that is the source of the reference. He is making no attempt to trim the quote, he is just removing it, again. The pattern is to just move to a new article to avoid the consensus at the previous article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Here is a good summary of RedSpruce removing correct information from articles. The only thing in common is that he didn't add the information to the articles. In some cases he keeps restoring the incorrect information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm way off here but I see Richard Arthur Norton's point. What he's doing seems reasonable to me. Unless someone can prove to me that adding detail to footnotes is a problem, I don't see why he should be told to cease and desist. Just because one person disagrees with it. But I can very easily prove that following someone's contributions to undo everything they're doing is a problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted above, this is not a case of "one person" against RAN, ssee here, and I am not "following someone's contributions to undo everything they're doing." I am not following RAN, and I have been happy to see many of the additions he's made to articles on my watchlist. RedSpruce (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it not a WP:COPYVIO to include lengthy verbatim quotes from a (presumably) copyrighted source? This in a world where the Associated Press reportedly demands a payment [95] for quoting more than 4 words[96] in a blog. Edison (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation, the source is attributed, and the quote is usually a single sentence or two, well within the confines of "fair use". In some cases the title of the news article is longer than the quoted material. The same amount of text, or more is allowed in the body of the article using the blockquote feature. Google uses the same, or more, amount of text when it returns search results, and stores much more in the "cached" version. Ultimately the DMCA determines copyright issues, not the threat of a lawsuit. Even if a lawsuit is filed, the court determines the outcome, it isn't determined at the filing. The New York Times dropped the paywall over this very issue, the incoming links from places like Google and Wikipedia were doubling their revenue from the older pay per article approach. To quote the NYT, at the risk of infringement: "These indirect readers, unable to get access to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal direct users, were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue." [97] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a community sanction here, I would suggest this:

• RedSpruce must stop blanket deleting quotes, unless there is talkpage consensus to do so.
• Richard Arthur Norton should not add quotes "just to add them" on an existing unchallenged reference, but other work should be fine. If RAN is actively expanding articles, and adding sources along with (brief) quotes to verify the information that he is adding,[98][99][100][101] then that seems to be perfectly good (and encouraged!) practice per both WP:V, and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnoted quotes. He might want to tone things down when quoting sources that are already easily-available online, but for other harder-to-access sources, quotes are very helpful for verification.

--Elonka 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How about modifying the second bullet to indicate that if a footnoted quote added by RAN is removed, he will not re-add it without a clearly good-faith effort to address the issue and achieve consensus on the talk page? Like a footnote-quote 0RR? MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would that be required and not the opposite? Why can anyone remove a verifiable quote sanctioned by every citation template and the burden is on me to restore it? That is just sanctioning what RedSpruce is already doing. Since no one has a crystal ball there is no way to determine if a link is stable or not. No current New Jersey newspaper, that I am aware of, has a permanent archive, NJ.com clears the articles after a few months, and even the New York Times has changed its urls to articles from the older proquest archive. Google News (as opposed to Google News archive) is not an archive either, links are purged periodically. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I would agree with your change, if it were someone other than RedSpruce who removes the quote. In that case, I would like to see RAN respond, not with a revert, but perhaps by talkpage discussion, or adding a shortened or altered version of the quote in an attempt at a compromise. But as long RedSpruce is the one that is prevented from removing quotes (via the first bullet point), I think that your alteration would be workable. --Elonka 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So the rule will be anyone can remove a footnote without explanation, except RedSpruce? And the burden is on me to justify the restoration, and no burden is placed on the deleter to justify the deletion? It seems that we are sanctioning RedSpruce's behavior so long as it isn't by RedSpruce. Is RedSpruce the problem, or the deletion of quotes without consensus the problem? RedSpruce already justifies it by calling them "clutter", "trivial", and "redundant". Note, I have not objected to trimming quotes, placing them elsewhere in the sentence or in the paragraph, or swapping the quote with a better quote from the cited article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, that makes sense - after all, the idea is to promote disengagement and more productive work from both of them, not to give one of them the upper hand to continue this fight. Richard, WP:V has always placed the onus on the person wanting to include content. If someone removes a quote without explanation, ask for one on the article talk page. If they ignore you and a few days pass, then you've made a good-faith attempt to discuss and you can reinsert it. This isn't complicated - it's actually expected editing behavior. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My reading is the exact opposite: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully [my emphasis added], providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." As the person adding information, the burden is one me to make is as complete and verifiable as possible: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question". Not to make it less verifiable and less "full". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why are we having different burdens of proof for deletion and for restoring? Why isn't the same burden required for either? Elonka, can you give me a recent example where I have used the quote function improperly and it deserved to be removed, and was. Also "quotes" is just a red herring, as Alansohn point out above, RS has been removing sourced facts from articles, not just citation quotes. He was blocked for edit warring and violating 3RR, not for removing quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Mastcell and Elonka are on the right track. I do not see the bad faith by Elonka that RS claims. I think that RS needs to stop his stalking of RAN and that RAN needs to stop adding them without talk page consensus, esp to stable, long established footnotes. The arb case decided this was a content issue. It seems to me that most editors don't want footnoted quotes (probably why we see so few of them). This does not mean we can't have them. I feel they should be used only with good reason and be short and to the point. If RAN adds a new footnote with a short-to-the-point quote and no one objects in a reasonable time, I think that's okay. Long, wordy footnoted quotes are inappropriate in my view. RS and RAN need to disengage from each other, and quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Elonka has acted in bad faith. I think the basic problem is the same as RAN's: she doesn't "get it" that when an article repeats virtually the precise same text two or more times over for no reason, it makes the article look stupid and amateurish. When this is being repeated over literally thousands of articles, some of us perceive this as a serious problem for the quality of Wikipedia. The fact that she doesn't "get" my side of the story naturally has made her more favorable to RAN's "walls of words."RedSpruce (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the block and all suggestions by Elonka were good and justified. Adding new sourced content is not the same as blankly deleting it without consensus. RAN creates a lot of good encyclopedic content, just looking at his edits. Let's help him to continue.Biophys (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:RedSpruce has contributed twice to this thread. RAN has almost written a short novella. Something is wrong here. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RAN has now removed a large section of irrelevant text following a request by Elonka on his talk page [102]. She wrote "the more that you post at ANI about it, the more likely that you will be subject to sanctions yourself". As MastCell has said, it seems only fair to discuss voluntary restrictions with both parties. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing quotes from footnotes almost inevitably harms Wikipedia, and there is rarely a good reason to do so. I've already explained this to RedSpruce more than once, and if he hadn't agreed to stop removing footnote quotes, I would have started blocking him myself. The problem is now solved. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion?

It seems to me that the conclusion that's emerging here is something like this:

1. If RAN or (Alansohn, who has a history of stepping in to edit for RAN) adds a footnote quote to an article, I will not remove it. I am allowed to open a discussion on the issue on the Talk page, however, and if there is a consensus to remove it, it will be removed.
2. If another editor removes a footnote quote added by RAN, RAN will not replace it without establishing a consensus on the Talk page to do so.
3. Trimming of footnote quotes may of course also be discussed and be a part of consensus.

I'm happy to abide by these guidelines, and I realize I need to back off from this issue.

RedSpruce (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, RedSpruce, that's an admirable attitude. I hope RAN also agrees, but even if he doesn't, your agreeing to this is a big step forward. Neıl 龱 13:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me, though I'd go a step further and say that RAN should not add quotes to existing unchallenged references, nor should he add extensive quotes that are from easily available online sources, for information that is unlikely to ever be challenged. But that's a quibble. If this does turn out to be consensus, I recommend that we post something formal at the editors' talkpages that is easy for other uninvolved administrators to see and/or diff. That, plus previous warnings[103] and ANI decisions[104] should help to stabilize things here. --Elonka 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You guys both have a lot of substance to contribute to this encyclopedia; treat this like the minor distraction it is. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of (1) User sticks foot deeply in mouth (or perhaps the metaphor works better, it's in someone else's mouth...) (2) User realizes a mistake was made, listens to community response, and promises not to do it again (3) It all blows over. Contrast this with situations where (1) User's foot ends up in mouth, (2) User defends, vigorously, right to put foot in mouth and attacks anyone pointing out that it is there (3).... what usually happens next? Okay, let's make it a little more complicated, sometimes it goes this way: (3) Users who support the first user jump in and defend right of user to put foot in mouth, the mouth deserved it. (4) Supporters of offended user rage at the other side. Sane voices, if any, are drowned out. (5) Pages of wikidrama ensue. (6) AN/I becomes less usable because it becomes a tendentious RfC, which it should not be, beyond determining immediate response (or there should be a separate emergency noticeboard), (7) .... 7 is usually the same result as 3, except it wastes a lot more time, and more editors get bruised. --Abd (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

oddness at the village pump

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this, it's odd. As far as I can work out - a sock of banned user is trying to use the pump to debate his religious beliefs or something... --Allemandtando (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting increasingly odd - the user in question, operates this site. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nukeh: Doug youvan (talk · contribs) is a self-admitted sock of Nukeh (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked (after a tumultuous history here) for making legal threats. Since the legal threats and disruptiveness are obviously not a thing of the past, I've blocked Doug youvan (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a block-evading and independently disruptive sock. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

I speedy-deleted Kathleen Moore as a courtesy G7 after it was nominated for AfD and the author/subject became a little upset and demanded its removal, threatening legal action if it reappears. I initially blocked the account and the IP that actually issued the threat, but unblocked, since it's not really a present threat. Just a note in case anybody sees anything else from this editor. Acroterion _(talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind [105]. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

She seems to be a little upset. I'm going to take a few minutes and try to engage; maybe something positive can be salvaged. If she confirms the legal threat, though, I concur that a block is in order. No one can be that incivil, and WP:BITE is the only thing holding up a block. Let me see what I can do, here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually re-blocked after that last post, and courtesy-blanked the AfD discussion. I think some kindness is in order, though. Acroterion _(talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are a lot more patient that I am. And I've had deal with this crap for a living! Good luck... — Satori Son 20:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise she's already been blocked. I removed the rant from her talk page as is contained numerous personal attacks. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, and the block; I've notified the user of the block, and reiterated the need for her to calm down and talk to us. Worth one more shot, I think, but some of her comments were quite over-the-top. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance: keep in mind also that the original registered account is blocked too. Acroterion _(talk) 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I support that block of the parent account.[106] Simply unacceptable behavior. — Satori Son 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I had to scrub the abusive stuff from the IP's talk page again. It may need protected if she keeps it up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ans she's done it again so I protected the IP talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after that last gem, I can't disagree. Should the block on the IP be extended? I still think it was worth trying to engage her, and it burned an hour on a slow afternoon - but I haven't seen that much rage since 2004. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I found it funny and it was me it was aimed at. I'd elaborate, but it's a little crude. Work it out for yourselves. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Always worth trying to engage. For most people your approach would work. But I note from her contributions list that she is only here to self promote and was pretty pissed when her original rant backfired and we speedied the article at her request. Anyway I don't think it's worth extending the IP ban at the monent. If she comes back after the ban and repeats her behavior then that's a different matter but for now we should IMO consider the matter closed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide if "A gang of ignoramuses and ILLITERATES" [107] is funnier than "A crazy den of pigs" [108] and its attendant candidate for replacement of the standard warning box. [109] The former might be a little more literate (ironically) while the latter is a little more creative. Maybe we need an Inflammatory Barnstar, or a competition for the Top Ten funniest insults of the year. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Then may I submit this, aimed at me? Another Canadian, they seem to have just the right touch for invective. Corvus cornix_talk 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should start such a competition? Village Pump discusion time? Or is it too in breach of WP:DENY or like a BJAODN re-run? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(groan) Dispute getting nasty...

Could someone take a look at this, please? It took a turn for the worse when Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gave me a personal attack warning for this, despite a clear desire of mine that he not interact with me in my userspace.

He then referred to me (a 19-month contributor) as a newbie. Please tell us both (me and him) to shut up, officially, on the page. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And another dispute (I'm not involved in this one) in which Arcayne suggested that another user "got a hard-on" from arguing. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You already know the solution is for you two to leave each other alone, but you want to be told this? Err.. ok, leave each other alone. Friday (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Which he has been asked to do. Repeatedly. On other AN/I complaints where he was told the same thing. Maybe, at long last, TT can now heed that advice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

TT, that whole dispute started getting nasty because you thought this would be a good idea. If you want Arcayne to not interact with you, I suggest you reciprocate. Neıl 龱 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea because how else do you suggest I find the answer to those questions? They are quite reasonable, as it is. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 06:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible to choose to not interact with Arcayne. His purpose here is to control and "win" for it's own sake, using whatever it takes. Arcayne is a loose cannon that should have his own permanent section in AN/I - He is perennially locked in some bullying dispute with any one of dozens of editors or administrators. He's also an aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander. Someday perhaps people will begin to string together these many, many incidents and ask, "Can everybody be wrong?" No, they can't. Arcayne is a bully whose purpose here is to game the system for his own personal gratification at the expense of nearly every Wiki tenet of civility, intellectual honesty, manners and decorum. 75.57.201.254 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll the anon, why don't you create a subheading here and explain what's your issue with Arcayne, including specifics. Vague insults about his personality aren't going to solve anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An "aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander"? Omg, is the anon actually talking about me? I think no one who has ever encountered me would pair those two descriptions with my personality, like, ever. Btw, the anon appears to have been a user we blocked back in April for gaming the system to bypass admin oversight. Does anyone need those prior AN/I's? Coz, I am going to be asking for the anon range to be blocked to keep out the attack pages as soon as I have the results of the RfCU, located here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As you know, non-specific personal attacks from IP addresses always have a high degree of credibility. Though not in this universe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, just ignore the insults. That was my point precisely. Believe me, I see from the summary on my talk page here what to take when someone calls them "Unsupported claims of authority about a subject which are fraudulently offered" without any specifics. I see from such edit summaries like "If you are an OXFORD POLI Grad as you claim you should know better", I think it's time we have to consider range blocks to stop this nonsense. I'll add a note on the last user talk page so let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really take the insults that seriously. Really, I was amused at the choice of mischaracterization, as they have never really been applied to me. The user has tried this same sort of stuff at least three times before. I just don't want him cluttering up my page with his rants, and trying to poison wells elsewhere. Still waiting on RfCU to confirm the related status so I can properly request the range block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize - here are the specifics: "With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English...penultimate being the climax of the story."[110]. Arcayne has made other claims to superior authority in the past, he has also argued forcefully over weeks with numerous editors that the EU is an NGO: "Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak, ... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)" I hope the specifics help.75.57.205.135 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we just block this IP range and dispense with the user? This is his fourth or fifth IP in two days, He is likely specifically restarting his modem to shift IPS. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Threats on user page

Resolved

 – Removed and warned. --slakr^\ talk / 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of edits by User:Saul Douglas Whitby... and then saw his user page. I don't want to antagonize him further by warning him. Does someone else want to tell him to remove it? This knight is chickening out! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably suggest a block for incivility. A userpage like that is just asking for trouble. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They seem like harmless, tongue in cheek comments to me. But then again, what do I know? I had an ANI for myself a few days ago... lol, good times. What raises an eyebrow is his knowledge of Wikipedia, despite being a registered user for only a few days. Maybe an IP check-thinger-majig is in order? Yes? --Endless Dan 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. It's clearly tongue in cheek. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly a possibility. Some sniffing as to the puppeteer would have to be done, though. I would think that he doesn't actually know very much about Wikipedia, but then, perhaps he does. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No I reckon he's a newbie with a sense of humor. Nothing to see here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no. The threats are definitely empty, but it's the fact he claims to know everything that bothers me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

uno and dos. The rest is up to him. --slakr^\ talk / 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't acknowledge his intellectual superiority in your message ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Laying aside this snarky response to Roguegeek's message, they responded positively to slakr's message. We can probably move on at this point. (In the future, we should also let the editor know we are discussing them here.) — Satori Son 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone is adding weird stuff to my talkpage......(can't word it properly)

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding, poster admonished to be careful with figures of speech, no admin action required. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Allemandtando, in response to an AfD that I responded to, has posted Two disturbing messages to my talkpage. While I was gonna shurg off the first response as shenanigans, his second response is completely out of the ballpark. I would like to respond with a "WTF?!" to his delusional thoughts, but his talkpage is abit....."oppressive." Plus I have no idea what that second message means. Can another Admin figure out what the hell is going on?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[111] - it was mentioned above - it's pretty much daily. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I demand you apologize for accusing me on my talk page for this, because I did not write that. Your obviously being trolled by other users that are finding fun in antagonizing you and maybe were monitoring your contributions page and found that juicy bit of info to egg you with. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just too late at night, but none of this makes any sense. Maybe someone could state in plain English what the issue is here. As far as the "are you still beating your wife?" maybe the IP address doesn't understand that that's an old joke, a "loaded" yes-or-no question. But its usage here is unclear. Maybe lay out the chronology so my feeble brain can understand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The really really short version - an AFD of mine is being attacked on the grounds that it's invalid for me to tackle the warhammer 40k area or delete any articles for AFD until I've cleaned up every other pop-culture we have here (this is part of a wider monitoring of my actions by the 4chan traditional gaming forum). Which is why I pointing out to 293.xx.xxx.xx (which is an account not an IP) that I'm it's not really on to ask an editor what amounts to an "do you still beat your wife?" question. That's the start and end of it. Thankfully all of the absolute ballache that the warhammer articles have caused me with IP editors seems to be worth it because now a group of other editors have become involved and hopefully clean-up can carry on without my presence. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Due to your comment - "that I'm it's not really on" - what does that mean? - I still don't get the point of the "beat your wife" part. However, their apparent argument - that other pop-culture exists elsewhere so you shouldn't touch theirs - has no validity. You can't possibly change every article at once; you have to start somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking "why don't you clean up area X first" is an example of a loaded question (the most common example of which is "do you still beat your wife") - which is the question that the IPs and 293.xx.xxx.xx were asking. Whatever my response, I can be accused of having a vendetta against that particular fictional area because the asker can then move onto "ah-ha, you MUST have a problem with fictional area X or you'd have started with fictional area Y". That's why it's a load question because it's pretty much unanswerable. that I'm it's not really on typo on my part should be "it's not really on to"... where I'm asking the editor to refrain from asking loaded questions. I hope that's cleared that up for you. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My side: Allemandtando makes AfD, I find it, question his motives. He then adds the "Wife Beater" comment to my talk page. I just ignore it. Abit later, he then adds that mysterious "it was a loaded question" spiel, so now i'm freaking out if Allemandtando is trying to provoke me into something, or he's abit unstable. When he puts on the 4chan link here, I figure out that Allemandtando is accusing me of egging him and being one of the trolls that is egging him. Which i'm denying that I put up said message and I am unanimous in it. Or something like that. Still, i'm very disturbed that Allemandtando used "wife beater" as an example when other examples would've sufficed. And I demand an apology from him for using such a tasteless example from the start. A simple "Can we agree to Disagree?" would've sufficed.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As Allemandtando clearly and correctly states above, the "Are you still beating your wife?" question is simply the most notorious example of a loaded question. While it might seem offensive to someone who is unfamiliar with its history, its use is not at all unusual to illustrate a "fallacy of many questions". (I'm not saying your argument was such a fallacy, but that is what Allemandtando was trying to communicate.) Please don't take it literally, or personally. — Satori Son 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While strongly echoing Satori Son's comments, I would also like to add a quick piece of advice for Allemandtando: Probably don't use that expression, because even though your meaning was completely valid and all of us can see that it clearly was not a personal attack of any sort, you might want to avoid the expression so that it won't be misinterpreted out of ignorance. For the same reasons, one should generally avoid using the word "niggardly"... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand because I didn't see the "why don't you clean up X first" as being a "loaded" question, but more of a "go pick on someone else" question. All's swell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dakinijones

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding involving cat vs sub-cat. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not used to using ANI so I hope I am doing this right. I am asking for an Admin to look at User:Dakinijones's contribs and if necessary take preliminary injunctive action (topic ban/block) until this can be sorted out. I have asked the user to explain some of his actions and also notified the user of this ANI request at the same time[112]. I am seeing an odd pattern of edits that makes no sense to me. What caught my eye was a series of undiscussed edits making removals of category "Spirituality" from a number of articles that clearly involve spiritual matters. I do AGF but it would be helpful to know why this particular change to these particular articles. Another thing that caught my attention is that the editor is using an account that was created more than a year ago, made two edits and then went quiet, and now suddenly became very active less than a month ago and has made well over 500 edits in that short time. Low Sea (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if my actions have troubled Low Sea. I didn't remove any articles from spirituality - which is tagged as a category that tends to over-populate - since they are all in subcategories of spirituality. Mostly immediate sub-categories. I noted from her user page that she had a particular concern with the New Thought movement (which is a couple of categories down the tree) and so have suggested that if that's her main concern she either move the sub-category for New Thought up the category tree so that it's immediately under spirituality or just put the lead article for New Thought in spirituality. Since spirituality category tends to get over-populated I didn't believe it was appropriate to have - for example - articles about particular New Thought churches in Spirituality. My actions were only intended to somewhat depopulate an over-populated high domain category. Dakinijones (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw my ANI request now that a clear explanation of the issue has been provided. The user was "restructuring" category tags, not "removing" them as was incorrectly described in the editsummaries. I have also left some suggestions for Dakinijones on his/her talk page to help them try and prevent such misunderstandings in the future. Thank you to the Admins who kept an eye on this until matters were more clear. Low Sea (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

From AIV: 79.77.22.109

• 79.77.22.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) anon removing Persondata and navigation templates from articles, e.g. this diff, interspersed with some valid edits; vandalism continued after final warning. Struway2 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving this report here for more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The anon editor spent much of yesterday rearranging articles about England football managers. I noticed their edits when Alf Ramsey, on my watchlist, appeared with the supercollapse template deleted [113]; these templates were introduced following discussion and consensus here to try and keep footballer articles tidier. The template was put back by User:Daemonic Kangaroo, who spent much time and effort clearing up after the anon. Removal repeated [114], again restored, and since removed again by User:Squares18 [115], who seems to edit the same range of articles in a similar way, and again restored. Similar sequences occurred here, here where WP:Persondata was also removed, here, etc, etc. I warned the anon three times using templated warnings, then reported to AIV when they removed valid information here. They have since removed unused parameters from an infobox here and removed wikilinks here, changes since reverted by experienced editors.

I realise this isn't as clearly recognisable as vandalism as when 12-year-olds write rude words to amuse their mates, but IMO it's more disruptive because it takes more work to sort out. The former can be dealt with by bots, or one-click reverted; but when an editor makes some constructive edits and many valid if not particularly useful ones (like rearranging categories or changing the order and formatting of players' honours), and mixes disruptive edits in with them, it isn't as straightforward to clear up. thanks for listening, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed various bits of vandalism to Bryan Robson and Peter Reid in particular, changing dates, removing correct pieces of information. Some of his edits are constructive, although not well referenced, so it's difficult to revert the bad bits, while keeping the good bits. Peanut4 (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit offensive edit summary?

Resolved

 – deleted, as requested SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin. edit/erase this edit's offensive edit summary? --EEMIV (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, admins can't alter edit summaries. There is a proposal, however, on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Being able to edit your edit summaries to give editors the ability to edit their own edit summaries. - auburnpilot talk 01:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably request oversight for it. If you want, I can file the request for you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need it oversighted. Oversight is mainly for privacy issues. Revision deleted, edit summary gone. Neıl 龱 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. --EEMIV (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dreadstar

Resolved

 – Procedure misunderstanding. No issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly diff diff diff diff changed my talk page comments. User describes my comment as 'uncivil'. I have asked to user to refrain from editing my comments and to follow WP:TALK, to no avail. I suggested that instead of altering my comments, he pursue dispute resolution, rather than unilaterally deciding what I am allowed to say. Again to no avail. I have also politely asked diff diff that he refrain from posting on my talk page and instead discuss the article at the article talk page - again to no avail. Thank you for looking into this matter. Dlabtot (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Dreadstar's response. The section headings as originally posted, "Another whitewash" is the opposite of assuming good faith - "whitewashing" is a form of covering up the truth, ie, lying; and, saying it's "another" instance of that is doubly uncivil, because it implies that the cover-up is ongoing. It's possible there is a cover up, but it's not necessary to make that accusation to discuss the inaccuracies you perceive in the edits. Considering the incivility of the section heading, a neutral refactoring seems appropriate. The text of your comment was not changed and still makes your point.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my point is that the article is a whitewash. Since my comment no longer says that, I don't see how the meaning of it can not have changed. And to whom is it that I am supposedly being uncivil by describing what I see as the shortcomings of the article? I must respectfully disagree with your slant on this. Dlabtot (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)BTW, when I said 'another', I meant 'another of the many, many' articles on Wikipedia that whitewash their subjects. Do you really believe my criticism of Wikipedia and what I believe to be its dysfunctional enforcement of its own policies is inherently uncivil? 'Speaking ill of Wikipedia' == 'incivility'? Really? Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you did not intend to convey that editors whitewashed the article? That's what's written in your text: "he said what he said, yet some editors want to suppress this information." Your statement is clear, with or without the section heading. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did mean to say exactly what I said, exactly in the manner I said it. Which is why I object to someone else changing my words. The question is whether my expression of my opinion that this article constitutes a whitewash is inherently uncivil. I happened upon this article, and looked at the talk page, and saw there was some controversy, but I couldn't really tell what it was about. So I typed the person's name into Google and very quickly found that one of the most significant things in this person's biography - directly related to his notability - was missing from the article. That's what the supposed 'controversy' was about. And is this 'unsourced or poorly sourced'? Not at all - we are talking about footage from an Academy Award winning film. I don't know anything about the edit history of this article. I don't know who is on what 'side' of this particular pointless and rather insignificant battle. But I do think it is indicative of some of the problems with 'the encyclopedia anyone can censor edit'. Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling an article a "whitewash" - particularly in a heading - is inflammatory and does not encourage collaborative editing. It does not much matter how one phrases it, it insults the editors who have participated presumably in good faith. The comments that followed the heading make it clear that the editor is doing so - accusing people of wanting to "suppress" material, and saying this is why Wikipedia sucks. Moreover, it was a heading that was changed, not the comments. People often do add, remove, and refactor talk page headings to better organize the pages and more accurately and neutrally describe the conversation. For what it's worth, it appears that both editors in question violated WP:3RR in edit warring over a talk page heading, not a good thing. Also that there was more than one editor objecting to and reverting the heading to a more neutral form. Wikidemo (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Given your opinion that the word whitewash is inflammatory, what would be a non-inflammatory way to express the opinion that an article is a whitewash? Dlabtot (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to make something clear. I'm not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith -- no doubt the editors who battled each other to produce the article all thought they were making their best efforts to make a good encyclopedia. It's the product of those efforts that I am criticizing. I would agree that 'suppress' was a poor choice of words on my part, and if I had been asked to refactor that part of my remarks, I don't think we would be having this conversation. Instead, my main point was redacted. However, I consider the incident closed. I've made my points, for what it's worth, but consensus appears to be against me. Dlabtot (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the thoughtful response. One can choose a neutral heading, e.g. "deletion of interview material", and argue that the material is well sourced, relevant, and well sourced, and that people should not remove it. I wouldn't agree with that, but you're certainly welcome to your opinion. Voicing a generalized sentiment that an article is a whitewash is probably not going to do any good for anyone. Talk pages are for helping edit and improve the article, not for griping about other editors and the state of Wikipedia. The more specific you can make the suggestion, the more likely it is people can make something of it. (please note this is just my opinion and I'm not an admin)Wikidemo (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're both partly right and partly wrong. An editor has the right to neutralize an "inflammatory" section heading on an article talk page (though "whitewash" is pretty tame when it comes to "inflammatory" terms). However, an editor has no business messing with text that you've entered. That needs to stay, as "evidence" if nothing else. If it were a personal attack or a threat of some kind, that could be a topic of debate here. But asking editors not to delete stuff is, again, a pretty tame statement. Meanwhile, since the original complainer makes oblique comments rather than coming out and saying it, I'd like to know what the alleged "controversy" is and what is alleged to be "whitewashed". How about stating it here so we have some clue of what this is about without having to read the article's history? Oh, and leave out the editorial comments about how wikipedia sucks. Just the facts, please. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really the one to speak of it; as I said, I just happened upon the article and got to wondering what exactly they were arguing about. I don't know anything about the history of the article or what was or was not included in it in past versions. Here's one of the sources in question, though: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51347-2004Oct21 Dlabtot (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong issue. It's not whether the header is incivil or not. No one owns the headers. Dlabtot, be reasonable. Section headers aren't exactly comments. They're headers that are used by many editors in discussing content, collectively under the single header. Your comments are your own. The header of the thread is something shared. Regardless of whether or not your own comments are civil or not, you can't really expect to own a thread shared by multiple editors and claim the header as your own, especially if you want others to participate in the discussion occuring under that header. If you want people to respond, the header becomes communal property. What you're saying here is that he changed your comments. All he did was change a header that he himself would be using as well. As such, it's just as much his as it is yours, regardless of who wrote it to begin with. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, my main comment was what I placed in the header. My mistake. In the future, I won't put anything in a header that is essential to making my point, now that I know that anyone else is free to change it. Something neutral and uninformative like 'My Comment' I guess, would be appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. However, the other editor did remove an actual comment posted by the complaining editor [116] which he should not have done. He could have pointed out that the complaint was without merit (as you just did), but he should not have deleted the complaint itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "removal of an actual comment" you point out was totally inadvertent on my part, and I put it back immediately upon realizing what had happened. My only intention was to change the section title to something less inflammatory. And I did explain my complaint, in what I thought was a very clear and civil manner. I still think the section heading should be changed to something a tad bit more neutral. Dreadstar † 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good. All that remains is for someone to explain just what it is that is allegedly being "whitewashed", as I don't feel like reading the whole history megillah to find out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I had missed the Post post [117] from 10 minutes earlier. So what's being "whitewashed" is Coker's derogatory comment about the nation of Vietnam? Well, if I had been in the Hanoi Hilton for several years, maybe I wouldn't have had much good to say about that country either. I suspect you'd find similar reactions to our boys and girls who have served us so loyally in the current hellhole known as Iraq. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep your politics to yourself, please, Bugs. Neıl 龱 09:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't make any assumptions about what my politics are. I know people serving in Iraq, and they hate it there, serving in an ill-conceived war that has "Vietnam II" written all over it. But they are loyal Americans doing their duty, willing to take a bullet for us every day. The claim was made that something was being "whitewashed". If so, that needs to be spoken to directly, instead of hinting around about it... on the article's talk page, not here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Burma and respecting consensus

I am writing with regards to the naming dispute that has taken place on the article Burma. A brief history for anyone who is not in the know, there are folks who would rather call the country Myanmar, whereas the majority call it Burma, and this of course resulted in a dispute on wikipedia. The first attempt at consensus took place on the talkpage at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. It then progressed to a debate at Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Burma where, after much discussion, it was determined, by Beaurocrats, the consensus is for the article to remain at Burma. Now user:Deamon138 has filed this Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma. Basically what I want to know is how much more fucking debating has to happen when the Beaurocrats have already made a sound judgement of editors' consensus and should user:Deamon138 just let it go and abide by the consensus? --The High Commander (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. IMO Burma is a deathtrap for editing, so I'd rather not get involved. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also too long, which is not a good sign. It's due for a Burma-Shave. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Consensus can change, and considering that Wikipedia is a "slow cook project", I don't particularly see anything wrong with trying to change it within the system. And of course, it's up to the mediators to accept or reject this.

More importantly, do you need any immediate administrator action? If not, then perhaps your concerns would best be brought up in a forum more closely related to the actual issue. --jonny-mt 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea it'd be great if an admin could shutdown this new debate which deamon138 has started less than a week after consensus was reached in the Cabal, of which he was a fucking participant! --The High Commander (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He was? Maybe he could help out with the User: Exanimous discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PleaseDoNotQuestionMyEdits / Editquestioner

There's something silly going on here. PleaseDoNotQuestionMyEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a username already reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is being reverted by Editquestioner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know what to make of this at all; some of the reverts seem to removed cited information, but not knowing the topics in detail I can't work out if it's a legit rollback or not. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody is having fun with us :) -- Ned Scott 08:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:PleaseDoNotQuestionMyEdits. -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll add that to my signature. That will ensure they won't question my edits. They might revert them, but they won't question them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc? Please don't question my edits!} 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I opened an SSP, so if someone wants to deal with that... but I figure I'm questioning the accounts, no the edits, so I might just be OK... :/. Alex Muller 10:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Both users blocked indef, obvious disruption. Nakon 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked ConsiderablyOverTired (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), sockpuppet. Nakon 16:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Exanimous

Exanimous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has threatened to edit war on (Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality)) Pearl necklace (sexuality) by censoring an image with out an new consensus. Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Have they filed an official declaration of edit war (document 32a)? -- Ned Scott 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is to say.. I wouldn't worry about it unless he actually does edit war. Sometimes people get worked up on the talk page. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well he censored it once, and has been reverted, Bidgee's revert is 100% per policy and if Exanimous continues to try and censor the article, I will warn them to stop edit warring against policy. MBisanz ^talk 08:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A threat to edit-war is the first step to a quick exit. Maybe that editor ought to focus on trying to come up with a better illustration? That should keep him busy for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Exanimous has again removed the image (but still linked) from the article [118] Bidgee (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have final warned the user here for continuing to censor the image with a Media:. Please note I am not endorsing the inclusion of the image in the article, merely enforcing the policy against censorship and the related policy against "spoiler" type messages. Also, responding to Neil's concern below, the image is a free image contributed by an editor, so there is no concern with its copyright status. MBisanz ^talk 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While Exanimous should be warned off edit warring, I have sympathy for his/her point, if not his/her behaviour. While I don't profess to know the answers to the questions I'm about to ask, I'll posit them anyway. What is the role of consensus here? Is the image necessary? Does it add anything? Does it help us to understand the subject? Similarly, let's broaden this to include another example of a gratuitous and distasteful image here [119]. I remember a similar discussion a while ago about the first image at Human feces being a photo of the subject matter [120]. That image has gone now. So what was the difference between that case and this one? I'm not in favour of censorship, but I am in favour of people reading our articles, and if the first thing you see when you open a page is an image that turns most people's stomachs and likely sends them scurrying away from the article, how does that promote the encyclopedia? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why it has to be discussed and consensus reached. Gratuitous and distasteful are in the eye of the beholder. I might find a picture of a warthog distasteful, but it's still there. Personally, I do think those photos are gratuitous, but not particularly offensive. I've seen a lot worse. This is the internet, not a garden party. Nor is wikipedia a crazy den of warthogs. Discussion is needed, not one user's unilateral censorship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That picture is poor, and unnecessary. Removing it isn't censorship, it's making an improvement to the article. We don't need badly clipped images from porn sites. The article itself is a dictionary definition. It should really be merged into one article along with Facial (sex act), Cum shot, and Bukkake, and treated in an encyclopedic manner, not "omg lol we can have boobs with jizz on them and if you remove them its censorship". Neıl 龱 10:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not wiktionary. Some readers might not understand the concept. Your idea of merging them all into a single article is good. Multiple articles about essentially the same topic seems excessive. Meanwhile, the complaining editor needs to get busy on producing a better photo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a high quality image and then release it to the PD - that would be great. thanks. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's David Shankbone now that we need him??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I agree with merging however I feel it would be best to get an consensus as even if the link to the image is there same may see removing the image from the article as censorship. That way we have something to fall on if an all out war starts over the issue. My opinion is that the image shouldn't be there for many reasons but I don't let my POV get in the way of editing here and I don't remove content or images without an consensus. Bidgee (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To add to my above remarks and reply to later comments, preferring not to use an image to illustrate certain human practices in no way equates to censorship. Note that the article on rape, as a good example, does not seek to help readers who might not understand the concept by providing a graphic image of it. I'm entirely in agreement with Neil. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To equate this harmless item with rape is far more offensive than the picture in question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I'll have to ask you to strike that comment out, I'm afraid. I was in absolutely no way "equating this harmless item with rape". Strike your remark out now please. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, calm down - please? Bugs, I don't think Alistair was comparing this article with rape - he was, I believe, making the point that we don't necessarily need an image on every article. Neıl 龱 11:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Rape and Pearl necklace are two seperate issues. One Rape is Illegal and a graphic of anytype showing/illustrate wouldn't belong in the Rape or any Wiki article (Infact I think if anyone uploaded a photo of a rape would be charged by there own law inforcement in there own Country/State/Terriory) however Pearl necklace is legal (Unsure if it's banned any where in the World) there for showing/illustrating and image of the act isn't Illegal. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You make the point well. I think the comparison of this with any other bodily fluid (as someone else suggested above) is fair. To lump it into the same sentence with an illegal act is unfair. No, I do not strike my comment, because I called it as I saw it, whether you intended it that way or not. Your explanation stands here also. Let the reader judge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I'll ask you for a second time, politely but firmly, to strike that comment. If it needs explanation (I don't think it does, but you never know), I was talking about whether the respective Wiki articles illustrate the practices, not equating the subjects. Now, strike out your remark. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I called it as I saw it. I accept your explanation of what you thought you meant. I also stand by the way it read to me. And I wasn't the only one who saw it that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous accusation by Baseball bugs

Since you choose to up the ante, I'm going to insist on this. Your comment that "To equate this harmless item with rape is far more offensive than the picture in question" is a disgraceful slur on my character, and, to make matters worse, referring to "your explanation of what you thought you meant" seeks to portray me as somehow confused. I am not. I would never in my life seek to compare these two things. I was very obviously talking about whether Wikipedia articles choose to illustrate these two things. Now, I have asked you twice, and I will do so for a third time, strike that comment, as I will not stand for having such an outrageous accusation stand uncorrected on this page. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting on your choice of words, not your character. I could likewise insist that you strike your comment that, to my eyes, equates rape with a harmless sexual act. Or, we could both take the admin's advice, and chill, bro. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have images of people being murdered either yet the article on Tomatoes quite happily shows images of the fruit. There is no need to equate this to any other article and the picture in question should simply be judged on its own merits. And I understand how one may take your comment to mean you are equating the two, that is how it sounded. But I really don't care, after all this is just the internet so relax. --The High Commander (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had images of tomatoes being murdered, that would be different. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen, move along. Bugs was commenting on the comparison between rape and a pearl necklace, as one activity is illegal and the other is legal. Having photographs of someone being raped is entirely unacceptable, whereas having photographs of a pearl necklace is not due to the nature of the activities. seicer | talk | contribs 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This started out as a friendly discussion and it turned ugly. Ya see what sex can lead to??? >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's always a bad day for me. seicer | talk | contribs 13:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To all of you, there is a yawning chasm between what I actually wrote and the scandalous way BB interpreted it, without I might add him even attempting the slightest good faith. Where is that supposedly sacred policy when you need it, eh? Well, since that idea is clearly out of the window, I can assume that either you have not bothered to read my remarks or you are too stupid to understand them. Whichever is the case, it's your problem, not mine. The last few hours have moved me diametrically across the spectrum from being an enthusiastic Wikipedian, with more than 20 new articles created, to a disillusioned, pissed one. Well done. So much for all the fine words about this being a community, collaborative project, assume good faith bla bla bla. And since I do not foresee myself wishing to edit anything in the near future, you may block me for these remarks with my consent. I really do not give a fuck. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Never give up. Never give in. Do you have any idea how many times I got fed up enough to quit this site? (I actually did, once.) I stick with it because I like to write about facts, and this website serves as a good outlet. Focus on the good stuff. If an editor annoys you, leave it be, if possible. Or make fun of it. That's much better for the constitution. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alasdair, I asked you to calm down, as did Seicer. It was a minor misunderstanding, and you've worked yourself up over it. Nobody's going to block you, just take a break, get a bit of perspective; it's really not that big a deal. Bugs, the only reply I want from you is none at all - go and do something else, too. Neıl 龱 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the disruptive things that some disruptive editors do is to provoke other editors into becoming angry, and then derive satisfaction as the angry editor immolates himself. There is no easy way to discriminate this from simply being straightforward with no disruptive intent, beyond seeing a pattern over many incidents. I will point out one thing, here: AlasdairGreen27 overreacted, yes, but ... that part of this incident report could have been resolved easily by Baseball Bugs making a small apology, the kind that people routinely make when they offend someone without intending to. It wasn't resolved that way, and it is not impossible that we lost an editor over this. (To be fair, Bugs made a minimal recognition that Alasdair meant his comment differently, but then went on to justify his own remark as "the way he saw it." Let me translate that into how it works: "I did nothing wrong, and that you are offended is your problem. I would do it again.") This kind of response is almost guaranteed to enrage an ordinary person in an ordinary context. Here on AN/I, we tend to be used to this, Bug's remark was mild compared to much we see. With this comment, I'm simply noting what happened. Bugs debates with editor, editor sputters as if a fuse is burning. Bugs continues to interact with editor, editor explodes. Then, Bugs rubs salt in the wound by giving editor advice about having fun. Isn't that what they sometimes say to women about what to do if raped?--Abd (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please dont compare something liek this to being raped. Baiting editors in wikipedia s something that happens too often in my view,s i agree with you on that but to compare what Bugs did to rape is proposterose. Smith Jones (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Very proposterose. Abd, suggest you strike or remove that last sentence (let's see what happens). Neıl 龱 08:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kossack4Truth

Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, fresh from his battles on the Obama page, is editing Heather Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He questions whether mention of her involvement with the U.S. Attorney firing controversy should be in the lede. I have no problem discussing this and in fact the page editors have done so at Talk:Heather Wilson#WP:BLP violation.

June 30: T4K deleted the mention with no edit summary. [121] I reverted. No problem.[122]

July 2: T4K deleted again.[123] Posted concerns at talk page, protesting that no one should accuse him of not being a good Democrat. Seemed a bit strong since no one was doing so, but no problem.[124] Another editor reverted.[125] Discussions ensused without his partipation on July 2nd which were nearing consensus. T4K later posted that because the article, as he determined, had a history of bias (all of which had been repaired), he felt that was sufficient cause to delete. He didn't address the issues raised by other editors.[126]

July 3: Before any editors could respond, he deleted the mention again.[127] I reverted asking again to please participate before deleting.[128] He reverted again, complaining that "I notice there was no response to my Talk page post last night." In his most recent reversion, he threatened in the edit summary, "Removing obvious WP:BLP violation. Revert again, and this will go to the BLP noticeboard and I will seek to have you blocked."[129] However, the controversy is in the body of the article and well sourced. T4K was protesting the mention in the lede.

If this editor was a newbie, I would be happy to (as I always do) patiently walk through the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. However, this isn't a new editor but one with a history of contentious editing practices. I refuse to participate in edit warring with this editor and I don't see from either his past history or his current curious way of participating on the talk page that collegial discussion is going to start happening. Therefore, I ask for the guidance of admins to intervene in this manner by reviewing the short talk section to see the good faith of the editors involved and taking whatever actions are necessary. ∴ Therefore | talk 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Timing is everything. I posted my concerns on the Talk page last night. No response for at least 9-10 hours. I removed the offensive WP:BLP violation and was reverted by the complaining editor within six minutes. [130] The complaining editor was ignoring the attempt to discuss on the Talk page, but the minute there was an edit in the article mainspace, it was time to take action.

I will repeat what I said at the BLP noticeboard: We have a dispute in an article that has seen at least one previous, outrageous, indefensible BLP violation against the husband of the biography's subject, calling him a child molester in a bold section header when he had been cleared in the investigation. There is source material indicating that at one time, Congresswoman Heather Wilson was under preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee. However, the most recent reliable source has a spokesperson for the committee saying that he is unaware of any such investigation.

We have an editor, User:Therefore, pushing to include a paragraph in the article lead claiming, "Currently, she is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over an alleged inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician."

This editor's only concession was to add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: "However, an official investigation has not been confirmed." In my opinion, without confirmation, it does not go into the lead of the article. This report is clearly retaliatory since I posted on the BLP noticeboard first. Thoughts and comments, please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did I mention that elsewhere in the article, we hadf a proven incident of plagiarism? There was an obvious cut-and-paste of quite a bit of material from a list of anti-Wilson talking points published by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That's three different policy violations and all of them tended to attack Heather Wilson and her husband. I'm a Democrat, and I can't accept this continued course of conduct (accidental or not) at a supposedly neutral online encyclopedia. I checked my bias at the door. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I will let the article talk page speak for the facts of this case since I neither wrote nor "pushed" said sentence, to the contrary. Just as an aside, I was the editor who participated in repairing all past problems with the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This alleged preliminary unconfirmed investigation is the kind of thing the BLP policy is supposed to guard against; K4T was right to keep it out. The accusation doesn't belong in the lede, in any case, since that would constitute undue emphasis on the matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gentle NLT reminder requested

Fairly mild references to legal action have been made by User:Franz weber at Talk:Nova Publishers. Search that page for "law" and "court" to find them. I think this is simply a case of an inexperienced and frustrated user, so don't be hard on him, if indeed action is needed at all. The WP:LEGAL page seems to have changed since I was last conversant with it, so I think it would be best to have someone uninvolved look at this, rather than reproving him myself. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a friendly note. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am following up on the articles involved alsoDGG (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lehi (group) problem

I would suggest some administrator look at this page, Lehi. An edit war of a very provocative kind is being encouraged. The page was stable, until a single sentence, standing there for a month or so, was suddenly attacked by several editors, some of them new, in what looks like coordination, though perhaps it is fortuitous. Outside hands, who have a neutral interest in these issues, as far as I know, (User:Hertz1888, User:Ceedjee (two commendably rule-sensitive I/P editors) and Vishnava), took the page back to its state before these rapid and numerous interventions. I think the proper procedure is to lock that page in to that version preceding the fuss, and then ask all parties to achieve consensus on the talk page. I would add that my talk page has been smeared by constant accusations of my having violating virtually every rule in the wiki book of etiquette by the editor pushing for the change, in a way that seems to constitute a provocative fishing expedition. But if there is even a hint of truth to these innuendoes in my various attempts to reason over the, to my mind, incomprehensible edits being proposed for the Lehi page, then I will not protest any sanctions an administrator might impose. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've locked the article for three days (paying no heed to whatever version it was I protected) and left a note on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen Gale. I agree that the page was stable for a long time until a very recent edit of Nishidani, indeed from June. Users have started to notice that the lead was changed, without consensus and this turned into an rv fight. There was coordination obviously and at least one user, user:MeteorMaker was caught stalking me, and reprimanded by an administrator. Amoruso (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Several users never worried about my edit, until you, and newbies, entered the fray. For the evidence of someone canvassing at precisely the time you and they starting editing there, see the talk page. For evidence of stalking, see Amoruso's recent behaviour on pages I edit, and his provocative 'psychoanalysis' of myself on my own talk page. But, who cares. Amoruso edit warred. I got the page locked, even if that means his version stays for three days more than it warrants. Enough, we are boring busy administrators. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/128.197.130.145

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 12 hours by Ultraexactzz, IP's contributions have been rollbacked.

This user keeps adding "His/her papers are currently housed (or house [sic]) at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center" to many pages despite being asked not to. Should I issue a warning and go through and mass-rollback? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be easy enough to check; I'm on their list of holdings of notable figures here. Let me have a look. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the individuals are listed as having papers on file, as with Michael Denison, for example, found here. However, two three letters do not qualify as "His papers...", which would imply that all of them are on archive. I've warned the user. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry for not actually looking for the info myself :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's not much info to look at, which is part of the problem - there's no context to describe what is being archived. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This might explain some things. I've blocked the user for 12 hours, as they continued to add the notation despite being warned to discuss the matter first. I invite review, and have no objections to unblocking IF the user talks about the concerns first. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that we can't really verify most of these, and it's a fairly trivial addition to any of the articles, I'd support a mass rollback of the IP's contribs. GlassCobra 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To me, unless each and every one is supported by reliable sourcing, it is all hearsay and we should do a mass rollback. Barring any objections and of it hasn't been done already, I'll do some later when I get off work (can't spend the time from here). -- Alexf⁴² 16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can get started right now. Objections? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. They are most (all?) unsourced as far I looked. -- Alexf⁴² 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though all the edits have been reverted. OK to mark this as resolved? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. (I love unlimited non-admin rollbacking :D ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've left a note on the user's page directing them to this thread, so it's possible that they'll want to discuss the matter, if unlikely. I'll watchlist the next five names on the list and see if these edits resume once the block expires. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Main Page?

Image:Ingrid-Betancourt cropped.jpg, currently on the Main Page, is possibly unfree. Although Agencia Brasil photos are indeed CC-licensed, the image source credits the Columbian Colombian Thanks, Neil! government, which I don't believe releases its work into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything I've found indicates that the Colombian (not Columbian!!) government copyrights everything. Um, this may be a copyvio. Neıl 龱 15:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it of the main page for now. I think it's a copyvio, too, and have tagged it as such, but no doubt someone more expert will come along and let us know. Good catch, I think ... Neıl 龱 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's copyright is an issue (On the bottom this is what it translates to The content of this site is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Brasil.). Agencia Brasil is a Brasil Government site but maybe best to contact them. Bidgee (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agencia Brasil works are CC-licensed, the problem was that this was not AB's work, they were just hosting a copy of it. Kelly ^hi! 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Take this random article for example - [131]. The BBC may have published the article, but the image is still owned by AP (the Associated Press). Neıl 龱 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I see! Thank you for informing me! I'll note that incase I see of any other articles with the same sort of issue and take extra care if I find an image which is CC-licensed. :) Bidgee (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If any Commons admin is reading this, the copyvio image is still on Commons ([132]). Neıl 龱 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Check77 and NY road articles

Archived discussion hidden

User:Check77 continues to post incorrect information to NY Road articles for several months and he has yet to be blocked for it. He also removes stuff from his talk (not archiving, but just outright deletion), including on several warnings. Is this enough grounds for a block?Mitch32^(UP) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, user's are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page (see WP:DRC). They are still visible in the edit history.

Glancing through the edit history of User talk:Check77, I do see a lot of warnings, though most of what I saw is in regards to trying to restore deleted articles rather than incorrect information. Do you have recent diffs showing Check77 adding clearly incorrect information to articles? Has he been issued a "final warning" in regards to this?

I'll take a closer look at his contribs, but if you could provide diffs, that would help me get to the bottom of this faster. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are a bunch: [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] - These are clear proof that Check77 is not benefitting things - in fact, he is removing vital information.Mitch32^(UP) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can verify that [139] and [140] are incorrect. He seems to be assuming there's a pattern where 4xx always replaced xx - so it's both original research and flat wrong. I assume he's been told what he's doing is incorrect, and not just been given vandalism notices? --NE2 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

He just did this again, and I reverted his edit. I personally remember when Veterans Memorial Highway was designated NYS Route 454, and it had nothing to do with NY 54. It was originally Suffolk County Roads 78 and 76, and never anything else. ----DanTD (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe he was told when he made New York State Route 21A and claimed it and a Route 717 along with a Napay, New York existed.Mitch32^(UP) 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'll never understand road enthusiasts, even though I have a good friend IRL who is one, and I value the work they do for Wikipedia -- I'll still never understand :D hehehe

Anyway, thanks for the clarifications, guys, I was having trouble understanding what the issue is. It is difficult to say to what extent people have tried to explain the problem to Check77, because he just deletes all comments from his talk page. I gave him a notice about this thread, but dollars to doughnuts I bet he deletes that too :D

If he continues to make these controversial edits without engaging in dialog, he will need to be blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave him pretty explicit instructions on how to proceed here, and warned him that he could wind up getting blocked if he continues to stick his fingers in his ears. If he deletes that without responding to NE2's concerns about original research, I will give him a final warning and/or ask that he be blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I warned this user at least once (see [141]) and I'm inclined to block now. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I might agree. After I issued the warning, I poked around trying to understand the user's edits... and I think we might be dealing with a subtle troll. All of his road-related edits are too subtle for a non-road enthusiast to understand, and yet they get almost universally reverted. I think this may be the road enthusiast equivalent of the people who go around transposing all the numbers in random articles... --Jaysweet (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted him blanking [142] the former routes from List of State Routes in New York again. -- Kéiryn (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

...which was reverted and re-reverted (by a different watchdog while I was posting here) within 3 minutes. -- Kéiryn (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's more: [143] and [144]. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

and another [[145]]. --Polaron | Talk 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting info or anything, It clearly states that 3 digit routes starting with 4's are old parts of a route with the last two digits as of NYS Routes. Like 488, they put a 4 infront of it to notice that was part of the route 88. 2 digits after the 4 are 88. However 1 digits, like 3 add 40 before the 3 but it still applies because 3 is equaliviant to 03, 003, etc. As of this "Blanking thing" route 2 is set back to it's spot above 3 on the list, instead of next to the From, To, etc. If of any other incovinence please put info on my talk page, and have conversations there. --Check77 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked Check77 for a 3RR violation after being warned. I'm new, so if 24 hours is too much, please reduce it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

When the user's unblocked, he'll have to realize that not all 3 digit routes starting with 4's are old parts of a route with the last two digits of former NYS Routes. NY 448 for example, was originally part of NY 117. ----DanTD (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

These users continously undo edits that are factual and more accurate. They force users like "Road Lover" users to reedit the info.

- Please look into this, they aren't the only ones I believe.

--Check77 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs to some evidence? Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC

Please do not remove other editors comments. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about New York State Route 454, it's you that's wrong, not Polaron and Mitchazenia. ----DanTD (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see here Check77 inserted a badly punctuated alteration[146] that Mitch removed[147] and Check77 put back in.[148] Also Check77 removed a request for evidence from a commenter to this thread. He alters posts from other editors in talk space as well and has received multiple warnings including a final warning for vandalism.[149][150] Recommend a block for vandalism and disruption. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked Check77. If anyone feels this is overkill, then feel free to reduce, but the New York route editors have been dealing with him for months, and I see no use in continuing to subject them to wasting their time with this editor, as he appears to have no intention of shaping up. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Overkill, probably. I was just asking for a block since the fellow was actively edit warring and blanking other people's posts. Unless this is a vandalism-only account (which I don't know the subject well enough to assess), let's give this person a few chances to adjust to our standards. Durova^Charge! 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't know what the best course of action would be here. Some of his older contributions (and a select few of his more recent ones as well) appear to be in good faith – expanding route descriptions, albeit poorly, and the like. But he has certainly made a number of bad faith edits as well – continuing to insist that the clearly incorrect 4xx numbering scheme is right, achieving a rare 6 or 7RR on List of State Routes in New York, and starting frivolous and incoherent counterthreads on this noticeboard. Personally, while I'm not opposed to a permablock, if I were an admin (which thank God I'm not) I'd give him 24-48 h and his absolute final warning. -- Kéiryn (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally what we do is explain site norms and offer a few chances to get it right. Not an infinite number of chances, but a bit more than this if the editor may be confused rather than deliberate trolling. Durova^Charge! 04:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: The user is back as User:Chessecake. He hasn't done anything "bad" yet under the new user name as of this writing. --Polaron | Talk 16:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He did use it to agree with himself at one point, which is definitely against the rules for alternate accounts...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If the userpage is not more obvious, I've indef'ed this account and have extended the block on Check77. The contributions clearly indicate this is Check77 -- part of a long-term abuse issue. seicer | talk | contribs 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is James Randi Foundation website a reliable/notable source?

Resolved

 – Directed to more appropriate forum. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you, but there has been an on-going dispute with this, by one particuallar editor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Another_example_of_POV_pushing

This dispute has discouraged and driven away some editors, so I would like to ask for an admin opinion on weitehr James Randi Foundation is a reliable/notable source, or if it's a blog disallowed by Wikipedia?

Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but recommend you to solicit feedback from Wikipedia:RS/N. In general, blogs are disallowed as a RS except in narrow circumstances.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The James Randi Foundation is notable but I don't think it's a reliable source. It's self-published to begin with and James Randi is as non-neutral and prejudiced as one can get when it comes to matters of spirituality. Myself, I happen to agree with most of what he has to say but I would not use him as an encyclopedic reference. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right forum to discuss whether a source is reliable. Try the reliable sources noticeboard, but before you post, please read the archives. Randi has been discussed many times already, so see what you can glean before posting another thread. MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody review the contribs for User:Avengercrunk

I believe this a single purpose account whose only intent is to promote the Tiny Rascal Gang, an article which has been deleted (by AFD, prod & CSD) 12 different times, but which this user continues to restore. They've even tried to change their name to Tiny Rascal Gang over at WP:CU. I don't have access to the deleted history at previous versions of Tiny Rascal Gang, but I can bet that the primary (or only) contributor was this user. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, it appears this is a sockpuppet of User:Mormoncrunk, whose contribs are identical and who was blocked 3 days ago. Could somebody review this too and decide if this warrants an indef block? Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• In light of the rename, I may not agree with G4 instead of G11, but I definitely agree with the speedy delete. This looks to be a user with an agenda. I think the indef block(s) are in order. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• This user is also probably a member or former member of the Tiny Rascal Gang (if such a gang exists), and has vandalized Brenda Paz, who was a member of MS-13, which Avengercrunk has identifed as being a "rival gang" to Tiny Rascal. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef as another sock of User:Mormoncrunk. Kevin (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• How about extending the block on User:Mormoncrunk to indef for abusing multiple accounts several times? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism at the Viktor Rydberg Site

This is outrageous!!!

In his most recent revision, RSRadford wrote:

Henrik Schück wrote at the turn of the 20th century that he considered Rydberg the "last —and poetically most gifted —of the mythological school founded by Jacob Grimm and represented by such men as Adalbert Kuhn" which is "strongly synthetic" in its understanding of myth. Of this work, Nazi sympathizer and scholar Jan de Vries, said:

Now scholars who support Rydberg's mythological works are slandered as "Nazi sympathizers"?! It's bad enough that Radford has attempted to falsify the entry with accusatations that Viktor Rydberg was a criminal homosexual, a child rapist, and most recently a baby-killer, but now scholars who support him are slandered as "Nazi sympathizers." This is just one more of Radford's cheap attempts to editorialize by making serious accusatations against people no longer able to defend themselves. It is despicable! When is this nonsense going to end?

How long to we have to endure this willful vandalism of the entry by RSRAdford, an editor who shows only contempt for Viktor Rydberg and his work? Please see his online work. http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/ It was removed from the reference section of the entry some time ago, because it "reads like a joke" in the words of one admin. Since that time, Radford has made a concerted effort to import its origional research into the entry. Why has this been allowed to continue? Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship by User:Cryptic; requesting recall of his adminship

Unresolved

 – User:Cryptic hasn't responded here and appears to have been totally inactive since June 25. --Thinboy00 @770, i.e. 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I politely requested he userfy an article and he responded by calling me a "spoiled child," which if not a personal attack is at least downright incivil as a response to a polite request which is why I gave him a warning. He responded by blocking me for "trolling" without any warning, without acknowledging that maybe his reply to a polite request was a bit unfriendly, and without even explaining on my talk page. Obviously, since I am commenting here, this block has been overturned after disapproval by multiple others (see [151], [152], and [153]). Again, blocking without warning, let alone responding to a polite request in such a disrespectful fashion, is totally unacceptable for an admin. Moreover, claiming he did it to prove a "point" seems a violation of WP:POINT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the block was punitive and ill-advised. Still, no wheel warring after it's release. though I am not an administrator, I'm not sure as to what can be done about it now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe User:Cryptic is a member of the group of administrators open to recall. I would suggest a RfC/Admin Conduct, and provide further information. The block was bad, and response not much better, I agree, but you'll need more then 1 bad incident to be taken seriously if you're going to put in a request to recall/desysop him. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of trolling probably stemmed from the fact that you gave an tenured admnistrator a "welcome to Wikipedia" warning, which probably was viewed as a deliberate slight. Although, I presume it was just an oversight. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have tenure? Awesome! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not in that sense. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone is tenured, they're hard to get rid of. Some folks resort to assassination, but that gets messy and can cause legal trouble. My usual approach is to ring their doorbell and run away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really warn editors that much and so when I went to the warning template page looking for an appropriate warning, I wanted to go with the lowest level one I could find and so just went with that template. In any event, AfDs and DRVs, as far as I am aware, are supposed to be discussions, not votes, i.e. discussions in which we engage and interact with each other. How does he respond to a discussion? Well, instead of say commenting on the topic under discussion, he comments on me instead. Now, it's not just with me. Notice this edit summary, which seems to be something of an assumption of bad faith. See also: confrontional comment, losing cool, unconstructive edit summary, etc., and from a quick look, it seems with ease I can find more if necessary, i.e. a rather unhelpful and unfriendly manner of dealing with others, which is totally unbecoming of an admin. Plus, looking at his own block log, the self blocks of thinking "MSK's unblock shows the system's still broke" and "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" are also somewhat wikidramatic and seem a bit of a concern for an admin. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Arbcom already set precedent in this sort of matter? [154]--Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While an Arbcom decision is indicative of what Arbcom may do in the next similar situation, their decisions are non-binding, and do not set precedents. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If we start approaching this as tenure, then really RfA is just an opportunity for a tenure-track position, with, say, quarterly or bi-annual reviews. At the end of six-twelve months the review board (bureaucrats) can decide whether you become tenured; if so, you are no longer open to recall. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This bock and subsequent discussion here seems to go along with this one. Just pointing it out. Wizardman 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that regardless of what happens here, I now have a block on my log that I should not have, which is why for preventative purposes so that he does not abuse the tools again, I suggest one or more of the following as possible solutions: 1) some kind of similar length short block of his account; 2) loss of adminship; and/or 3) an apology. Now as far as how I approach AfDs and DRVS, I set up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Insults like this are not going to convince anybody of anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(keeping this short to avoid an EC, although I'm not an admin and have little standing to comment) The last time LGRdC was creating massive drama in this forum was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive424#Months of harassment from RobJ1981, where he claimed that he was so ill (kaff … kaff) that he would have to take a wikibreak, and all he wanted before he left was for another user to be blocked. Well, the other user was blocked, and, mirabile dictu, LGRdC came back a couple of days later as well as could be. Is there no one who can see this person for the lawyering, passive-aggressive, disruptive user that he is? Deor (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You really are going to mock someone for when they were sick?! Seriously?! As far as disruptive, maybe you should re-look at your own incivil personal attacks: [155] and [156]. Which is odd, given my multiple attempts to be nice and cooperative with you: [157], [158], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Waah, an admin has reminded me that I'm being a dick; quick, kick him out!' HalfShadow 02:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

HalfShadow, retract that personal attack, please. Deor, this is rather bizarre behavior from the two of you.. what gives? SirFozzie (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but arbcom has clearly stated that blocks are not to be used in disputes, much less to "remind someone they're a 'dick'"--Cube lurker (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, but I'm not going to retract anything. Giving an admin a welcome template as a response to a failure to userfy an article is just not in the cards. Block me too, if you want; the spectacle of sysops falling all over themselves to accommodate the Pumpkin's every wish is just more than I can stand. Deor (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, I deny that either of the diffs that Pumpkin linked to above constitute "incivil personal attacks". This is my last contribution to this thread. Deor (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I gave him a warning for making a personal attack. I am not asking admins to "fall all over themselves to accomodate me", but to prevent future bad blocks. I'm not looking for revenge or something, just reassurance that such things won't happen in the future. Jumping into this discussion just like you did at the one you linked to previously does not help. And as I've said, it is really disappointing that you continue to be mean to my even though I have tried to be nice to you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, how is this being a "dick"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record: he told you 'no', then, when he expanded on that because you didn't like the terminology he used, you first templated him and now you're suggesting he be de-sysopped. Admins do all the work around here and I'm tired of seeing them be dumped on because your feelings have been hurt. HalfShadow 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

After he said, "no," I politely explained my request. Did it really justify this response? As for the allegation against me, I respectfully asked the deleting admin about the closure and he suggested I go to DVR, which I did. Trying to talk to admins politely should not receive such a harsh response. And it's not about my "feelings," but a concern of this kind of thing happening again to anyone, not just me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's to me that's why I added the single 'quotes'--Cube lurker (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of LGRdC's present and past behavior, Cryptic should not have blocked him himself simply for templating him, even if that's not exactly the friendliest thing to be doing. If LGRdC is behaving unacceptably, I'd suggest a user RFC or other steps in dispute resolution. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Morven here (shock). Y'all got into a spat and Cryptic made a bad block. It's not a blockable offense to template the regulars but it's an act of shocking tactlessness that leaves me feeling rather unsympathetic. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be the nicest thing to "template a regular" but that's one of the worst blocks I've seen in quite some time. Cryptic needs to offer a full explanation. - auburnpilot talk 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty self-evident, doesn't it? By explanation, do you actually mean apology? Because you're can't compel one of those. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't really warn people and just went with what seemed the tamest one on the warnings page after he made this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's no kind of an answer--you've been here a few years and appear to have a grasp of the language. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, with regards to warnings for comments like that would you suggest I do? Is it appropriate to give some kind of warning and if so what? Yes, I have been here for a while, but there is a good deal I haven't worked on or really think I know a lot about. Warnings are one area that I haven't really worked on; plus, I did not check his contrib history to see how long he's been around. So, I know for the future, what would be the way to go when someone calls you a "spoiled child"? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You say, "Hey, please don't engage in personal attacks." or "That was uncalled for, I'll ask a different admin." I think that is what is meant by not using templates and you having command of the language ;-) Avruch 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it ever okay to warn admins? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't really play into it - its generally considered impolite to template anyone but a newbie, there is a page about it at WP:DTTR. Avruch 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that's kind of funny. Try to ues an essay in an afd and you get berated for it because it has no weight. Violate another in user space you get blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While the block was uncalled for and definitely not appropriate, LGRdC's actions aren't exactly perfect either. I think emotions were high on both sides, and frankly, LGRdC, despite the civility he conducts his discussions with, often irritates or aggravates users with his rationales. In this light, I could see Cryptic taking a templated message (to an administrator, really? That's really tactless) as trolling. This naturally does not excuse his conduct, and he should have been cool-headed despite the situation, but this is probably the situation he felt he was getting into. That said, going back to the original intent of the thread, you're not going to get him dysopped for this. Nowadays, the requirement for revoking adminship is more or less massive OMG drama that ends up at ArbCom, which this definitely is not. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, as I said above, I saw a personal attack or incivil comment and thought the correct response was to post some kind of warning message. While I do welcome a lot of editors, I really don't warn them unless it's the anon vandal warning template when I revert first time vandalism. If you look at the discussion that brought us here, I made a really polite request and responded to his initial response in a still respecftul manner. If admins look at the contribution history of the article in question, you'll see that it was one that I was indeed in the process of make serious revisions to. As for revoking adminship, it was just one of a few ideas presented above as a possible preventitive measure. In any event, the weather sirens are going off here as we have a tornado warning. So, with that, I guess good bye for now. And again, anyone is invited to my deletion talk page indicated above to offer constructive criticisms and advice. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, your response to an uncivil comment was a templated message, which again, is really tactless, and users can take it the wrong way. If someone gives an actual response (regardless of the civility), and you respond with a template, then it's basically like a slap in the face. You're implying (not that I'm saying you were implying this, which you weren't; however, this is how it's taken most of the time) that you don't want to waste time to write an actual message and you're simply falling back to templated messages to end the conversation. Again, I'm not saying your intent was wrong or that the block was justified (quite the contrary); however, you have to admit that it was a rather tactless act, especially for a user such as yourself that has been here for so long and should be familiar with such things. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I appreciate your comments, but I really have not done much in the way of warning users other than with the anon-vandal welcome (in my over 20,000 edits, there's maybe a handful and none that I can easily find at present) and I was honestly stunned by his reaction as usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I did not add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child," which I believed merited some kind of civility warning and I thought I was going with the lowest level and tamest one on the page. Also, before giving him the warning, I did not check his edit history to see how long he's been around. In any event, it really is not that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I did not demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Plus, it is frustrating that someone would react in such a manner, because as you know, sure I may disagree quite strongly with editors in discussions, but even though say you and I have had some strong disagreements in AfDs and DRVs, I still occasionally look for somewhere where I might be able to help you or get along a la User talk:Sephiroth BCR#Vandalism to your userpage so that it is clear any discussion disagreements are not personal or anything. I have done such things for a number of editors I have disagreed with. I guess it would be nice if some of those with whom I disagree would also take these kinds of proactive steps. I appreciate that you responded nicely in the aforementioned case: User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Re:Vandalism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, dropping a few words as someone who's worked with Roi a long time (both antagonistically and cooperatively--check his block log). As far as I can tell, Roi rarely does the template thing and probably wasn't aware that templating an established editor is considered rude. A word to the wise is sufficient: sysop or not, when someone's been around a while the custom is to open a dialog. Would someone consider doing a one second block to notate his block log, if he's amenable? It wasn't a blockable action, and one bad block almost never leads to recall (almost--check my ops history). The bottom line here for those who don't know him is that Roi is an inclusionist; a scrupulously polite editor who didn't used to play by the rules but learned his lesson and who expects those who have different wikiphilosophies from his to play by the rules too. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• As an admin, given the community's trust, doesn't cryptic need to address this, he knows this thread is here. [159]--Cube lurker (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• [did it myself - nvm! Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]
  • It is my hope that for anyone who has any advice for me to make use of the chart I made at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and to offer constructive ideas on that pages talk page. In any event, regarding that user, please note that an admin has already said as much. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cryptic should accept an appropriate punishment and in future try not to perform privileged tasks which might be perceived as emotive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing that really had me here is that usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I didn't add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child." In other words, it really isn't that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I didn't demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic responded very rudely to a very reasonable request (and I think someone else should see to it that the deleted article gets userfied for him); templating him for that was a misstep, but a minor one. For Cryptic to then block Roi was a huge misstep, however, and calls into question his suitability for adminship. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman has userfied it for me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated rudeness and a retaliatory block is troubling, I agree. Let's hope it was just a one-off by someone who was having a bad day. If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we can condemn his action all we want, but this is really too far. We all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that. If it does it again, file an RfC on his conduct. If it continues past that, go to ArbCom. Trying stuff like that isn't constructive and really, is just plain rude. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone hectoring Cryptic like that does not help anyone, particularly Bstone. Neıl 龱 10:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be something wrong with asking someone to resign their adminship? Everyking (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not what he said, it's how he said it. Neıl 龱 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If Cryptic was open to recall, that would be reasonable. Cryptic isn't in the category, so probably doesn't consider himself open to recall. It is a poorly worded request; it starts from the invalid assumption that Bstone has a right to make the request. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy saying that editors cannot ask an admin to resign. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I politely, formally and civilly asked Cryptic to resign his admin position. I did not attack him, make over the top accusations or use any manner of hyperbole. It was a simple, formal request. He is free to ignore it. However, GRBerry, I am looking for a policy which might be titled "Non-admins are forbidden from asking admins to return their position", but I cannot find it. Can you point me to it? If it exist I shall offer a full retraction and formal apology to Cryptic. Bstone (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, going around politely, formally, and civilly asking admins to resign their bit, (or asking editors to leave the project, for another example) is neither constructive nor helpful, policy or no policy. Where I agree with you is that it's allowed. Policy doesn't prohibit you from being civilly rude. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "every admin gets one free" attitude so prevalent around here. I'm all for forgiveness and understand that we all make mistakes every once in awhile, but Cryptic has not yet been an acknowledged that what he did was out of line. Of course, we can never force someone to apologize, but we sure can take away his admin tools if he doesn't address this issue before when he starts blocking again. HiDrNick! 12:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Contributors are humans with lives; Cryptic has not contributed for several hours now. 2) One of the early steps in dispute resolution is disengaging; before heading off (to bed?) he acknowledged the thread, and appears to be intentionally choosing not to participate in it. This is reasonable. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with point 1 totally, and did not intend to give the impression that I'm advocating swift action. I just think that this issue should be considered unresolved until it is addressed by Cryptic in due course. Editors above are saying, for example, "we all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that." It should not end at that. As a community, we should be unwilling to "agree to disagree" with Cryptic's implicit position that block was justified. I think most reasonable people would be content to let it drop if and only if Cryptic acknowledges that it was in fact a bad block, but this feeling that "it was a bad block, he's unblocked now, get over it" is unsatisfactory. If Cryptic refuses to acknowledge that the block was flawed and should not have been made, it should be addressed by the Arbitration Committee, and ultimately a steward. HiDrNick! 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any admin goes around with a smile and a get-out-of-one-bad-block-free card wondering when to play it. Sysops get pulled in six different directions at once. Administrators get headaches, catch the flu, stay up until the wee hours trying to get stuff accomplished on Wikipedia. On the right side a chorus yells don't you edit articles anymore? while each time the sysop starts a GA drive other people tug at the left sleeve. Admins are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon when dinner is about to burn in the kitchen. Slicing the Gordian knot isn't enough; admins are expected to remove it surgically. And in return for this unpaid labor, they sometimes get compensated in curses or worse. After a while--being human--chances are an admin will flub something once. If it becomes a pattern, yes, the community addresses it. But flubbing something once is called being human. Durova^Charge! 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really wish that Badlydrawnjeff was still active. He'd be a good advisor to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. They share a philosophy, but jeff was a lot better at communicating and working with those who disagreed with him. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up a completely separate issue involving Cryptic that I feel is quite similar to the one being presented here, but shows pattern. I've been trying to get an explanation from Cryptic for almost two months now as to why they had placed a block on my account for a couple of days without any discussion, notice, or warning. Since then, I've asked several times for them to bring clarity to the issue, but have received little to no feedback from Cryptic. I've hunted for quotes to policies and have even brought up examples of other users with the same "violation" Cryptic very briefly claimed I made, but have gotten absolutely no response. To me, this, along with the new incident, shows a solid history of poor communication and abuse of admin tools by Cryptic. I would like to see these issues with Cryptic escalated as well. What can be done? Roguegeek (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See what Durova said: "If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC." Carcharoth (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The block wasn't a particularly defensible thing in this instance, although it could be argued that the templated warning, while understandable, wouldn't likely win friends. I think the trout might be the best option here for this single instance, but, if it were found to continue in the future, an RfC would be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're addressing here, John, is a report of a second instance (unrelated to Le Grand Roi's template warning and block). Avruch 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I stand corrected. The comment by Roguegeek could stand a lot of better information as to what the specifics of the matter being discussed are. However, even taking that second instance into account, we still have only two instances. For the step being requested here, that might be a bit extreme. Although ArbCom would definitely be an option here, and I don't want to speak for them, I would think two could still be marginally acceptable, although some sort of formal notification of his conduct being specifically called into question would be reasonable as well. If a third instance were to arise, particularly after specific warnings regarding such conduct are made, then there would be much less question or defense of such action. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the Roguegeek block is related to several pages like this being deleted numerous times and Roguegeek re-creating them each time. But Roguegeek's talk page history shows a distinct lack of activity around the date of the block, May 3, 2008. Some discussion is here but I see no hint of pre-block warning. Roguegeek's deleted contribs (admin only) show re-creation edit summaries of "why are my own templates being deleted?" which are a little sad. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not real fond of how that went down. User templates deleted, the user not understanding why and re-creating, twice, three times, four times, still no discussion - and then block. No deletion explanation (until after the fact), no block warning, not even a note to say that the user was blocked! Peculiar at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, all I'm looking for is understanding and have gotten zero help from the user in question. And yes, I was upset about the block with no discussion what so ever. I just happen to stumble upon this conversation and thought to myself, "hey I have a similar experience." I'm still actually needing some advice that I'll take to a different discussion page. I just thought it'd be helpful in this specific discussion to show a little more history from a complete separate instance. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins are here to serve our editors and readers, not vice versa. One inappropriate block (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles) is bad, two (Roguegeek) is unacceptable and then stonewalling Roguegeek's requests for an explanation takes it all over the top; I'm losing confidence in Cryptic's suitability to be an administrator. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now that Cryptic did respond to Roguegeek although I still consider the block to be very out of line. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that there was some central discussion about deleting such "voting" templates, but I may be wrong there. That's beside the point, though. Cryptic absolutely should have communicated with Roguegeek about all this. Unless Cryptic can point out where this was discussed, why he blocked, and why there was no follow up, then there is a problem here. Admins have to be approachable, otherwise the whole system breaks down. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns here do extend beyond the incivil reaction to a polite request and the subsequent block when I warned him for his comment to me, which again I got from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and I went with the Level 1 for "Personal attack directed at a specific editor," as I thought apparently incorrectly it would be the tamest reaction to go with for what I thought was a first time thing. In actuality there seems to be some kind of longer-term frustration he has regarding Deletion Review discussions. For the larger context, please note that Cryptic blocked himself for a month on 2 April 2008 under the rationale of "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet". Several comments in Deletion Reviews this year seem to confirm that. See for example "Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore?," [160] (seven editors arguing to keep in an AfD is not "near complete consensus" and the crux of the comment focuses on an editor rather than the article under discussion), mildly sarcastic tone, says "Utter disgust" as part of his comment, note edit summary, says that "It physically pains me to complete this mangled review request," claimed clear consensus in DRV that ultmately closed as relist for an AfD that ultimately did not result in the article being deleted, "Like, y'know..." seems confrontational, use of "lazy" seems unnecessary, and calls the AfDs "nauseating" when again the article ultimately was not outright deleted. You'll note that I did not participate in a number of those DRVs, so it is not just a him and me thing by any means, but rather what seems to be increased frustration with DRVs in general. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While you may well have a legitimate complaint (I haven't looked into the issue enough to really say), this list of diffs you present here really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. I won't go over them point-for-point, but just as an example, yes, "Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore?" is a legitimate question when a copyvio ends up on DRV, as indeed both the nominator and closer seem to have agreed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They all add up and given the self-blocks for such things as "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" and a couple of questioned blocks raised here, there seems to be a bit of reacting with emotion that is a concern for someone having admin tools. There are other somewhat angry or short replies to questions by others as well, but I did not want to just pile on the diffs against someone. They do nevertheless show a pattern of what seems like increasing annoyance having editors question his deletions. Even if some of these questions are legitimate, they can be worded in a more polite manner. For the example you mention, one could say simply, "I notice that Google is a good tool for checking for copy vios and I happened to find this one there." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where immediate admin action is called for. However I see reasonable evidence that Cryptic's conduct as an admin has been questionable in at least a couple cases. Taking this to a user conduct RFC might be a better venue than here. Friday (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've raised my primary concern at User talk:Cryptic#Your block of Roguegeek (3rd May 2008). The previous discussion can still be seen at User talk:Cryptic#Vote templates. From what I can tell the sequence was that Cryptic deleted a series of user templates, and when they were recreated he blocked instead of trying to explain why they were deleted. After the block had expired, the user (who seems not to have realised they were blocked until after the block expired) came back and asked again, and Cryptic then explained and pointed to some deletion discussions. The problem is that this was all in the wrong order. From what I can see, the block was a heavy-handed way to get a message across. If Cryptic can explain his actions, we may be able to avoid a user conduct RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let's not rehash any of this any more until Cryptic is active and can respond. Like everybody else, I too have some concerns about the two incidents in question -- but without Cryptic being here to respond, this is just a pointless pile-on. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

one of the requirements for being an admin is not to have excessive sensitivity to personal criticism. anyone who would block after a relatively innocuous template, with a background of incivility otherwise to confirm its not an isolated incident, should be desysopped. the Tango arb case cited is very much to the point here. Further, this admin is one of the few remaining ones without email enabled, and it's deliberate. I don't accept his excuse of privacy--the same reason applies to everyone, & the rest of us tolerate it. If he doesn't trust gmail, there are alternatives. (

As for the matter giving rise to the block, personally, I've been templated several times, sometimes in good faith, sometimes not, and I can;t figure out why it should bother me very much. If our templates are too rude, it is a matter that affects everyone. After all, why shouldn't established editors follow the same rules as everyone else and get the same warnings if they do something that an editor thinks wrong? If we want to prohibit it, we should try to adopt a policy decision to that effect, WT:DTTR is just an essay, and I hope and expect it wouldn't pass. If someone wants to take it as policy, it even says: "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." so its not just a block in a personal dispute, its a block without any support in policy either.

Sure, let's wait for a response, but the only response I think likely to improve the situation is a long wikibreak or surrendering the mop. DGG (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

His refusal to respond to any of this stuff is quite telling, I think. Wizardman 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely disgusted by the actions of Cryptic. Lately this user has broken a handful of policies. By being very uncivil to someone, unjustly blocking someone, and failing to communicate this user has not only broken the administrator code of conduct, but also WP:CIVIL. Clearly some action needs to be taken for these violations of policies, but I don't think taking the tools away for him is justified. Beside recently, he seemingly doesn't have a history of abuse.

I think he should be banned from using the tools for a while. Due to the seriousness of abusing the tools, only blocking him for a few days seems to be not enough. 1 or 2 weeks would send a strong message to him. If this behavior continues, then he should have the tools removed. I don't know if the community can give partial blocks. I know they can give full blocks, but I'm not sure about partial ones.--SJP (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm troubled by this contributor's apparent lack of activity (Nothing since June 25) and everyone's interpretation of it. It is entirely possible that he's on wikibreak (a bit convenient, but WP:AGF works both ways) and forgot to template it. He may feel really bad about his actions and be afraid/ashamed of editing. I don't know him, so I can't really judge that. In any case, I think he should be given an opportunity to defend himself/apologize before anything happens to him. If he resumes editing, we can assume he has read or will read his talk page, which has multiple links here. If not, the issue becomes moot. Until then, I think this discussion should be put on hold as unresolved. If he doesn't come back in a reasonable amount of time, he can be provisionally/temporarily desysopped since dormant accounts don't keep their bits. --Thinboy00 @261, i.e. 05:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this worries me. Some one brought it up on Cyptic's talk page here. I find it troublesome that the blocked individual had no idea he had been blocked. When users are blocked we hope they learn from their mistake; how good is the block if the blocked user comes back asking (in good faith, as is evident by her edit) why she was blocked? This block seems like a punishment. Perhaps the admin is stressed at the moment? It happens to all of us, but he should at least leave a note here about all this? Brusegadi (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brought this ongoing and unresolved discussion back from archive. Roguegeek (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that Cryptic is being aggressive, but some confusion might have been avoided by sticking to the general rule that it's a good idea to leave hand-written personalized complaints for established users - warning someone who's obviously not a newbie is not a blockable offense but is kind of weird. Dcoetzee 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If our notices are too rude for established users, they are too rude for newbies. If personal discussions are best for explaining things to established editors, this applies all the same to newbies. There's an advantage perhaps in standardized final warnings, to make it clear that official action s about to be taken, but otherwise I dont think our templating policy is particularly helpful or fair to anybody, except those who like to use automated editors and not pay personal attention to what notice they are leaving. While we have the templates, I dont see why anyone should be blamed for using them in appropriate cases DGG (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Besides, this is not the first weird block he makes. Brusegadi (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, different language is appropriate for different editors. If you leave a newbie a message saying "welcome to Wikipedia", it's perfectly reasonable; if you leave the same text for an obviously well-established editor, it shows that you didn't even care enough about the conversation to avoid making clearly inapplicable comments. In normal conversation, this level of obvious inattentiveness would be considered a slight and it is equally so here. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I picked the lowest level template on the warning list to warn someone for making an insulting comment to a polite request. I'm not so familiar with everyone here to know who is and is not "obviously" established. I saw that this editor closed a discussion, I asked him about it in a polite and respectful manner, and he responded in an incivil manner. I practically never warn editors other than totally new editors with the anon-welcome warning template. The funny thing is that I thought I was giving him the politest warning possible and hoped that it would have encouraged him to approach the discussion as I was, i.e. politely. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole "don't template an established editor" just does not fly. Maybe it's etiquette, but it's definitely not policy and it's definitely not a blockable offense. It's also not an editor's responsibility to determine whether another editor is "established" or not. Who's to say what "established" is anyway? Roguegeek (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ironic that the same "welcome to..." words that we put on the template specifically in order to be polite most of t he time when its used are being objected to. It's just boiler plate, and if it shows up on a message to someone who does not need a warning, it can just be ignored. Perhaps all our messages need some effort at greater concision. DGG (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I can see how having that addition may look condescending on the surface. Saying "Welcome to Wikipedia" to someone who's been around forever could be rather hard to interpret, oddly enough. Wizardman 04:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

thing is, it is just

Moved unresolved discussion from archive. User:Cryptic hasn't been active for over a week now and his last edit clearly showed he recognized this discussion was taking place. If this purposeful failure of communication is continued, which is another act against the administrator conduct policy, what resolution, if any, is to be had with this issue? Roguegeek (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In one sense, it is resolved, as he hasn't done anything bad in the interim, and I think WP:AGF also indicates that we should give individuals the benefit of the doubt regarding, for instance, vacations, illness, death in the family, you know the drill. I think it would probably be out of line to go further without having seen clear evidence that the subject has purposely avoided this discussion since then, which right now we don't have. If that party were to resume editing and still continue to ignore the discussion, however, then I think that the failure of communication could be more clearly said to be purposeful. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This looks more like contempt of court. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Or he could not want to get re-involved, figuring the drama will get worse if he re-enters the debate. that's what that diff says to me. Either way, he's got a right to not respond. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. I'm fairly certain there's an ArbComm case around here somewhere that states admins are expected to be accountable for their actions and willing to discuss them. I'm not much of a comm-hound, so I'm not sure which case that would have come from. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the case I was thinking of, but one of the principles of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee is "Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner." - auburnpilot talk 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Were you thinking of this one? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Responsibility. RMHED (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I dropped some advice on his Talk page, I have no clue if he has read it. Here is what I see as the situation. It's true, you can't force someone to apologize. But when an admin makes a bad block, particularly if it involves some kind of COI (as this did, the "trolling" was a warning on Cryptic's Talk page), the community then has a very legitimate concern as to whether or not there is danger it will repeat. I've seen two examples of an admin who made a bad block due to this kind of COI, in the relatively short time I've been very active here, where the admin refused to apologize, refused to acknowledge a mistake, and both times they were de-sysopped )User:Physchim62) or resigned under a cloud (User:Tango, still not understanding why the community hadn't supported them. It is very serious. If you are a friend of User:Cryptic, be very careful about giving him the wrong kind of "support." It can be deadly. He needs, I'd say, his friends to explain this thing to him. It's a live wire, blocking with a COI, don't touch it! If someone is so motivated, they can start an RfC, as noted. AN/I isn't the place for it.

I personally advised Cryptic not to defend himself, but I also suggested that he answer questions. RfC/RfAr don't require his participation, but, at some point, if he can find it possible to say, "It was a mistake," and to say why it was, so that we can understand that, indeed, it won't happen again, it will, I predict, all blow over. Unless he waits too long. --Abd (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee#Responsiveness says: Responsiveness

4) Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner.

Passed 11-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By no means has that been met here. Cryptic is either ignoring this thread or something else, but he is in material violation of ArbCom's decision. So, what now? Bstone (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking through his contributions, he has taken chunks of time off (a week or so) in the past, such as this. The fact that he chose now to take one though doesn't bode well though. Next step would be an RFC, i don't know if that would accomplish anything that this thread hasn't already. Wizardman 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We cannot say that there has been a material violation, because he isn't editing at all and may not even be looking at this, plus this is not, and should not be, an RfC, beyond what is necessary to determine immediate action. Wrong place for that. If there was considered to be immediate danger of damage to the project by not revoking his adminship, there are steps that could be taken, but I haven't seen anyone allege that. He screwed up, and he's on wikibreak, which is perhaps a good idea. I don't want, and I don't think we want, his blood for his mistake, we simply want, probably before he uses his admin tools again for anything remotely controversial, for him to recognize the mistake so we can be confident he won't make it again. He should have all the time he needs to do that. Somebody wants to start an RfC, fine, but I'd suggest not closing it until (1) he comes back and (2) he's had ample opportunity to respond. There should be no rush. He's not doing any ongoing damage, and, unless he was improperly blocking right and left -- which would be an emergency -- we can and should wait. --Abd (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

let's recall that there is more than one bad block, there was the inappropriate use of the word "trolling" on the block log to describe the GRC one, and in addition to the blocks there's the insulting language used to GRC when he asked for userification of an article, [161], and the general lack of response seen on his talk page. DGG (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And, in addition, failure to respond in a timely manner- as ordered by ArbCom. His issues are stacking up pretty quickly. Bstone (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The community should desysop Cryptic immediately. It doesn't matter whether or not he's listed himself as open for recall. The community giveth, and the community taketh away. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Desysopping never has been, nor will it ever be, an easy thing to do. Kurt is giving his opinion, but short of Arbcomm intervention, it's a lost cause. If Cryptic is open to recall, then someone should look into his criteria. If not, we should move on. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why the cooperation of the illegitimate Arbitrary Committee is necessary here...all power properly rests with the community and its institutions, not some board imposed by the fiat of one man who's not all that special. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessary disagree with you Kurt. However, while I am familiar with community sanctioned bans, can discussions at ANI and AN achieve consensus for desysopping? Is there precedence for it? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First time for everything and all. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Snowball's chance in Hell. This is the wrong environment to make a decision like desysopping. RfC is where it would start. I wrote much more on this, but realized that I'd be doing what I often decry, distracting from the purpose of this page. So I'm putting it on Kurt's Talk page, and I'll come back and link to a diff. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)permanent link--Abd (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see there was once a proposal for Wikipedia:Demoting inactive admins. For what it is worth, I am not interested in revenge or anything, which is why I suggested a recall or discussion or something to see if there are other problems and to consider such actions rather than demanding anything be done and as some may recall I even defended Durova when one of her blocks were called into account. In fact even though she is the only other admin to have ever blocked me (and I have made over 20,000 edits by now), I still include her on my list of nice wikipedians. So, I would pefer to be forgiving and as Abraham Lincoln said, "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" But my concern as indicated above stems from noticing Cryptic's increased frustration with the project in general and what seemed to be increased emotion based responses and in some cases actions. Plus, whereas Durova apologized profusely when she was called into question and actively discussed with others admidst far more determined opposition to her than we are seeing here, we are not seeing such efforts at moving positively further. I am pleased that in most of my other requests at userfication with others have been far more pleasant a la my request here and and this response. When I ask for userfication, I do make good on my expressed interest to work on the articles when I can: see [162], [163], etc. and have even successfully improved my userfied articles so that they could be moved back into mainspace as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Templar and popular culture (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the proposal, it might be a good idea, but I doubt the single week or so the subject has been inactive would qualify as a sufficient period of inactivity for such demotion. I'm considering writing an essay (hey, it's writing something, OK?) about possibly requiring some sort of reconfirmation vote of admins after some given multiple-year period, but I doubt that would be applicable in this situation either. But, if we should have continued total inactivity for another week or so, then there might be grounds for maybe asking ArbCom to considering desysoping the individual in question. John Carter (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbComm would toss this out if there hasn't been an RfC. It is possible that this discussion is sufficient trout-slapping that the RfC isn't needed, but we won't know for sure until Cryptic shows back up, if he does, and responds, which could be days, weeks, months. Years? I wouldn't file an RfC unless he's back, could be a huge waste of time. If he comes back and apologizes, I think the community, including Le Grand Roi, will welcome him back. If he acts like nothing happened, well, depends on the attention span of the community, which is a complicated thing. The question behind the RfC: Would You Do This Again? will be legitimate even if asked a year from now. Desysopping is not punitive, or at least it shouldn't be.--Abd (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all of this discussion about policy and guidelines is good, but maybe it's taking away from what I would think is a very real issue here. An Admin(!) has performed not one, but several actions that break administrator conduct policy. He has issued a couple of what seems to be unjustified blocks with no warnings or discussion and sometimes in response to just something he didn't like. He is not approachable, has a clear tendency to ignore clarifying and is more frequently responding to users uncivily. As editors, we are suppose to feel confident in our Admins. I'm not out to hang anyone, but how are we suppose to ever feel confident in this Admin with their recent history and them currently not addressing this conversation (which is further proof of ignoring issues)? Furthermore, how are we suppose to stay confident in Admins in general and the administration process when something like this is brought directly to their table and nothing is done about it? I'm all for the process, but there's something about this just seems... wrong. Roguegeek (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if we open a Community Petition for Desysop it might be accepted by ArbCom? Bstone (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of you people need to get a grip

The sub-sherlock holmes guesswork combined with the outrage over his lack of answers adds up to a giant pot of "fuck all". Unless I've missed something in the thread, nobody knows where he is or why he hasn't answered or been active. Some of you need to take your heads out of your asses, wikipedia isn't real, we don't punch in, we aren't require to turn up every day. He could be hiding out or he could have just found out that he's got cancer - nobody knows. So the outrage over his lack of answers since the 28th is frankly the most retarded thing I've heard in a while. Get over yourselves and get some perspective. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If Cryptic had been doing other things on Wikipedia and not replying, it would be a different matter, and a failure to respond to good faith concerns would then be an issue. As he is not contributing at all, I suggest everyone calms down and re-raises the issue with him as and when he returns, rather than RFC or RFArb him (can they be used as verbs?) in his absence. Neıl 龱 10:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Block of User Cali567

Since Cali567 started adding a very controversial genetical study on every argentine article in reference to demographics: (eg. Argentine American, Demographics of Argentina, etc) there has been several edit wars every day, that is why I requested the full protection of Demographics of Argentina. Though there was a consensus on Demographics of Argentina[164] she continues making her edits. User Jersey Devil and I told her that this kind of issues have to be solved on talk pages, still though she continues making her edits.

This user has been warned more than once, nevertheless I have given her the last warning for disruption. If she continues the disruption please block her. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:ChristianityMeansFreedom

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

I just caught this editor changing the names of Christianity and anti-Semitism related articles, without any discussion at all (let alone consensus) - an act that to me verges on vandalism. I checked this user's edit history this year and saw that every edid s/he made was mmediately reverted. At least one edit [165] was obviously tendentious and provocative. It seems to me that this user exists only to violate WP:DIS and WP:POINT. I am inclined simply to block the user as a disruptive account ... but won't, at least not without consultation. I would appreciate other editors reviewing this editor's history of edits and suggesting what we should do. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit is also unacceptable. Using a comment like "unconverted" implies a qualitative difference between Christians and Jews. That's way outside of an encyclopedic article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And this edit seems out-and-out anti-Semitic. I just hesitate to block someone indefinitely unilaterally. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be amenable to correction. Pretty much every one of his edits has been to promote his own POV; he's been warned repeatedly, and has not engaged in dialog (he just blanks his talk page). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones left him a notice. I've left him an {{ANI-notice}}. If it matters --Rodhullandemu 00:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tired to assume AGF: with this user and i have given him a {{welcome}} templat on his page as well a a notice of this page here. maybe that will work and further sanctions willn't be neeaded. User:Smith Jones

Given that the username is disruptive and was reported to WP:UAA as such, I am blocking indef. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I have some independent oversight here, please?

I seek to draw your attention to the following, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/GoRight. This RFC was created under the following suspect circumstances and I would like to have some independent oversight of the process which has been used. I note the following anomalies:

1. The RFC appears to have been created under the radar since it was never listed as a candidate RFC.
2. The party creating the RFC actively and selectively solicited comments from those who would oppose me in this action.
3. The RFC 48 hour timer has expired with only one signature certifying it, albeit not the one of the person that created it.
4. The parties involved are now trying to re-add it to the candidate page.

Objective opinions on the process being followed here would be welcome. --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See resolved box. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the resolved tag because I also removed the Speedy tag. The simplest way to look at this RfC is that it is in the process of being created and that process hasn't been completed. Normally, a creator creates the page and signs it and logs it, and then the clock starts ticking. However, here, the creator disappeared after creating it (next day after), and may not have realized that he did not sign it. (Or realized that and intended to return and sign and log it.) Now, technically, there was a finished page when one user signed it. But that user may not have realized the effect of signing. There are a couple of possibilities: the user who did certify it could take that signature out, and then it is clearly a page in process of being created. Better, the user accepts responsibility for he page even though he did not create it, and his signature is then the first signature, and the clock would either start from that date of signature, or from the date when he realized that there was a problem that the creator did not sign. Which is the better approach depends on circumstances I do not know.

There is another factor which should be considered. The RfC clock should not begin until the RfC is listed; until then, the creators may consider it a work in progress, not yet ready to begin. In other words, this is not an RfC yet, it is a page being edited to become an RfC. Others may help with that, and at any time it could be listed, but I'd suggest that it not be listed by an adverse party, just in order to make the clock start. Let the creator(s) of an RfC decide when it begins.

Those who favor this RfC may have screwed it up by attempts to fix it. There is another approach possible as well. Let it be deleted, which is without prejudice, and refile with two certifications when all the ducks are in a row. I suggested to GoRight, though, that GoRight certify it, if it is true that attempts were made to resolve a dispute that were unsuccessful. Is that true? --Abd (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your help and good faith here. You of course miss the obvious point that the originator is NOT supposed to be canvassing for support during the creation process ... but rather only after the request has been approved, if then. At least that is the case by my reading of WP:RFC/USER. Regardless, if we intend to allow Raul to sign after the fact, then this RFC has met the required criteria for moving to "Approved". Please make it so. --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

76

 – semi protected for one month Keeper

I don't exactly know where to put this issue, but there are several Anonymous IP editors who have been making POV edits to the article. Every one of the IP addresses is from the same location in Colorado. I'm not an expert on IP addresses, but it appears that one editor is trying to retain a POV version. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected for one month (last protection was for 2 weeks; IP (s) went right back at it). No problem with anyone extending my protection duration. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody trying to hack my password

Resolved

 – Par for the course, unfortunately - make sure you have a decent password and ignore them.

I just got an e-mail from Wikimedia that someone with the IP address 71.115.153.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (apparently in Reston, Virginia) tried to reset my password...should this be reported to anyone? Kelly ^hi! 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have received over 100 of these emails. I have always ignored them, no harm seems to have come from it. Is the IP one you have interacted with? Kevin (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Once you start getting those, in an odd osrt of way, it means you're doing good work for Wikipedia. (I've gotten a couple myself) Wizardman 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, you caught me redhanded! :-p Angrymansr (talk)

for future refernece, what does that mean when someone tried to resetr your password? That doesnt seem like something that might be important or dangeorus so could someone epxlain what that means please??? Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It means someone/something may have tried to steal her password. The only person who should be resetting your password is you. You should not receive e-mails for password resets if you didn't do it. That means someone else is trying to tinker with your account. Angrymansr (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it means someone clicked the "I forgot my password" button on the login screen, and nothing more. It's absolutely impossible to break into someone's account by doing this. --Carnildo (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh...shouldn't those attempts be reported somewhere, or are they beneath notice? Kelly ^hi! 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

cant people who do that be blocked? I mean, I dont want to come back one day and fidn someone else vandalized WIkipedia on my account or come back and find my account locked with some strange Nordic-Swaihili code or something! I would lose la my of my contributions have to find all of hte articles that I have worked on before in the past. I thinkt hat there should be a way to stop people from freel being able to reset someone elses password without their knowledge and/or consent. Smith Jones (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have a very strong password and you will be fine. You can try to reset anyones password by trying to log in as them. It will only reset though if you click the link in your email. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying...so basically we ignore the hacking attempts? Doing something like that seems at least as serious as vandalism. Kelly ^hi! 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree. Maybe the Hackers haven't not founded a way to compromise the our security failguards yet but they shall some day and if we dont find a way to knock them out now we will come in one day and find that a admins' account has been stolen and the entire encyclopedia has been horriblie vandalized. Smith Jones (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really someone trying to "hack" your account but rather someone just trying to annoy you by having the emails sent to you. I get them on a regular basis and have done for at least a couple of years and I've always assumed it was some vandal I blocked who was trying to piss me off. The emails aren't of any use in "hacking" your account unless they also know your email address and are able to access it to be able to get the link in the email. Best thing is to make sure both your email and account passwords are strong and then just ignore them or even filter them to junk mail so you don't even have to deal with them. It's much better now that they have set a limit on one email per day as a couple of years ago some of us were receiving dozens a day and I seem to recall someone who got over 100 in one day and that was what eventually led to the developers setting the limit at one request per day. Sarah 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I got 60 in a ten minute period back in the Great Password Reset Flood :) Daniel (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

tank you for all your help. so I guesss we editors in good standing will have to put uwp with attempts to violate the intereigity of our accounts from these nutcases, right? Well, i guess its not that a big of a deal since the amount is limited! Smith Jones (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering they can't actually do anything by sending these requests, it's nothing to worry about. --Carnildo (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these almost every day. Usually, the IP responsible has made no edits. It's not a big deal, although if you start getting them, make sure you have a decent strong password. Marked as resolved. Neıl 龱 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed

This may not be the best place to post this but it is an issue related to how administrators make use of their deletion powers with respect to a user posting Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed It is my belief that if a user posts Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed he should receive some sort of reply prior to the image being deleted. Some administrators disagree with this POV. What is the administrative policy regarding this? Specific example Image:Datpol.jpg where I posted the dispute tag and the only response was the following deletion log notice: 00:24, July 2, 2008 Melesse (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Datpol.jpg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW) (Please note, I was not the uploader of the file.) This fails to acknowledge the disputed tag in any way. It should be noted that the administrator did respond to questions posted on her user page following the deletion of the image User talk:Melesse#Image:Datpol.jpg The key reason for posting here is the following response: I did not ignore the posted tag. I read it, decided your rationale was not valid .... and deleted it. I don't know what more you want. If it so pleases you, go ahead and complain about me at the AN and see if anyone agrees with you. Melesse (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I believe users should receive some sort of reply to the dispute tag that goes beyond what was posted in the deletion log which did not in any way acknowledge that anyone had disputed the deletion tag leading one to believe that the dispute tag is simply being ignored. A second example is Image:Kara_Scott_publicity_photo.jpg Finally I believe that the following replies are not appropriate answers as the reference page itself is labeled as "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear." The quote is as follows:

Nope. Fair use images of living people are only allowed under very very special circumstances. See this page. Seeing as Kara Scott is alive and seems to be in the public eye a fair amount, it is reasonable for someone to take their own photo of her and release it under a free license. Melesse (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire issue of "Fair use images of living people" needs to be better referenced in the policy. There are far too many discussions that go no where and fail to link back to current policy, if it even exists. But in any case Administrators should not be referencing pages labeled as "no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear" to support their POV. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion review would be the appropriate forum to address concerns like that. Kelly ^hi! 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I also want to point out that a dispute tag, such as {{hangon}}, etc. gives the disputer no guarantee that the image/page won't be deleted. If an administrator feels that the image/page violates policy, then there is no reason for said admin to not delete it, as it is their "job." I also want to point out that if someone is alive, and they don't live in a secret cave, that more than likely someone can get a free image of said person. A lot of people take this for granted, but we need to remember that this is a free encyclopedia, so non-free content should only be added when there is no other reasonable options. I agree with Kelly, WP:DRV would be the best place to go. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that not the place to question a specific deletion? That is not the purpose of this posting. Based on a posting by Jimbo Wales himself, it appears clear that these type of images are not welcome in Wikipedia. But unfortunately his posting is not on a policy page but simply on his user page. The specific question being posted here is simply how should an administrator respond to the dispute tag? It does not relate to the deletion of the image, simply to the procedure used to delete it and the failure to acknowedge the dispute tag. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC) - posted after edit conflict

Based on the previous replies it would appear that if an administrator disagrees with the challenge or POV presented in the dispute tag that they have no responsibility to respond to it in any way, basicly from the user's point of view, simply ignoring it and deleting the image without any comment as to the dispute. Seems like a poor policy to me! Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of living people were addressed specifically by the Wikimedia Foundation here - this resolution is linked from WP:NFCC. Kelly ^hi! 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, but you are missing the point. This does not relate to the deletion of the images. It relates to the handling of the dispute tag which itself states the following:

"Closing administrator: if the decision is to Keep the image please put {{Rk}} on the image page. If the decision is to Delete please archive the discussion on the talk page between {{Rtd}} and {{Rb}} and delete the image page."

This is not being done. Basicly the dispute tag is simply being ignored, and that is the purpose of this topic. This topic does NOT deal with the deletion of images. It deals with how the dispute tag is being handled by administrators. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - could you provide a link to the policy you are quoting? Kelly ^hi! 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to find it in policy. it is quoted from the dispute tag itself Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed If that is not policy, then the template needs to be edited. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the template should be fixed. Thousands of bad fair use images are speedily deleted every month, and I personally don't really see any need to keep around the image talk pages for them. Kelly ^hi! 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To be sure I understand what you are saying, I will restate it in my words. If an administrator comes across an image with the following tag Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed and he disagrees with the reason stated, there is no need to respond to the disputed tag, it can simply be ignored and the image deleted without any reference to the dispute tag, it can be handled as if the disputed tag had never been posted. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, of course the deleting admin should consider the rationale, just as they would consider the argument in a {{hangon}}. But if they decide against it, there's not need to keep the argument around on an orphaned talk page. If the admin was wrong on deletion policy for a particular image, it can be brought up at deletion review. Kelly ^hi! 03:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am just not making myself clear enough. It is being assumed that the deleting admin has considered the rationale and made the decision that the rational is not strong enought to stop the deletion. The admin should somehow acknowledge the fact that they have considered the rationale, either on the talk page per the template which you disagree with, or in the deletion log or on the users talk page who posted the dispute tag. The deletion log might be the best place to do it, but that is not being done at this time unless you can tell me how the following tells me that the admin even bothered to read the dispute reason:

deletion log notice: 00:24, July 2, 2008 Melesse (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Datpol.jpg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW)

Especially since the fair use rational was valid. And the reason given for deletion is invalid Wikipedia:CSD#I7 Where does this state anything about images of living people which was the real reason the image was deleted. Thank you for your replies so far. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say it can safely be assumed that the administrator considered all arguments present on the page unless there is evidence to the contrary (i.e. bot deletions or something like that). CSD I7 is the overarching policy for deletion of images with bad fair use claims, which includes replaceable fair use images. Kelly ^hi! 04:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So to repeat again, you are saying that if the administrator has considered all arguments and feels that they are not enought to change their POV regarding deleting the image, then there is absolutely no need to respond to the dispute tag in any form or fashion including use of the deletion log summary, it can be totally ignored (as long as the reasons have been considered) and there is no need to notifiy the user who posted the dispute tag of the decision, thereby forcing that user to ask the question on the admins talk page just to find out if they actually did consider the dispute tag or simply ignored it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

← Simply, put: yes. The admin can delete the image (or article, as the case may be) without responding to the "hangon" message. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to Giano II

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, has voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pianomanusa and User:Afusing

Ok, I may be in the wrong place, but with the circumstances I can see this being a bit ugly. First off, as I reported, Pianomanusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) was adding to a number of pages with a link to sheetmusicarchive.net. This site is very clearly a business site, charging for most of its content. All such links were reverted, and the user made only a few other edits. Now, just a bit ago, Afusing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) added some serious allegations to the Sheet Music page - diff - which I reverted, and got quickly reverted myself, with a somewhat incivil edit summary ("BACK OFF" and such). While I'm positive Sheetmusic Archive would be against EL policies anyway, I'm more concerned that the user may go on stating unsourced accusations against the IMSLP, especially in light of that it seems that SMA is trying to restrict sharing of clearly PD content. Maybe I should work it out first...but in light of the previous spamming, and since I really don't wanna be blocked for 3RR, I figured I'd ask for some help before hand, as I imagine the two accounts are likely related. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. I have problems with them "copyrighting" scans of public domain works -- doesn't Copyright law have some fairly specific things to say about exact reproductions?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK on Marburg72 RfC

The following is with regards to the RfC on Marburg 72 located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Marburg72

It is filed by Trochos, Who has taken to recruiting friends to "endorse" the complaints. This seems to be in direct conflict with the policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices , or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned .

2. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.

3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity. Marburg72 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the evidence that Trochos is acting in violation to the applicable policy: Trochos asked Ronz on Ronz talk page to endorse this claim, as follows: Ronz, I've just put in an "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" summary, and your name keeps cropping up. Would you like ::to sign in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section? David Trochos (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) See the following for this extensive recruitment evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/David_Trochos http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKbh3rd&diff=223398909&oldid=221699896 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACJLippert&diff=223398409&oldid=222091728 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AItsmejudith&diff=223387983&oldid=222958028 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APaul_Barlow&diff=223387620&oldid=222972926 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AClovisPt&diff=223386427&oldid=222876449 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhlegm_Rooster&diff=223369392&oldid=223014893 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARonz&diff=223367856&oldid=223366774

Here Ronz stated that his involvement with this was upon a request for "Help" . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarburg72&diff=223403410&oldid=223312101 Marburg72 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz later reverted this statement, and said that it was from the Fringe accusations page located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarburg72&diff=223416239&oldid=223412775 Marburg72 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Further indirect evidence of recruitment on behalf of the other involved party that is verifying this complaint by the name of DougWeller- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leoboudv&action=history

Leoboudv (talk) page shows that this user is friends with Weller and Trochos has had a long history of prior discussions with him, this is again in direct conflict with MEAT PUPPET policy.

In addition, Shot Info, the other user that has "endorsed" the claim quickly, has a long history of discussions with Ronz. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shot_info&limit=500&action=history Marburg72 (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued meat puppetry and recruiting on behalf of Doug : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGwen_Gale&diff=223522358&oldid=223521966 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Please review the standard for WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. I do not feel that this recruitment to verify Trochos and Wellers claims against me are abiding by Wikipedia policy.Marburg72 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• How interesting Marburg72. I post a single message noting your removal of a book by a reliable source the University of Illinois at [166] and specifically here and you quickly accuse me of all being a meat/sockpuppet. Of course, you don't mention your behaviour at all in deleting the University of Illinois book reference. Removal of reliable sources can constitute a form of vandalism. Just because you have a point of view doesn't mean you can remove sourced references that may conflict with your viewpoint. Without reliable sources, Wikipedia's credibility is called into question. I am certainly no one's puppet. I checked your edits before I made my statement. I saw these edits by you in which you implicitly accused two well respected scholars, Fowler and Young, of bias and racism toward native Indians regarding the Cahokia mounds [167] and [168] but I ignored it. I mention it now for an Admin to inspect. For full disclosure, I have made zero edits to the Cahokia mounds article and am no one's puppet on this subject. But I dislike being attacked for being called someone's puppet. As an Aside, Marburg72's behaviour towards others is simply abhorrent. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were at all familiar with the topic or discussion, it would be clear to you that the source on Mound 72 by Fowler states nothing of this speculative theory.Marburg72 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar complaint, although of sockpuppetry only, at [169]. I've said that that I can't understand why he would accuse me of being a sockpuppet. He has, for instance, twice mentioned by personal website. I think a better understanding of policy and guidelines by Marburg72 might have avoided all these problems Doug Weller (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug has also attempted to recruit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kbh3rd#User:Marburg72__and_Cahokia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug has continued adding personal attacks to the Monk's Moiund page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonk%27s_Mound&diff=223521614&oldid=223520148 Marburg72 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at 'Trochos's' edits mentioned above, and he seems to be contacted editors who have been involved with Marburg72 and says "f you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view" or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so". Isn't it reasonable to invite editors with some experience of the editor in question to comment? And, just as Marburg72 seems to be watching other people's contributions, other people are probably watching mine or those of Trochos, so there should be no surprise if some of them decide to take a look at the RfC. Doug Weller (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving this and the sock-puppetry complaint to the judgement of the admins. David Trochos (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SSP is that-away ---> Coldmachine^Talk 09:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanos Papalexis

This article is being WP:OWNed by User talk:Nemesisman and what I believe is his IP User talk:76.109.213.244 both WP:SPAs for all intents and purposes, the IP has only edited the article and the User has made a few other edits, but primarily on the article. They remove tags, revert other users edits and refuse to engage on the talk page or their own talk pages. The subject of the article is of questionable notability to begin with...if someone smarter than I am could take a look and see if they can sort out if there should be blocks, page protection, warnings, for them or a WP:Trout for me. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikkid

Wikkidd (talk · contribs) has been pushing an edit war spread over several articles, including petroleum, diamondoid, and White Tiger oil field with several users. He is pushing a wp:fringe hypothesis about the origin of oil, one which has been hashed out as such many times at many different articles, and this has been pointed out to him at the Talk:Petroleum page, but he keeps repeating himself no matter what replies he receives. A report was created at the FTN board, but his editing has gotten more and more tendentious [170] [171] and he is now even changing his initial comments on talk pages [172] and creating strange ultra-synthesized versions of his POV [173]. Please somebody have a word with him as this is getting out of hand. NJGW (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He also made a frivolous AIV report against one of his antagonists (that, fortunately, was quickly idenitified as such).[174] From his talk page he does not seem to be willing to compromise in the slightest. If this continues, I think a block for tendentious editing is in order. Will warn him appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that until now he hasn't been warned appropriately? I don't see any evidence of that on his talk page. I don't think it's fair to imply that the user hasn't been given the appropriate level of warnings up to his fifth "final warning." I think another "final warning" template, the sixth in four days, would be inappropriate, as a matter of fact. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

His response: editors opposing him are tendentious, he's just trying to balance... And he just reverted JoshuaZ on diamondoid - seems to be in vio of 3rr as well. But, I'm rather involved :-) Vsmith (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You hush, you vandal. :) See? His oppression just proves what lengths your liberal planet-hugging atheist evolutionist Prius-driving Richard Dawkins fanboy cabal will go to keep Wikipedia in your iron grip!!¡!Aunt Entropy (talk)!`¡!!one -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Just based on the edits at Diamondoid and Petroleum, I am blocking for 31 hours for edit warring and/or tendentious editing.

• 10:56, 3 July 2008
• 12:40, 3 July 2008
• 21:08, 3 July 2008
• 23:46, 3 July 2008
• 01:06, 4 July 2008
• 18:50, 3 July 2008, which includes this. seicer | talk | contribs 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that Daniel Case gave notice at 00:44, 4 July 2008, which was replied at 00:59, 4 July 2008 (and amended as the later timestamp shows). This was followed up with a revert only minutes later. seicer | talk | contribs 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Talk:Ion Mihai Pacepa (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

(Not that it changes the picture.) — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Disturbing pattern

A few editors have been engaging in some problematic edits on certain pages.

User 194.126.21.5 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [175] and vandalized the Afd tag on Jean Riachi [176] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi twice [177] [178]. They blanked Emile Riachi twice [179] [180], then vandalized the Afd tag [181], then vandalized the page. [182]. This user has also made personal attacks agains Damien.rf in an edit summary. [183]

User 206.53.154.135 has also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [184] [185] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi four times. [186] [187] [188] [189] and vandalized Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in a way to falsely accuse user Damien.rf of vandalism. [190]

User 83.229.109.156 deleted the Afd tag from Jean Riachi [191], then blanked the page [192], then deleted the Afd tag again [193] They also blanked Emile Riachi [194], then blanked everything but the Afd tag [195], then blanked it again [196], then removed the Afd tag [197]

User Lebprofiler has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi [198]. He also made personal attacks against user Damiens.rf in comments [199] [200] [201] [202] and in an edit summary. [203].

User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi. [204], claimed ownership of an associated page in his edit summary [205] [206] and made personal attacks against Damien.rf [207]

User Nabuchodonozor has not assumed good faith about Damiens.rf’s edits and has called for that user to be banned. [208] Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a disruptive WP:SPA and likely WP:SOCK editor, has returned from a 3-day block for edit-warring on a Barack Obama-related article,[209] to provoke editors on the Barack Obama talk page. In the first five edits since the block expired[210][211][212][213][214] the user taunts, accuses other editors of bad faith, invokes support of banned and blocked editors, etc. The page, after a month of contention had been edging close to consensus. If this disruption is allowed to continue I suspect efforts will fall apart. We need help here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to the a.n./i. stuff but would like to ask, before the bee would be shooed away, that it be noted that WB74's complained-of contributions are on a discussion-page as components of, yes, his advocacy for his point of view about how the article should be edited (and that's a pov that doesn't really devaiate all so much from the norm). Is WP really just about shooing away dissent, via labeling such entirely non-concretely unsanctionable actions of opponents as disruptive? Maybe so----I'm pretty new here----and maybe such "I-shot-the-sheriff" stuff is the only way to maintain decorum in this Wild West-type of environment but I'm just saying it smacks of being less than idealistic toward a free interchange of ideas. — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, behavior. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440#Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74. Wikidemo (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The sheer quantity of your whining exaggerated reports, Wikidemo, is absolutely not to be taken as any indication of their quality. They are whining, exaggerated reports. Die4Dixie is correct. There should be a separate ANI page, so that admins can spot this troubling pattern of disagree/ provoke/ report. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

POV problems with Falun Gong articles

I'm beginning to wondering if arbcom decisions are enforced at all, as according to the case on FLG: "It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources." [215]. These are articles seemed to be abandoned by most editors except single purpose accounts bent on pushing their agendas. I've noted a RFC here [216], but so far has not received any replies from a third party. Is it possible to get admin intervention to check on the POV of these articles?--PCPP (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

One look at the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (2nd nomination) shows the obvious problem.--PCPP (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves and User:146.74.1.99

The IP address in question has been engaged in a long-term edit war over a single issue, namely the status of the Atlanta Braves' consecutive division championships. Major League Baseball recognizes their streak as 14, not 11, because the strike-shortened 1994 season had no champions. The IP address wants it otherwise, and has tried various ways to push his personal agenda. He has been warned numerous times. He's also been blocked, and then unblocked on the condition that he discuss and compromise, but he won't. [217] Something needs to be done about this character's continual disruptive behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions by User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and User:Folantin

Over the past two days I saw in front of my eyes how all of my contribution to Chechen people disappear by the two editors with clear WP:MEATpuppetry engaged. Neither has provided any real explanation, and reverted to a heavy POV version that was semi-plagiarised from an amateurish source. Despite my attempts ([218],[219]) to get a discussion going, both editors have clearly expressed ([220],[221])their non-willingness in doing so. After the [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], sixth revert of my work, which included removal of disputed tags and the like, I have no option but to raise the issue here and request admin intervention and to explain to these users the principle of WP:OWN.
On a separate note, if one checks the history of the article or other articles the former user is editing, one can clearly see an attempt to have an edit stack. I do hope that if he chooses to have an RfA in the near future this record is kept for refrence. --Kuban Cossack 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BAM, did not have time to finish writing this already a SEVENTH revert. --Kuban Cossack 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats true. He aslo had a revert war yestarday on the Russians page, and here you can see he started a discussion which he turned into a political debate and started arguing about things not even in the article. For a few times he was explained Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, explanations he have ignored. Log in, log out (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Referring exclusively to the Chechen people page): User:Kuban kazak is a soapboxing nightmare. I watchlisted the Chechen people page because I had made some contributions to the etymology section, including adding a valid reference. Then, last week, KK arrived and slapped a "citation needed" tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources [227]. When he finally added references for his material (mostly in Russian), I checked out one of them and it did not contain any reference to the fact it was supposed to verify (see talk page for details [228]). Moreover, the whole tenor of the source he used said exactly the opposite of what he was claiming in the article (i.e. the Chechens collaborated en masse with the Germans in World War Two). When challenged about this misuse of sources, he tried to change the subject, then offered another source in Russian which again failed to back the fact cited. He has refused to give any explanation for his behaviour, finally telling me to clean up his mess myself: "So correct that part, after all you are interested in the article to be full and detailed and correct? Are you not?". I reverted him and began to source the previous version of the article, adding a reference from a reliable source in English to a fact he had marked as "dubious" [229]. This morning, he completely reverted this and reinstated his own material, including the completely unverified "facts" I had challenged on the talk page [230]. It's pretty obvious that this editor is pushing some kind of agenda (see his user page) and is completely untrustworthy as far as following WP:V and WP:RS are concerned. He probably thought he could get away with inserting some vague references in the Russian language and nobody would be able to check up on him. He should be topic-banned from editing this page and other Chechen-related articles. I'm neither Chechen nor Russian. I merely want a factually accurate page. As it happens I've also challenged User:Captain Obvious about material he added [[231]], so we're hardly "meat puppets" (and I haven't been involved in any of the disputes on the other pages). --Folantin (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am not a soapbox! You are! Second, what right have you got to remove the whole edit? Yes I admit that I've made a mistake on a small segment of it, and yes I encouraged Folantin to correct the parts he deemed incorrect, or re-write that particular part affected in light of his "better" refrences. Also the version he has reverted to five times now (slipping away from a 3rr by a very small margin) included material based on an non-professional source, parts of which were clearly copypasted and plagiarised! Once again I remind him that he does not WP:OWN the article, and that wikipedia goes by consensus not by reverts, so far he has made NO attempt at bridging our disagreements. Yet he already is demanding that I am banned. Talk about being agressive I've not even tried to ask for a sanction on the user. --Kuban Cossack 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And you've provided no explanation for your flagrant abuse of referencing, your reinstatement of challenged material (which you know is dubious), your adding "citation needed" templates to referenced material (I had to spell this out to you at least twice in edit summaries) and your deletion of cited content. I do not have time to waste on national chauvinist POV-pushers. You are clearly untrustworthy and I have no faith in any content you might add. --Folantin (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all how dare you insult me? I hope the admin are watching this personal attack and will react, I've not set a word of your personal habit and views and opinions yet you are biting away aleady. Second I now know its dubious because you've pointed it out to me, ok a section is wrong, in a normal case you settle down on it and work at it improving it and expanding it, no you instead revert everything along with other parts that you did not challenge, and with the tags as well. FYI I did not remove the material that was there before but incorporated it into my large edit. Yet as you said above you have no interest in even looking for consensus, which means you have got a lesson to learn in manners and good faith and etiquette. --Kuban Cossack 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You've already referred to me as "arrogant" on an admin's talk page behind my back yesterday[232], so it's a bit late to be talking about "personal attacks". All of which is a sidetrack anyway. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and your refusal to seek consensus, and persistant reverting is exactly the reason why I called you arrogant. Or is the culprit of the problem that the original text was heavily POVed which you endorsed now give times, particularly relating to the post-1956 events and the events of 1800-1930s, copied from a very dubious and no-reknown publisher Joana Nichols, and it suited your version to make WP:POINT that the Chechens for the past 2 centuries have been nothing but victims to the evil evil Russians (despite ethnically cleansing 250 thousand of them in 1990-1994). --Kuban Cossack 09:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Nichols is a professor at Berkeley. She's published an English-Ingush dictionary. I even replaced the reference sourced to her with one from Jaimoukha's book, which said exactly the same thing. Now are you going to explain your abuse of sources? --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

She published a dictionary. Great. That still doesnt mean she knows history. And just for the record, there are proffesors who deny Gas Chambers at Nazi territores, and...? She's not enough known, she's not neutral, she's biased. You need a completely neutral reference of an author who doesn't try to make a point. Log in, log out (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, she is a linguist not a historian and on that paper in the intro she states black on white that this is not a professional history refrence but more of a public outcry to side her opinion. For example the post 1956 events with Chechens being repressed is pure bullshit, considering that by 1970s the whole administration of the republic was made entirely of Chechens who held all key cabinet roles. The original passage implies some colonial/labour camp administration. I have no idea what your Jaimoukha said, but I for one try not to limit myself to one source. --Kuban Cossack 10:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at the preview of Jaimoukha's book at google, on the whole can't say I am impressed with it, again same one-sided history written from a clear non-neutral perspective. For example it ignores the savegery of the Chechen attacks on Cossack stanitsas as documented by a wide scale of international historians such as Peter Hopkirk's book "The Great Game". Of course it does not even mention what happened to the Russian minority at the hands of the Chechens in early 90s nor will it bother to mention the even the name of the insurgent leaders. So in short good for political propaganda of like minders, but for encyclopedia... :( --Kuban Cossack 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, Do you know that if the source is not reliable you can delete it and out a citation needed? Your sources were not reliable, thats why Kuban Cossack challenged them. Bring references from nutral sources who dont have i bias. And you cant denie this user Captian loves edit wars. He came to the Russians page, started a revert war with a few users, then started a political discussion not having to do anything with the article. Log in, log out (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My source was The Chechens: A Handbook, by Amjad Jaimoukha, London, New York: Routledge, 2005. In other words, a book in English from a renowned academic publisher, not some Russian source off the Net. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaimouka is not excepted by anyone but Chechen Nationalists. He's known primary for using more imagination then truth. Log in, log out (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He's obviously not acceptable to National Bolsheviks, of which you are a supporter. Check their flag [233] - what a great way to combine Nazi and Soviet imagery. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind Folantin to Comment on content, not on the contributor. I could not care less what you stand for and here you go insulting a user who is not even involved in our dispute. --Kuban Cossack 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not come across Folantin, but from the tone of his comments I can clearly see who is in the wrong here. I had a look at the edits and reverts, and although Kuban kazak's is far from perfect the old version that Folantin and Captain Obvious are sterily reverting to is much worse in terms of neutrality and accuracy. Some parts of Kuban's additions are clearly correct. I would recommend you to follow a WP:DR process, and Folantin to cease reverting. Log in, log out (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You can tell that just by tone, can you? What an amazing gift. But here's another explanation: Folantin is an editor who is sick to the back teeth with rampant national and ethnic POV-pushing on Wikipedia, which might account for the note of frustration and weariness at yet another attempt to mess with content. Obviously, your sympathy for Kuban Kazak has nothing to do with the fact you are Russian. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Folantin the fact that you are not Russian is not something that bothers me, I deal every day on wikipedia with people of different scope. In other words no only do you have problems with political views you now have problems with nationlities of the editors. Well I do apologise for us resisting the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler and other times when Russia fought for her independence, obviously it made your life a lot difficult. --Kuban Cossack 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny, because that's what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV. Log in, log out (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep sidetracking. --Folantin (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You were brought certain claims. You were brought certain facts. You ignore them and go into personal. That doesnt work in your favour here. Log in, log out (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read a word I've said. Jaimoukha is a reliable source (he's published by Routledge). Your friend KK wanted to add material which claimed " In some areas up to 80% of the [Chechen] populations backed the [pro-German] insurgency [during World War Two]". He referenced it to this online source [234]. No such "fact" occurs in the article. Moreover, the page is written by Alexander Uralov, who's kind of pro-Chechen, and is entitled "Murder of the Chechen-Ingush People. Genocide in the USSR". Uralov completely rejects the idea of mass Chechen-German collaboration, citing "two decisive facts": "1) During the Second World War, German soldiers did not once set foot in the territory of the Chechen-Ingush Republic, unless you count the short-lived occupation of Malgobek, inhabited by Russians; (2) it was physically impossible for Chechens and Ingush to link up with German formations...[and so on]". In other words, it makes the exact opposite point from the one KK wanted to push. I had to spend my available free time yesterday afternoon reading that page in my rusty Russian. I doubt if KK even bothered read it in the first place. You could have checked up on this by following the links I provided in my first statement here. You obviously couldn't be bothered either. This is why I object to wasting my time checking up on obviously untrustworthy POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I trusted the article 1940-1944 Insurgency in Chechnya, however the original version of the Chechen people article did not even cite that as the reason for the deportation, only the POV statement: Moscow's repressions reached the apogee. Now how is that not being biased. Whether or not the scale of insurgency was as large as claimed is not of my concern, there is evidence for it (fact one; Khasan Israilov did exist) and there is evidence that Germans dropped paratroopers into Chechnya (fact two). That is of course sidetrack and maybe WP:UNDUE for the article, but omitting compleately along with other parts such as the post-war and pre-war events that I have added is worse. Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached? --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's all my fault. You've got a nerve. I'll give you that.--Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And he did it again. Look. It was deleted and he recived a second warning. There won't be a third. Log in, log out (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"He" being "Captain Obvious". --Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak has been engaged in a slow-scale nationalist edit war with User:Riwnodennyk on European ethnic groups. WP editors have clear problems if they reject as recognized sources books written by reputed academics and published by long-established publishing houses. Johanna Nichols and Amjad Jaimoukha have respectable academic credentials. She is Professor of slavic languages and literatures at the University of California, Berkeley, in charge of a Chechen project partially funded by the NSF. He was educated in England, and is now Assistant President of the Royal Scientific Society in Jordan and member of the Central Eurasian Studies Society at Harvard University. Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was not nationalistic edit warring, but more of fixing the incorrectly drawn map. WRT editors, again there are professors funded by most reputable organisations that deny Holocaust, I take it most of them never even set foot in Chechnya. Nichols srticle is out of date by more than a decade. Yes I reject that as reliable source, Jaimoukha's can pass wrt culture and tradition, history reject again because its laden with opinions, that were copied into the article. --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like it" obviously trumps reliable sources. --Folantin (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is they are not reliable in presense of contradicting material awailable and the POV the authors carry. --Kuban Cossack 11:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evaluations of writers cannot be made in this way on WP; academic book reviews can of course be cited when relevant. Some details of Nichols' field trips to Chechnya can be found on her home page. Mathsci (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already established Kuban Kazak's "reliability" as a source anyway, so I don't think we can have him going round dismissing scholars who don't fit in with his POV. --Folantin (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Those scholars are controversial and push their POV in their text. I'll give you an example. If a scholar, and there are many like that, will write that the Germans haven't built gas chembers, would you belive him even thought he's a scholar? I really hope not. The sources shouldn't be just of a "dud with a deploma", but from someone known as nutral. Log in, log out (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those credentialed scholars are clearly just like Neo-Nazis - and this is coming from someone who sports imagery derived from the Third Reich on his user page. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You know going into personal will get you blocked. You ignored a claim by going into personal. Thats a behaviour of someone who lost an argument. Log in, log out (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Violating WP:BLP by libelling accredited scholars by comparing them to Holocaust deniers will get you blocked a lot sooner. As for the "Third Reich imagery", Compare [235] and contrast [236]. Your user page as of this writing contains the latter image [237]. We've already had trouble with one notorious "National Bolshevik" editor (User:M.V.E.i.). We don't need another. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Appeal: could an uninvolved admin please deal with the essential issues here to stop this discussion sliding into irrelevance and obfuscation. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett blocked, requesting review

I have blocked G-Dett (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to continued incivilty after being repeatedly warned about on her talk page. You can find a discussion about it at User talk:G-Dett#Comment. There I reminded her that she was a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, explained to her about the "Decorum" section, and told her about commenting on content as opposed other contributors. For those interested, feel free to read the rest of the section - I am requesting a review of this block in order to see if other members of the community agree or not. Khoikhoi 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If a contributor is misrepresenting policy, it seems appropriate to point that out, even to "comment on the contributor". --NE2 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Two IP's making hard to spot and long term vandalism

Resolved

 – Not vandalism - provided policy link and explanation. Papa November (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

66.139.242.2 and 69.1.169.130 are vandalizing the Pan-African article, and others, with subtle and repeated edits very hard to fix. I think we have to check carefully all their edits, because I found old vandalism that wasn't fixed. --PeterCantropus (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please could you provide some WP:DIFFs to demonstrate the alleged abuse? Also, as a non-administrator, you shouldn't be using block tags as you did here and here. Papa November (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the edits you reverted, and this looks more like a content dispute. There's no obvious vandalism there. Papa November (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know I couldn't use block tags. I found it suspicious that an anon IP was rewriting large portions of the article, without adding sources. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm quite new here. --PeterCantropus (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered users are entitled to contribute, just as registered users are. You may want to put a {{fact}} tag after any controversial comments, but these edits don't really appear to be vandalism. You can read WP:VAND#NOT for a list of things that aren't vandalism, and how to deal with them.

Only admins can block people - the block templates only display a message (they don't actually block the user). so placing a "you have been blocked" message on a talk page will only serve to confuse them, if they are still actually able to edit!

I'll mark this as resolved here, but send me a message if you need further help/explanations. Papa November (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Breadandsocks on a rampage trying to promote William Morris Agency

This user has created a dozen new articles in the past two hours of nonnotable and purely promotional advertisements for executives within the William Morris Agency and has rewritten the main article in the same manner. User should be temporarily blocked so page creation can be halted and user's contribs can be evaluated at COIN. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. You've probably averted a serious mess. I think the editor is trying to edit in good faith. I've made some comments on the William Morris talk page and removed the speedy tag there. I think we should discourage the editor from creating child articles faster than people can evaluate them, but consider the possibility that they can overcome the COI issue to create proper articles - at least that it's a debatable point for COIN. Wikidemo (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

Could we please get some uninvolved admin help at Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). With it being the holiday here in the US, I believe an editor with a significant CoI is trying to take advantage of the timing to perform a purge clothed as a merge. The talk page has all the gritty details. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected for two days to force discussion. A bad day to do something so contentious. Neıl 龱 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon related afds

Hi, there are some Lebanon related afds running that would benefit from the attention of some admin. They are being target for vandalism (just as well as the articles) and had recently even been closed by one of the editors involved (non-adminm, of course). The afds are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skiing in Lebanon, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi. See the history of these afds and their respective articles for knowing the users (and anons) involved. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, a related dispute seems to be taking place at Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Damiens.rf 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)