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

Continued baiting and harassment by User:GoRight

Backstory: Over the past few days, User:GoRight and myself have found ourselves on the opposite sides of a scuffle over on The Great Global Warming Swindle. GoRight is part of a small but ferocious contingent of somewhat-tendentious editors who came to the article after some conservative commentators wrote bitchy Op-Eds about how unfair the article was to noble global warming "skeptics" who falsify data. For backstory, check the history of that article.

To get to the point of this post: Yesterday, I received the following post on my talk page: [1]. While under most circumstances this would be a friendly reminder (and a great alternative to a uw-template!), under these particular circumstances I take it as nothing more than baiting from Stock Character #593: "The Civil POV-Pusher". He and his cohorts have behaved the exact same way on the talk page of TGGWS, demanding sources that say the sky is blue, opening a RfC using perhaps the most inflammatory "civil" language possible, and so on.

I responded [2], asking him to kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. There are other editors and admins on the Global Warming Swindle page whose judgement I actually trust who would no doubt be happy to warn anyone who was crossing the line in this regard.

This morning, I received this message: [3].

I would appreciate the voice of a third party, since he was clearly unable to comprehend my request, and seemingly unable to stop himself. I am not adverse to a "mutual agreement" that would keep both of us off the other's talk page, if that's the only "comfortable" solution. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the tl;dr --Badger Drink (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would appreciate a third-party being the one to inform him of this thread - I know it's customary for the complaint-issuer to do the informing, but in this case I believe that a warning from myself would be taken poorly. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As clearly documented in my second reply, I am merely following the recommended dispute resolution processes. Where they direct me to leave a message on the user's talk page I don't know that I have any choice. Under these circumstances should I instead move directly to WP:ANI as Badger Drink has done here? It seems that there are a number of dispute resolution steps to be applied before this, but I will defer to the judgment of the administrators here on this point.

Regarding the notices I have placed on Badger Drink's user page I have no specific quarrel with him other than he treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. I am not contacting Badger Drink for any purpose other than to stop his aggressive behavior against me. I think that the record will show that I have been nothing but civil in this discourse. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that any user has the right to provide such a warning; however, I have come to consider it improper (not by guidelines, but personally) to be the one to warn someone with whom I'm involved in a comment. The reason is that being in a conflict can defeat the purpose of warning, because the one warned may take it as simply an extension of the conflict. While I can understand GoRight's desire to stop what he sees as Badger Drink's aggressive behavior, there are better options, generally, starting with ignoring it. Deal with the articles, not the users. If "aggressive behavior," for example, leads to improper reverts of your edits, that are not being dealt with by other editors, use WP:DR. That includes discussing issues of substance with other editors, and a warning is not really a discussion, it is more like a threat. (Folks, if I seriously warn you on your Talk page, it means that I have concluded that I've decided you should be blocked, and I'm giving you a warning as a prerequisite. If I warn you somewhere else, such as in article Talk, it means that I'm hoping to be able to resolve the issue in a relatively friendly manner, because I have not set up the block prerequisite. And, in fact, you could be utterly and totally uncivil to me, and I doubt I'd warn you. But someone else might. Be that uncivil to someone else, though, I might act. I consider all editors to be quasi-administrators, we really should conduct ourselves in more or less the same way.)

In spite of this, warning, unless there is so little basis for it that it is mere harassment (which would require substantial repetition of improper warnings), should never be a cause to bring a matter to AN/I. If done civilly, it is not an offense. Even if wrong, it's not an offense. I've been warned, sometimes properly, but more often otherwise, in my opinion, many times. I wouldn't even think of complaining about it. If you are going to get involved with contentious issues on Wikipedia, it's best to cultivate a thick skin. Listen to complaints, by all means, but then take from them what you can, and let the rest go. A user blows off some steam by dropping a warning. If there is some specific behavior that one is being warned not to repeat, it's highly advisable to consider whether the behavior is important enough to stand before the community, holding to it and trying to justify it. Part of the question would be political: "Can I find support for this now? Is it worth being blocked over?" --Abd (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight has a substantial history of disrupting these pages. Looking at his RFC, a plurality of editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment that everything I said in my initial discussion (summarizing GoRight's misbehavior, including his BLP violations) there was accurate, and further that he contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia and has a history of disruption to make a point and inserting "laughably wrong" material into the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the second most supported comment said (essentially) that GoRight has misbehaved, but so have other people. I think administrative action is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an analysis of the comments and endorsements at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. It's true that more editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment, but Stephan and most of the endorsers, including Raul654, were editors who had been involved in edit warring with GoRight and others. There were 13 endorsements. Of these, 8 had been involved in edit warring or other conflict with GoRight, leaving 5 for which I have identified no prior involvement. In contrast, the comment by JeremyMcCracken was endorsed by 10 editors, of which 3 have shown prior support for GoRight's edits, leaving 7 apparently neutral. That summary is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GoRight#Outside_view_by_JeremyMcCracken. The neutral plurality is with McCracken's comment, at this point. We can expect that if there is a faction of editors cooperating to maintain a set of articles on a hot-button political issue, they would come to comment preferentially in an RfC involving those issues, and we see many of the same editors active here in this AN/I report, which, considered together with the RfC, I consider harassment of GoRight. I became involved with the RfC because I saw wikilawyering -- on his part -- attempting to prevent its certification, and I cut through that and enabled it. And then I read it, and researched it, and was horrified at what I found. GoRight was greeted with entrenched incivility and edit warring by a number of editors, with the worst incivility being by Raul654, who also wrote the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-but-few-diffs RfC, and there have been other admins who have been involved whose behavior was improper. See my comment in the RfC, my extended RfC page as referenced there, and my evidence page. This is not a report on Raul654, but I'm mentioning him because he's been part of the problem, and looking at his suggestions for a solution would be a serious mistake. Incivility breeds incivility, and incivility on the part of administrators is a very serious issue. GoRight made mistakes, but has largely amended his behavior. I haven't seen that from the others.--Abd (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your analysis deeply flawed and your statement not reflecting your analysis at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I will point out the following in response:

1. As one of the certifiers in the above mentioned RfC, Raul is not a neutral party.
2. Raul's comment does not actually address the topic raised in this incident, but is instead an attempt on his part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me when he has failed in his last two such attempts.
3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments.
4. I draw everyone's attention to the last two paragraphs of Wikipedia:NPA#Personal_attacks.
5. Accordingly, my past behavior is not at issue here. What is at issue, or should be at least, is the fact that I am receiving uncivil comments and personal attacks from Badger Drink and I merely want them to stop.

--GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reading GoRight's claims that he's taken the RFC to heart should bear in mind R. Baley's observation that "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard". R Baley had previously had no interaction with GoRight until he blocked GoRight for harassing WMC. GoRight feigned a change of heart and claimed to have self-reformed and convinced R. Baley to unblock him early. However, the fact that we are now here clearly unmasks this deception. And GoRight's absurd claims aside, both his past behavior and the fact that he has never stopped are very much at issue. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that just a few days ago GoRight was restoring a character-assassinating screed ([4]) to the BLP on William Connolley using an astonishly disingenuous two-wrongs-make-a-right policy-wonkery justification, I don't see that he has taken the RfC results 'to heart'. In that instance, he chose to justify his violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT purely on the basis of another editor's error in citing WP:VAND. From the ensuing discussion, he still doesn't seem to get why there was a problem with his actions there (GoRight's final comment) and I see no reason not to expect this type of problem to continue.

For the record, I had never interacted with GoRight before encountering him at William Connolley (which I think I got to from an AN/I discussion), and didn't know that he had been the subject of an RfC until after trying to reason with him on the William Connolley talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I clearly stated on the talk page, once it became obvious that the consensus on that addition would be against me I accepted it, and I have not attempted to restore it ... even throughout the course of our discussion there. In our discussion I was merely defending my initial actions based on what I viewed as a violation of wikpedia policy. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your initial actions were indefensible under Wikipedia policy. Re-adding text that talks about a biographical subject's "ruthless subversion of the rules" and includes a section header that says "Connolley's Censorship Over Global Warming Articles Brings Wikipedia into Disrepute" is far beyond what's acceptable under WP:BLP, and any experienced editor should be aware of that without requiring a discussion to establish a consensus on the point. You chose to disregard WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT because you thought (correctly) that Kim had erred in citing WP:VAND for the removal of the text (which happened to be sympathetic to your own point of view). You can't claim 'I was sticking up for policy' if you're going to enforce some policies while ignoring others—and thereby harm the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As the record clearly demonstrates the material was properly sourced and attributed in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V and did not constitute WP:VANDAL as you admit above. Therefore it should not have been deleted as such. Regardless I have accepted the consensus of my fellow editors.

And yet again I will remind everyone, this is not the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic of this discussion is my attempt to get User:Badger Drink to remain WP:CIV in his interactions with me and to refrain from making personal attacks against me in violation of WP:NPA. --GoRight (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, on the RFC I argued for a 0RR restriction on the Global Warming related pages fo GoRight precisely for this reason. Count Iblis (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but others including WMC himself argued that WP:1RR was sufficient. In any event, my actions are purely voluntary. No official action resulted from the RfC itself. Have I not stopped the edit warring subsequent to the bulk of the discussion on the RfC as I claimed here? Can you point to areas of wide-spread edit warring on my part after I indicated I was intending to adopt the WP:1RR restriction?

But again, this is not even the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic is my attempts to get User:Badger Drink to stop violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA in his comments to me by placing appropriate (per wikipedia dispute resolution process) notices on his talk page. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if we're going to be children about "topics", the topic is your continued baiting and, to bring said baiting in context, your tendentious editing pattern, which I now see seems to be a rather established part of your history. Frankly, though, I see no reason to refrain from letting conversation evolve naturally from the original topic as it seems to already have - but then again, considering the way you treat the current "RfC" (term used very loosely) on TGGWS (see here and, of course, the "vote section" (like I said, "RfC" only in the loosest sense) here), it would seem, in all good faith, that the concept of conversation eludes you at times - willfully or accidentally. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a third, fairly neutral, opinion. Based on the opening statement here, it looks like Badger is being more uncivil. When someone asks you to refrain from jabs, you shouldn't raise a fit. And certainly a brief notification that personal attacks are not appreciated is not harassment; I'm sorry, that just looks like immature drama-whoring, and it reflects very poorly. II | (t - c) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And when someone (who, for the sake of argument, is "raising a fit" in your own words) tells you to stop posting on his talk page, you tickle the dragon's tail (or talk page, in this case)? Please. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. One thing I've noticed is that you don't deny making personal attacks on GoRight, and GoRight hasn't provided diffs on it. So -- would you say you've made jabs, or not? I noticed you describe GoRight as "somewhat tendentious" in your intro. Perhaps accurate, but at this point it would not be remiss to call you tendentious either, especially after your repeated ignoring/misreading of CAT. Is calling him tendentious necessary? Perhaps it is better to show, rather than tell. Rather than "GoRight is tendentious", you can more neutrally state "GoRight edits only global warming articles and only inserts the skeptical POV", or "Although I've explained [argument], GoRight ignores the argument (IDIDNTHEARTHAT)". If you have personal attacks, by the way, then reacting to the request to stop with a "don't edit on my talk page" is probably irritating for GoRight, to say the least. If you haven't made personal attacks, maybe it's a different situation. I just don't understand why you would get so worked up over such a relatively small matter, except as a weapon to use against GoRight. II | (t - c) 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs were provided in my entries on his talk page, here and here. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jabs? Sure, I'll cop to that if it makes you happy. Personal attacks? Get real. If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable. While I'm uneasy to utilize South Park as an example, for the lack of anything more accessible immediately springing to mind, it'll have to do: One thing South Park does incredibly well is illustrate exactly what editors like this are doing, through the character of Eric Cartman - witness his "yes ma'am, no ma'am" approach to getting Family Guy taken off the air in Cartoon_Wars_Part_II. Surely there are other, more "high-brow" shows, movies, books and songs that illustrate this basic principle, but let's keep the example moderately accessible. As far as your reading of WP:CAT is concerned, it's completely incorrect. Straight from that page: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. Bolding mine. No reliable sources were shown that anyone, anywhere (outside of three or four tendentious POV-pushers on a Wikipedia talk page and the two or three editors they suckered in) took issue with this being a denialist work - for all the bitching on the talk page, the "anti-denialism category" contingent was pretty short on actual hard evidence to support their endless kvetching, and this is exactly why the "civil POV-pusher" sort is the most malignant presence on Wikipedia today. I already stated this several times on the talk page, and while I expect an editor of GoRight's type to pull an IDIDN'THEARTHAT, it's rather dismaying that other editors such as yourself seem to be taking a "hit and run" approach to talk page participation. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable." - Ironically, this is likewise a personal attack, IMHO. I am not being pompous or sanctimonious, I am being WP:CIV. Even more ironically, my first complaint of a personal attack was for having been referred to as a pig, making the claim that I am the one being pompous even more laughable. --GoRight (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Figurative language, hth --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

Is there a point to continuing this? This seems to be dissolving into a standard garden variety finger pointing exercise which seems like a major waste of WP:ANI space. As long as Badger Drink agrees to treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA I will, as I have already indicated multiple times, be more than happy to agree not to post anything on his talk page.

If the administrators here tell me that I should bring any future complaints in this regard directly to WP:ANI rather than following the recommended dispute resolution process, then I will be happy to follow those instructions as well. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering where Mr. GoRight sets the bar for what defines a "personal attack" (apparently saying "I don't mud wrestle with pigs - I get all muddy and the pig just likes it" constitutes a personal attack in his book), I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would you call it if not a personal attack? I assume you directed the comment at me and I am supposedly the pig, is this not correct? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

chuckle I guess you don't mind me calling you a dirty rat with the habits (and the unseemly girth) of a pig? :p I agree that it's a dumb insult, but it seems insulting nonetheless. You might be right on the category thing; it does look like it places the burden on them. I'll think about changing my vote again. I really just would prefer to end this discussion. It is just a cat. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but with all due respect, if you don't understand the difference between your hypothetical example and what I posted, I don't see anything positive coming from continuing this particular conversation. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban Request

While I obviously preferred to follow the recommended dispute resolution process in this case:

• In consideration of the fact that I have provided examples of Badger Drink being uncivil (see the edit summaries at [5] and [6]), and issuing personal attacks against me, see [7].
• In consideration of the fact that I attempted to follow the recommended dispute resolution process as described in WP:CIV and WP:NPA by first placing polite requests on his user talk page explaining my objections.
• In consideration of the fact that Badger Drink's response was to open this WP:ANI incident report against me.
• In consideration of the fact the he has continued to be uncivil towards me in this WP:ANI incident, see [8] "the concept of conversation eludes you at times"
• In consideration of the fact the he has demonstrated a pattern of being uncivil in general in this WP:ANI incident and elsewhere, see the edit summary for [9] "since everyone's a fucking literalist these days...", and the edit summary for [10] "penis"
• In consideration of the fact the he has continued making personal attacks against me in this WP:ANI incident, see [11] "... GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese ...", and [12] wherein I was characterized as the "type of editor [who] is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind."
• In consideration of the fact that these personal attacks are already escalating in severity.
• In consideration of the fact that he has indicated his refusal to restrain himself in his interactions with me, see [13] "I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement.", and [14] wherein he demonstrates that he does not understand that his commentary is offensive.
• In consideration of the fact that as the target of these uncivil comments and personal attacks I should be the one to decide what is considered offensive, or not.
• In consideration of the fact that WP:NPA specifically states: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."
• And finally, in consideration of the fact that the above documented pattern of behavior clearly lies outside both the letter and the spirit of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and as such fosters a corrosive environment which is detrimental to the goals of the Wikipedia project.

I must respectfully request that the administrative community enforce the policies stated above by instituting an indefinite topic ban on Badger Drink wherein he is required to refrain from making uncivil comments and personal attacks against me anywhere on the project, subject to appropriate administrative actions for violations thereof. Such a topic ban would not affect Badger Drink in any of his activities here on the project in any way, other than to require that he remain WP:CIV and adhere to WP:NPA in his interactions with me personally which, as I stated above, is all that I ask.

What say you? --GoRight (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• His behavior, while not great, has been *far* better than yours - certainly not warranting of a topic ban. If we are going to be issuing a topic ban, I see a far more worthy candidate. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The obvious difference, of course, is that I am voluntarily offering to restrain my behavior whereas he is explicitly stating that he will not. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, the obvious difference is that he hasn't disrupted the global warming articles nor violated the BLP policy, whereas you have. The worst that can be said about his behavior is that he's been moderately uncivil to you (and only you) in response to your baiting him. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I offer the following in response for the benefit of others who may be following along:
        1. On the issue of purported disruption, I have voluntarily adopted WP:1RR in response to the comments on my RfC and my record since making that pledge will demonstrate a good faith effort to adhere to it (although perhaps an imperfect attempt to do so).
        2. On the issue of purported BLP violations, I still maintain that my attempts to add reliably sourced and properly attributed criticism to the BLP page of WMC are within the bounds of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V as they stand today and as they stood at the time I made any edits thereto. I understand and accept that a consensus of my fellow editors disagree on this point, and I assert that honorable people should be able to agree to disagree on such matters without prejudice. As long as the consensus is maintained there is no harm done. In addition I am now pledging to not attempt to add criticism to WMCs BLP, the only area of contention in this regard, without first obtaining consensus on the talk page which is a substantive concession on my part given that obtaining any such consensus would amount to a nearly impossible task when considering the number of other editors who support him in this regard.
        3. On the issue of my supposedly having WP:BAITed Badger Drink, the actions on my part that have brought us here, namely my having placed two polite notices on his user page in accordance with applicable wikipedia dispute resolution recommendations, were in each case a response to actions initiated by Badger Drink, namely uncivil comments and personal attacks, not the cause of his actions. If anyone has been WP:BAITed here it is me.
        4. Finally, as with all of your posts in this WP:ANI incident thus far, this is merely a distraction from the point at hand and an attempt on your part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me. In accordance with what Ncmvocalist points out in the opening to his statement on my RfC, [15], any purported misbehavior on my part should not be construed as justification for misbehavior on Badger Drink's part. This is a concept that I had already embraced for myself as exhibited by my removal of counter-charges against you in my RfC, [16], even before Ncmvocalist had made his comment.

      --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, I have to disagree with you. GoRight may do things that are disruptive, but he has shown willingness to be reasonable and civil and listen to consensus. Badger's edits to The Great Global Warming Swindle have been tendentious and uncivil. It is difficult to tell whether his repeated misinterpretation of WP:CAT and asking the same question again and again was accidental or intentional, but he seemed unable to accept a consensus against him. Oren0 (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show me the diffs where this question of mine was actually answered? Can you please show me the diffs where someone showed where, exactly, my reading of WP:CAT is faulty? Surely this isn't more smoke-and-mirrors from the esteemed "Wikipedia Global Warming Skeptic" community? --Badger Drink (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Diffs really provide both, as they tend to answer your question and explain your misinterpretation of WP:CAT: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. I'll stop there. Five different editors explaining (some directly to you, some in general) that categories need to be sourced in reliable sources and uncontroversial. This category was neither. Despite that, you reinstate the category and then you post this, indicating that you still want a source that it isn't controversial and admitting that there aren't sources that it is (apparently it's so obvious that sources wouldn't even need to comment on it), completely disregarding or misunderstanding WP:CAT and WP:V (though you still repeatedly removed the unsourced category template on the grounds of some mysterious "reference on the talk page": [22] [23]). Are these enough diffs for you? Oren0 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really enough, no, as my question remains unanswered. I'll try once more, though I already sense a brick wall banging against my head: Given that WP:CAT says, quite clearly, "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article"; and given that the central argument (at the time of my originally raising this issue) was that the category was somehow controversial (in this case, due to being "POV" or something - keeping in mind that truly "objective" categories would be near-useless, as I touched upon somewhere on that god-forsaken talk page in a post about Reefer Madness), can you - or anybody, really - show me a source that establishes that labeling this silly flick as denialism is, in any way, truly controversial? Badger Drink (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what else there is to say, except perhaps that maybe you have a critical misunderstanding of the logical disjunction. The idea that something that can't be shown in any reliable sources would be self-evident is so absurd that I don't even know how to argue with it. Oren0 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal

Hi all, I didn't see the addition GoRight made to William Connolley's article pointed out by Raul earlier (diff). My bad, this is unacceptable and it has been pointed out to GoRight many times. . .going back to June 22 of this year (diff).
We either protect our good faith editors from slanderous accusations by fringe POV-pushing accounts, or we don't. But we need to decide that one way or the other. Allowing this to continue will mean that there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here. The end result is that we provide the platform for personal attacks that can sometimes make it into the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media. We are losing good editors who contribute to a variety of scientific (and general!) topics due to these fringe campaigns and single purpose accounts. I propose a community ban for GoRight, this user is actively working against the editors trying to produce a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of my personal edits and the restoration of another editor's work referred to above were properly sourced to reliable news media. Opinions were attributed to the authors in question. As such they met the standards set forth in WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. The criticism of WMC has now been published in not one, but three, reliable news sources: National Post, National Review, and CBS News. Censoring this criticism creates a WP:WEIGHT issue in the article. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can't believe that I am going to voluntarily offer up a suggestion here as I still believe that I have not violated the wikipedia policies of WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V (at least as they are currently written). As a sign of good faith and a thanks to all those independent editors who have commented both here and on my RfC in my defense (even though they may agree that the criticism I wish to include in WMC's BLP is "inappropriate") I would propose that in addition to my current voluntary adoption of WP:1RR as normal practice to also agree to voluntarily adhere to WP:0RR specifically for and limited to additions of criticism to WMC's BLP refrain from adding criticism to WMC's BLP without obtaining consensus on the talk page first. (Turns out I was confused about how WP:0RR actually operated, this is what I originally meant.) This would seem to address the specific area of most concern w.r.t. this call for a community ban, correct? Would this satisfactorily address the concerns of the uninvolved editors expressed below? --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too to claim you haven't admitted wrongdoing when you did just that on your RFC - "editors on both sides have made accusations of bad faith, been uncivil, directed statements at editors in the summaries, etc." Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I stand corrected. Allow me to clarify my statement above: I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy with respect to my addition of criticism on WMC's BLP in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you still don't understand why this is a BLP violation, that's all the more reason for a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this is premature to the extreme - a gross overreaction. My view was made on 3 August in the RFC (1 day after that edit was made), and this proposal comes quite some time later. In response, as a first step, the user has said he's voluntarily taken on 1RR to help address edit-warring concerns (i.e. the so-called civil-pov pushing). He's aware of my concerns over BLP editing - if he edits inappropriately, then there are other remedies to deal with that. As I stated in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Disruption_by_GoRight, I'm pretty sure that a topic ban is where to start - and even that would need some more thought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His agenda is clear and unproductive and sends the message that if you are a recognized professional contributing here -you can be defamed, no problem. And if your stature is such that you get an article as well, even easier. Good message that. R. Baley (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a self-admitted single purpose account. A topic ban is equivalent to a full ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Opposed to community ban. I haven't really gone through this case in full detail - having mostly read the above as well as looked over the RFC and a few diffs - and I'm not convinced a community ban is warranted at this point. I could get behind some form of restrictive measure - such as a topic ban, or, better still, some kind of 0RR prohibition in certain topics, would be more called for. A community ban would be more suitable following a failure to obey a less harsh editing restriction, imho. Shereth 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He had already been informed that to add that defamatory info it would need to have -at the very least- a consensus behind it. That was not respected. R. Baley (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case, and as such some administrative action does need to take place - I am just unconvinced that a community ban is required. User:S. Dean Jameson says it best below, in that community bans are a last resort after other methods of controlling the situation have failed. Shereth 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, though I agree in principle with everything R. Baley says. I just think, in this particular case, that we're getting ahead of ourselves just a little. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly oppose this, as a community ban should be a last resort, when all other methods have been shown to have failed. While R. Baley is not wrong in his assessment of the underlying facts, a topic ban would accomplish all that needs be done here, without restricting GoRight's access to editing of other portions of the project. We need to go a bit easier here, in my view. ^S._D.Jameson 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't edit on any other portion of the project. He's a self-admitted single purpose account. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By "topic ban", I mean that he would be banned from mentioning WMC in any of his edits, anywhere on the project, not just on the page of the main article. If he wants to try to make certain the skeptical view of global warming is presented in other articles, he would be free to do so. ^S._D.Jameson 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this would be the case even on talk pages and such? That would not be practical, IMHO, on the GW pages. For example, how would I refer to an edit or comment made by WMC? Would, for example, "in reference to WMC's edit" be considered a violation? --GoRight (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you've made a rather uncomfortable bed for yourself. It will most likely continue to get less comfortable if you continue to edit as you have in the past on GW and WMC-related articles. ^S._D.Jameson 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of depends on one's definition of "topic" here. If "Topic = WMC's BLP" then this assertion would be false. If "Topic = Global Warming Related Pages" then this assertion would be correct. Let us take note of the fact the WMCs BLP is not a Global Warming Topic page, per se. It is merely a BLP for William M. Connolley.

I freely admit that I am a WP:SPA but this in no way should prejudice people against me as there is no requirement for accounts to be broadly based. My purpose here is specifically to work towards WP:NPOV on the Global Warming pages. I admit to being an AGW skeptic and by WP:NPOV I specifically mean making sure that the skeptic's views are equitably represented here in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Please take note of the fact that my being an AGW skeptic makes me unpopular with all of my detractors listed above who just so happen to be AGW proponents (uninvolved editors excepted, of course). --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I fully agree that "there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here." In fact, we make it policy. As such, I fully support a community ban on William M. COnnelly. Given that he's managed to star in multiple major MSM publications discrediting the project, it's time for him to go. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misreading exactly what it was that R. Baley meant by that remark - it took me a couple tries as well. I believe what Mr. Baley is saying (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that by allowing such slander to continue, we make Wikipedia a very inhospitable enviornment for those editors whose knowledge in their field leads to notability - editor such as WMC and Elonka spring to mind. i.e., "we are giving them no reason to add their expertise to this project". --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sure of what I've said. POV warriors who bring the project into disrepute by censoring opposition viewpoints in all manner of behavior need to go. Throw WMC out. He doesn't help the project, and he's editign as an expert in his field, which is prohibited. ThuranX (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'Support - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Support topic ban - on the fence as to whether or not a community ban would really be valid at this point (no matter how tempting it may seem from a purely selfish and subjective perspective! =)). This thread is a bit convoluted to follow, and the diffs I provided hardly illustrate the whole spectrum of GoRight's behavior - it's too easy to see this as a single slapfight, as GoRight himself said above. The single "incident" which triggered this thread (posting on a talk page after being requested not to) should, itself, most likely be met with a warning, perhaps a warning and a trout. It's only once one factors in the other behavior, and GoRight's particular history, that a topic ban becomes truly, easily justified. As I said above, this particular type of editor is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose that I am not justified in considering you ascribing this characterization, "the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.", to me to be a WP:NPA violation either? --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see it that Badger Drink's comment above is isn't assuming good faith nor is it helping to solve the issue. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Get real. WP:AGF isn't a noose. Badger Drink (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am real. Making comments like this ("the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.") does not help. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. But I do see the need for some action. We need to first officially impose a 0RR rule for RoRight. GoRight has said that he voluntarily sticks to 1RR. On the RFC, I argued that 0RR would be more appropriate. Under 0RR, if GoRight adds material that has been previously removed then that would be a violation and it can be reverted without discussion. If GoRight continues to violate the restriction he is under, then one can discuss banning him. Count Iblis (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a community ban (first choice), support a broad topic ban (second choice), or support a 0RR restriction on all article space (last choice). This is an editor who has failed to take on board any guidance he has received in how to work constructively on this project. The repeated, tired arguments above about his addition to William Connolley clearly illustrate the problem. Even if we take at face value his statement that he has "not violated...WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V" – which is false, as WP:BLP includes WP:NPOV by reference – his edit was both disruptive and a clear violation of WP:NPOV's provisions about article structure and undue weight; it probably was also meant to be a violation of WP:POINT. Our core policies aren't a buffet where you pick just the ones that you want, and GoRight's stubborn insistence that his editing is responsible because it follows some of our core policies holds no water. Whether it's wilful blindness or just an incurable inability to understand, Wikipedia has no place for editors who persistently fail to follow WP:NPOV—particularly where those editors insist on editing BLPs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. This diff [24] would be bad enough posted to a Talk page, but seeing it as an edit to an article, I have never been more tempted to reach for the trout. Reading through GoRight's posts to this thread leads me to believe that 0RR restrictions are simply not going to prevent the disruption GR is causing. Otherwise I agree with TenOfAllTrades' assessment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a 0RR ban is better, because then GoRight would not be able to edit in this section ever after having it done earlier. If he does so, then no matter what his arguments are, it is an immediate violaton of 0RR and he can be banned for some time. Now GoRight does also edit some other articles (mainly on politics subjects), so he won't be able to edit those aticles if he is banned for a 0RR violation.

A topic ban would allow him to continue editing the politics articles while not being confronted with his bad editing habits. Note that on the politics articles this sort of bad behavior is tolerated. From time to time we see editors like GoRight who usually edit politcs article come over to the global warming page and bring their bad editing habits with them. Count Iblis (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The conditions which GoRight has already willingly taken up (1RR on GW articles, 0RR on Connelly's BLP?) seem fine. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, given that GoRight has offered concessions that have a good chance of solving any problem here, I don't think it would be wise to apply sanctions right now. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban or topic ban. I agree with what TenOfAllTrades says above. I also see that an RFC has been tried. The POV pushing and BLP violations are detrimental to the project. --Aude (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per above. --DHeyward (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Reverting isn't the problem so 1RR or even 0RR solves nothing. The problems are tendentious editing and argumentative, unconstructive behavior on talk pages, especially wholesale disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOR (with a good dollop of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for seasoning). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose community ban, support topic ban on any pages related to William Connolley (which I'd suggest GoRight does regardless, not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley). This forum shopping to try to ban GoRight is getting old. Nothing short of an ArbCom case is going to generate enough agreement to ban him. The RfC was nearly an even split. GoRight is far from perfect but several regular global warming editors are regularly less civil and more tendentious than he is. Oren0 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, "pages related to William Connolley" is a pretty narrow topic; as far as I know it would only include Connolley's page and RealClimate, though perhaps there are a few others. Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought that WMC no longer had a relationship with RealClimate, see [25]. Has this changed? Please note that I explicitly tried to maintain such an association, see [26] and [27], but apparently a consensus of my fellow editors have decided that such a relationship no longer exists since my addition has been subsequently removed and the page no longer mentions him. I accept that consensus and have not tried to re-establish a linkage. So why would you ban me from commenting on RealClimate? --GoRight (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While WMC no longer contributes to RC, it is still a topic that is related to him historically and I think it'd be best for you to stay away from it. Oren0 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban (on the wider topic of Global warming), at least for a while. From my experience with GoRight, he not only pushes a POV (which may be solved with good will), he also simply does not understand the topic very well. As a result, he cannot distinguish good from bad edits, and he apparently cannot distinguish good from bad sources. A temporary topic ban would allow him to get some or experience with Wikipedia in less contentious areas, and to demonstrate that he is interested in improving the encyclopedia an general, not just support his personal interpretation in a very limited field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban in terms set out by Oren0 two above me, no opinion on wider measures. Orderinchaos 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose a community ban but Support topic ban. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for a community ban - see next section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Clearly no consensus for a community ban. But possibly growing consensus for a topic ban - consensus (or lack thereof) cannot be called either way because there is an apparent confusion on the area of editing (the topic). I'm neutral on topic ban proposals for now, but I'm making 3 separate topic ban proposals to hopefully get a clearer view from the community. I ask the community vote on each of them (these proposals can run concurrently if the community chooses though - in which case, the community would indicate support for all 3 together, or 1&2 - not 3...etc.)

1) GoRight topic-banned from editing BLP articles.

2) GoRight topic banned from Global warming-related pages.

3) GoRight topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three per above discussion. Vsmith (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three per above discussion. Edits such as this belong on the New York Post, not an encyclopedia. Badger Drink (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the CBS news website, since he seems to primarily quote them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 and 2. Support 3. He provides opposing viewpoints. No reason to topic ban over opposing viewpoints no matter how opposed the other editors are. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all three. Sick and tired of propping up the censorship of disagreement over major topics which gets us shit-tastic coverage in major presses. GoRight's one of the few forcing a balance into some of these articles, and while I'd support it if he was pushing articles into a right wing POV, I can't support blocking an editor who sees us get ripped to shreds and tries to fight it. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When GoRight edits the global warming article to make laughably false statements (global warming causes earthquakes!) he is not improving them. When he gets reverted, he is not being censored. Your statement is an insult both to the people who want our articles to be scientifically accurate and to people who have to deal with real censorship. Raul654 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (EC's)No it's not, quit getting hypersensitive. When he puts in crap, you take it out. But when you revert evertyhing he puts in, including the legitimate criticism under a 'cry wolf' sort of mentality, the entire project gets written up for censorship. It's THAT level of censorship I refer to. I've seen it before in articles, on AN/I, and off wikipedia. Consider similar reactions at Barack Obama, and I'm sure that there have been other recent MSM coverages. I don't care if you revert crap like 'earthquakes' without citation, and I'd help but there is a trend here to avoid countering viewpoints on major, mainstream topics. I'm all for FRINGE, go look, i'm a huge proponent of the guidelines, but when we can't include anything but the most fleeting criticisms, and get ripped apart by actual writers and journalists, then we do need to look at what we're doing, and how we're doing it. That's my point. I saw that some of GoRight's edits worked toward that goal, and for that reason we should NOT ban him from the topics. As for people who "who want our articles to be scientifically accurate", I'm one of those. There IS scientific criticism of global warming, and it should be included.ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Scientific criticism of global warming is a small-minority position that already is included in the articles in much greater proportion than its prevalence in the scientific literature. Here are the mastheads for Journal of Climate[28], Geophysical Research Letters[29], and Journal of Geophysical Research[30], Where are all the articles showing the raging scientific controversy over the existence of global warming, show them to me please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is about user actions and not content disputes. We should be focusing on how to ensure that people treat each other with respect, follow the guidelines, and try to form a consensus, not who may be "right" or "wrong". The "right" or "wrong" belong on talk pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not his views but his utter disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and others of our core policies that are the main issue here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's some lovely hyperbole and posturing, but you already know where the letters in question are, if you've been following this, and what i've been referring to. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Boris is exactly right and you are completely wrong. You claim our GW articles are biased against the alleged hordes of scientists who disagree with the consensus represented by the IPCC, and that this supposed bias somehow justifies GoRight's misbehavior. You are wrong on both counts.

First, "But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." - [31] Boris is *PERFECTLY* justified in asking you to cite some scientific articles that support your claims. And your hand-waving "you know where to find them" is not an answer, because I certainly have been following this discussion and I don't. So - put up or shut up. Point out some articles from the long lists he just provided that support this claim.

Second, even if what you said was true (and it's not) it does not justify, excuse, or in any way mitigate GoRight's behavior. Our articles are not made better by the misinformation he spews; they are not made better when good editors have to take the time to debunk the patently false claims he tries to put into them (over and over and over again) or to revert war with him over it; they are not made better by his BLP violations (and subsequent refusal to even acknowledge they were BLP violations); they are not made better when he cites new studies funded by ExxonMobile that show global warming is wrong. And the list goes on and on. Raul654 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's true. Wikipedia gets shit on for the ease with which a given side hypes their issue. This is no different. WP:V not WP:TRUTH and all that applies to all our articles, right? All I've been saying all along is that by preventing every single editor who puts up work representing a balancing side, we play into the hands of those who claim we censor topics and actively push a left wing view. Are we here to promote ONE RIGHT VIEW, or are we here to write an encyclopedia? If the former, then soldier on. If the latter, then we need to be aware that that means finding ways to incorporate things we don't like. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, Raul; it's like you're being obtuse on purpose. If we can't work out a way to make sure our articles are genuinely balanced AND accurate, we're going to keep getting tarred and feathered. One way to prevent that is to allow editors whose views we aren't personally thrilled with to edit here nad be part of the process. It's really that simple. When usually well intentioned editors whose views we don't like keep getting tossed off the project, we stay 'biased' in the eyes of real journalists. This attitude that real journalists can't judge Wikipedia because that's like our 'no experts allowed' rule is absurd, yet I see it here over and over. GoRight's not perfect, never said he was, but this doesn't look like a Civil POV Push to me. There has to be a better solution. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So then as long as he provides "balance" there's no need follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYN and the rest of our policies? That's an interesting perspective. 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs)

Still not what I've ever said, but good to hear that your'e more interested in pushing the truth than follow our policies. I never said break WEIGHT, I invoked RS and V FOR inclusion, and SYNTH? Really? Where did I say dick about SYNTH? I said we need to find ways to present both sides of these major issues, or Wikipedia will continue to only be the butt of jokes among academia and the press. I said that blocking off editors every time they work to give our articles the needed balance (and balance does not eliminate WEIGHT and you know it) only makes it tougher to get articles which can get journalistic respect. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought our goal was to create a credible, balanced reference work rather than to gain "journalistic respect" from partisan editorialists. But maybe that's just me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all our critics are "partisan editorialists". and "create a credible, balanced reference work rather than to gain "journalistic respect"" are one and the same, really. If we write good, solid articles, we'll get the latter. If we think we're doing the former but failing the latter, we need to examine the former. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three --Aude (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three Opposing viewpoints are great. Opposing viewpoints tendentiously pressed with utter disregard for Wikipedia's standards of sourcing and appropriate emphasis, not so much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support banning Raul from all global warming related pages. LFOD (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet based on checkuser-l discussion. Raul654 (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Mind telling us who this user was a sock of? You didn't say on the user page and I was unable to find the RFCU. Not questioning, I just prefer transparency. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said on my talk page when Ottava brought it up - we were unable to determine who the sockmaster is. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't understand; how can a user be determined to be a sockpuppet if you don't know who the sockmaster is? Doesn't knowing that someone is a sockpuppet require a shared IP and coordinated edits with another user? Oren0 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I do not discuss checkuser techniques with non-checkusers. I will say that his contribs are pretty obviously those of a sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I could only support a ban on him editing directly on the article page, but not a ban on editing the talk page. We should encourage users to discuss with each other, work as a community, and build an article that meets consensus, which requires everyone, not a simple majority. The user's problems center on reverting and unwillingness to compromise. This can not be solved with a topic ban, but only solved by him being limited to the talk pages and forced into a position that he would have to discuss and work with others. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) A cycle of sock puppetry support has appeared and I don't believe that there isn't enough encouragement at this time for this to work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  I have been focused on other issues the past couple of days. Could you please clarify what you mean by "A cycle of sock puppetry support has appeared"? Is this some sort of allegation thereof? I affirmatively declare that I have not created, used, or relied upon any sock puppets in any form on Wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, I see that there is a discussion of me at User_talk:Raul654#Question wherein Ottava Rima specifically asserts that "Upon new evidence, it seems that it would be far too late to keep him from starting down the path of sock puppetry." This would appear to suggest that I am now a suspected sockmaster. I believe that Ottava Rima was acting out of good intentions but I doubt that he understands the damage he has just done to me. One can never dispel these suspicions since it is impossible to prove that one is NOT using sock puppets. And to put it right in User:Raul654's lap is beyond the pale. Raul is obviously already gunning for me so now in addition to being the most disruptive editor on the project I will also be a suspected sock master. This his how Raul will likely use this in the future, forever. That is his way.

  User:Raul654 is a check user capable administrator. I have no doubt that he has been monitoring me closely for the use of sock puppets and if any had been found that would have come out immediately. However, given this turn of events, I would ask User:Raul654 to declare here whether he has any evidence, any at all, that I am a sockmaster. --GoRight (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all three; GoRight offered concessions above, and this extended discussion should give him good cause to avoid such problems in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 and 2, support 3 per discussion above. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all three per ThuranX. Does anyone stop to think that when we ban editors like GoRight, we prove the critics right? ATren (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support 3 but Oppose 1 and 2 for now. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three. This editor has a personal, small-minority POV – which is fine – and pushes it without regard for core content policies like WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:STRUCTURE — which is not. His response to criticism puts a civil gloss over a thick layer of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At this point, it doesn't matter whether he is unwilling or simply unable to 'get it'; it's not worth the time of good editors to clean up after him any further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all three. I generally refrain from voting in actions against myself, but if we are going to continue to contrive new votes over and over until one finally sticks, it seems I have nothing to loose. I am beginning to consider this to be harassment since this entire section is, as was pointed out above, an example a WP:FORUMSHOP to begin with. --GoRight (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 & 2, Support 3. GoRight, what happened? As this [32] thread shows, you appeared to be doing things right- following the correct process in the right way. But, the evidence here appears to show that you went overboard on WMC's article since then. Why? Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three. Though a consensus for the 3rd condition was previously arrived at in the above section. Until there is a consensus to lift it, I consider "3" active. GoRight is, of course, wrong about this being an example of forum shopping. Should it turn out that 1 and 2 aren't supported by consensus, I hope that condition 3 will be enough. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there is consensus for 3 - someone uninvolved will need to inform him. I'm not willing while he's being disruptive and hurling meritless accusations that directly conflict with the stated purpose of this subthread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on how I am being disruptive, what meritless accusations I have made, and how they directly conflict with the purpose of this subthread? --GoRight (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three. per above discussion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• • WTF? Can GoRight explain why he's adding votes for another account? If he can't, i'll switch my response from oppose to full support plus an indef ban. ThuranX (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Look at the whole diff (scroll down) - he merely moved it. For proprietry, I would suggest not ever moving "supports" or "opposes" relating to you, GoRight, but it's not a Big Deal. Neıl ☄ 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I apologize for the confusion. As noted I merely moved the "Points of Order" discussion (which I started) to it's own section below so that it wouldn't be a distraction to the flow of the voting. Technically, at least from my POV, I moved the discussion not KDP's vote which remained where it was and unchanged in the voting roster. Besides, why would I add a vote that goes against me in all three cases? --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Oops, I did, somehow, miss that the first time. Apologies to GoRight. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 & 2 - not needed for now, unless GoRight broaches his self-imposed restrictions. Support 3, just leave the William Connolley article alone. As global warming IS an article related to Connelly (very related), then I would suggest "William Conolley and related articles" be clarified to be just the Connoley article. Neıl ☄ 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support #3 only (oppose #1, 2), with a note that the topic ban on #3 may extend to Global Warming-related articles that are related to William M. Connolley. In response to questions raised at the below discussion: a consensus to overturn this ban at a later date may be sought from the Community on this noticeboard, or any other relevant forum; however, the duration is intended at the moment to be indefinite, and I would imagine that the sanctions would not be lifted by the Community without evidence of a solid improvement in conduct (and, as such, I recommend Go Right does not file for a lifting of the sanctions until he feels (as do others he seeks the advice of) he has sufficiently improved as an editor of the project). Anthøny 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support #3 only as above. Personally I would have preferred a 0RR restriction. Shereth 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three per above discussion. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Points of Order

A few points of order, if you don't mind:

1. Is the voting now closed or is it still ongoing?
2. If it is still on-going, how can a conclusion have already been reached on option 3?
3. If it is closed how can 1 or 2 be subsequently supported by consensus as R. Baley hopes?
4. If it is closed, by what objective standard is this current result being judged to be a consensus? I have the count at 10 support and 4 oppose for option 3. This is roughly 71% in favor. What is the threshold that has to be reached to be considered consensus, and is that written somewhere?
5. The definition of option 3 is unreasonably vague. What is the precise definition of "William Connolley-related"? User:Oren0 indicates that this will be interpreted broadly and that if I am in doubt I should not edit. So for example, William M Connolley is a climate scientist, or was one in the past, as well as a contributor to RealClimate at one point. Are any of the GW pages which have references to either the work of William M. Connolley or RealClimate considered to be "William M. Connolley related"? Are any pages that might conceivably ever have references to William M. Connolley or RealClimate considered covered by the ban? I would respectfully request that I be given an explicit list of pages to be considered covered by the ban as this open ended definition is open to abuse by my detractors here. If I am expected to comply with this ban I should be given an unambiguous specification of where the line lies.
6. Is there a time period associated with this ban, or is it indefinite? Is there a consensus on this point?
7. Are there conditions under which I could get the ban lifted? Is there a consensus on this point?

While it may appear that I am being argumentative here, that is not my intent, I merely want as clean of a result as possible here. If a ban is imposed I intend to respect it but I have to clearly understand the conditions being imposed and they need to be objective so that my detractors cannot game the system against me. --GoRight (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your motivation to understand what's going on. Here are some answers as I see them:

1-4. The discussion seems to be ongoing but the consensus on option 3 is pretty clear to me. We can agree on a consensus on part of the discussion and leave the rest open to further debate. There is no "magic percentage" because consensus is not just determined by counts and voting.

5. It's about judgment. I'm not familiar enough with William to give you a specific list, though I'd say at the very least it includes his page and RealClimate. Someone else can suggest others. Are you banned from editing pages that cite WMC? No. Should you probably avoid editing or removing those specific references? I'd say so.

6-7. The ban is indefinite until such time that a consensus forms to remove it. It won't be productive to constantly ask for it to be removed, as realistically I'd be surprised if lifting it ever reached consensus.

Hope that helps, and obviously all of that is just my opinion. Oren0 (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re #5, this is still completely vague and ill-specified and I objective to such a definition because my detractors can dream up any manner of a "related to" argument to call for a block. With respect, User:Oren0, you are much more familiar with the GW pages than I am and if you, the one who proposed the language, cannot tell me what pages it applies to how am I possibly supposed to devine such a thing?

Am I allowed to object to the use of RealClimate as a WP:RS given that it is a blog? Is that a violation? --GoRight (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say it only extends to WMC's article and information that would be covered by the BLP policy regarding WMC. I don't believe that WMC contributes to RealClimate anymore as he doesn't consider himself a practising climate scientist. RealClimate is used as a scientific source in numerous articles. Since the last time I checked, the domain is hosted by a political organization or persons, it would be unreasonable to place a restriction based on it. I see no reason to extend the restriction to RealClimate.org. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But User:Oren0 clearly included RealClimate when he proposed this language, correct? All I am asking for is a clearly defined specification for the limits. It seems to me the easiest way to achieve this is to come up with a specific list of pages to be banned. That way I can't try to wikilayer things, nor can my detractors and it seems to minimize the potential for wikidrama and wikilayering, no? If that is part of the purpose of this ban this would make sense, I think. --GoRight (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If people don't think that RealClimate should be included, I don't care if it's not. Oren0 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously it includes RealClimate. It also includes Lawrence Solomon. Raul654 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Including Solomon seems like a stretch. Why, because LS mentioned WMC in a column he wrote once? Neither one's page links to the other. I propose the following definition for this topic ban:

Based on the consensus here, User:GoRight is banned indefinitely from making any edits to the pages or talk pages of William Connolley or RealClimate. GoRight is further banned from adding, modifying, or removing any direct reference or mention of Connolley on any other Wikipedia article. Any violation of these terms may result in a block at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. This ban does not cover interactions between User:GoRight and User:William M. Connolley. User:GoRight is reminded to adhere to all core Wikipedia policies including WP:V and WP:CIV.

Does this seem fair to everyone? Oren0 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask three additional things here:

1. That "uninvolved administrator" be defined as an administrator who has not posted to any GW related page, to be interpreted broadly, within one month prior to the incident in question.
2. That casual references on talk pages such as "WMC", "Connolley", or similar be explicitly presumed to be references to User:William M. Connolley unless the context clearly and unambiguously indicates it is a reference to climate scientist William M. Connolley, and that any disputes on this point be determined by a majority of at least 3 uninvolved administrators.
3. And just as a point of clarity in all of this that a new section dedicated to the summary of these terms be created and that those who endorse this ban be asked to specifically endorse that summary and its final language. I would do it but that seems rather like digging one's own grave.

I'm also curious, why are you including WP:V above, I would have expected WP:NPA instead. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also reiterate that I am not being argumentative here and that my purpose is simply to make sure that we have a clear understanding of the scope of this ban, I would accept that this edit, [33], would be a violation of this ban but I would argue that this one, [34], would not be. Are we in agreement? --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, if the intent is to exclude edits similar to the second one then you should add language to the effect that I am also banned from using references that mention climate scientist William M. Connolley or his works. This example is obviously in the grey zone of the currently proposed language, which is why I selected it here, but I consider it a significant example because the only point of the second edit was to provide cover for Singer as opposed to attack William M. Connolley, at least IMHO. I am merely asking for clarification on this point. --GoRight (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to nitpick over the language of the proposed sanctions. The message of the third one is clear: stay away from William M. Connolley. (If you require clarification over the other two, I am willing to advise on that too.) Anthøny 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this appears to be nit picking. I merely want to understand, up front, what is and is not considered a violation of the ban so that I can respect it without further wikidrama. I don't think that is too much to ask. At any rate I will leave it to others to take what I have said here and adjust the language, if necessary. I feel that I am being cooperative here by participating in the crafting of the language in the sense that I am trying to avoid future wikidrama by clarifying things up front. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1

I just came across User:SLJCOAAATR 1 in a ani case filed a few days ago, and, me being the curious person I am, I clicked onto his userpage, and found that he had a lot of personal information on it, His age, location and other things, usually this wouldn't be a problem but this user isn't even 15 yet, so I am requesting a second opinion on this. Another thing which came to my attention was the behemothic ammount of userboxes and quite a rude statement on the top of his userpage. Citedcover (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread. I'll write him a message about the userpage a little later. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the message at the top of his page is remarkably restrained considering how he was "welcomed" by certain "trusted and respected" editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not about restraint, it is incivil, considering he got blocked indefinitley and then unblocked within hours, he has no reason to display such a message. Citedcover (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone here is aware, but we just had an extended discussion of this user here regarding the indefinite WP:MYSPACE block. Many of the personal-information and MySpace-y userboxes were partially restored, on the condition they not be created again as usable templates. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, in that case, why does he still have a freinds list? Surely that must be a breach of his unblock? Citedcover (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, he should have remained blocked, and I'm not convinced the unblock did any good at all. He's been offered mentoring, and turned it down, and I'm not seeing too much improvement. I, and a couple other admins I believe, are keeping an eye on things. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also in the news, that editor is currently blocked for WP:3RR, as per here. [35] I've always felt that when someone is blocked and then unblocked with no repurcussions, they don't learn anything productive. Dayewalker (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll keep an eye on him as well, and I will report any continuation of bad behavior here. Citedcover (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the edit that got him blocked. [36] As you can see he was trying to get rid of duplicate information. And I think this should be noted. [37] Someone warned SLJ that Gwen would block him the second she found an opportunity. Sounds like Gwen is no stranger to a bit of stalking.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is to do with the continued misuse of wikipedia by certain editors, not stalking, and I fully support Gwen on this. Citedcover (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Agree with Citedcover. SLC knew what he was doing, and edit warred on the Cory in the House page making four reverts in less than three hours, and never bothered to explain or post on the talk page for the article even once. He didn't discuss or try and seek consensus, which is what wikipedia is all about. You're making groundless accusations against an admin, here. Please read WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. Dayewalker (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Sexual orientation and identities template move/merge by Cooljuno411

I don't participate in the normal editing of this template, I am an outside observer. I have noticed how volatile the templates have been recently, and there seems to have recently been an edit war on the content. Template Talk:Sexual orientation and identities

After two days discussion (or less), one editor merged two templates, "Sexual orientation" and "Sexual identities". Perhaps it is a good idea, perhaps not, I don't have an opinion. I do know that the article moved from edit war to article merge within a few hours. Discussion on the talk page does not seem to indicate any consensus for a merge, but instead, action by one editor.

I am of the opinion that templates, more than articles, need to be changed very selectively and with sensitivity. I don't think great care has been taken in this case. Atom (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I read this, I knew who it was. This is CoolJuno411 again. He's been up here a number of times inthe past weeks for the same damn agenda pushing. He needs a long block for his persistent disruption. ThuranX (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And so reading a refernece litterly is "agenda pushing", i think by saying, for example, autosexual is not a sexual orientation when it clearly fit under the reference provided by American Psychological Association is "agenda pushing" . So i guess i am going to have to file a couple of these little complaints about other users who are "agenda pushing" by constantly reverting the template. And if one were to look at the template talk page, they could clearly see i am the only one trying to make an effort, because to my knowledge i having been the only one referencing thing or trying to do something other then claiming "original research" when i am clearly referencing things. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again... can we get an admin to look into this? It's well into WP:TE over there. ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall merging two templates.... --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm involved in the discussion, so won't be taking any administrative action in this case, either way. I do feel Cooljuno is being a bit tendentious, here, but the template is currently protected and discussion is ongoing; this incident alone doesn't appear to call for a block at this time, unless I'm unaware of some nasty skeletons in the closet. Maybe an RfC, but I at least am still comfortable seeing how this plays out... though I should clarify that I don't recall dealing closely with Cooljuno, previously, and may not have the full history. More eyes and comments might be helpful, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll refrain from renewing the bold changes they've made in the past to the template which brought us here before. The RfC, IMHO, was malformed as it did escalate comments but wasn't directive enough to draw concrete outcomes. My hunch is that most folks weren't up for prolonged debate. Banjeboi 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Heterosexual-homosexual continuum was started by the user. AfD seems to have been closed early but I doubt this would have been deleted anyway. Banjeboi 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411 and User:StealthyVlad

Thread merged from below Tiptoety ^talk

can someone look at these two users and tell me if this constitutes sockpuppetry? StealthyVlad's only contributions to wikipedia ever [38] was to show support for CoolJuno's problematic edits on template:Sexual_orientation, here, and CoolJuno immediately came back to correct a signature error for StealthyVlad, here. I thought s/he could be reasoned with, but if s/he's stooping to amateur sockpuppetry then I think it may need to be handled administratively... :-( --Ludwigs2 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty obvious to me, and seeing as Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs) has already been pretty disruptive I would not oppose a block. Tiptoety ^talk 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the relevant section above. ThuranX (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am blind, but what thread would that be? Tiptoety ^talk 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

this one. there ya go. ThuranX (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, also I have protected the template due to WP:TE along with edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that CoolJuno, after not editing for 41 minutes, fixed StealthyVlad's sig 2 minutes after he places it as his first and only edit? ThuranX (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the best place for this discussion the be held is probably over at Sock-mart. Tiptoety ^talk 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So fixing someones signature that is in the wrong place is an issue? I would hope you would do it for me it ended up in an incorrect spot.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you all want me to help you with your conundrum, he is a friend of mine, who as you can tell, has similar views to me. I asked for his input on the talk page. He has had wikipedia for over a year. If you take a look at his talk page you can tell he has made activity it the past on a deleted article, which would not appear uder his history. But i understand, anyone who goes against your views MUST be a clone worker of the enemy.... And i'm still waiting for your input on the template talk page.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a violation of WP:CANVAS and/or WP:MEAT. Either way, Cooljuno needs to stop agitating. ThuranX (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Should User:Aldrich Hanssen's block be extended?

This user was blocked for 72 hours about 2 days ago for several personal attacks. [39]. I had gone to his page to suggest he stay on topic in another discussion and I noticed he evidentally thought it a good idea to respond to being informed of the block with another personal attack (on one of the editors he was blocked for attacking, not the admin who blocked him) [40] (3 edits basically just refining his comment). While no one has called him up on it, since it's been over 2 days and he has edited his talk page in the mean time, he has had an opportunity to withdraw his comment when he calmed down if it was just a 'heat of the moment' response. I know it's fairly normal for an editor to respond to a block with an attack on the admin and this is usually I believe ignored (heat of the moment and all that) but I feel given he was continuing his attack for which he was blocked for in the first place (which suggests he unfortunately didn't learn his lesson) and the attack was rather offensive, the block should be extended. Anyone else agree? P.S. I've informed him of this discussion and suggested he respond on his talk page if he has anything to say so any admin extending the block should check it out first. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Block ineffective - I was disappointed to see him continue to edit and enhance his attacks against Sticky Parkin. He used his block time to continue his personal attacks and as he worked on them they became more personal and gender based. He has made a little story now to rationalize the attacks, as if Sticky had been making advances toward him that he rebuffed and so anything she does now is out of anger from rejection. It's a disturbing and sad turn of events that illustrates the block has not made an impression on him. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well of course I will agree with this, as it's me he's called a "sticky hobag", or perhaps saying women as a whole are such, as he says "wishes all the sticky hobags would leave him alone."[41] amongst other things. He also accused other, male editors who warned him numerous times about his personal attacks of doing it just to try and 'pull' me,[42], though I've never edited alongside them before for them not to be objective, and makes comments that those men who dislike the seduction community obviously haven't tried it or they'd be 'out banging chicks' rather than disagreeing with it. [43] His attitude is deeply misogynistic of a type I've never seen this explicitly on wiki, calling women 'hobag', and interestingly it's mainly a woman he targets, along with saying I am a low ranking on the scale of attractiveness, though he's never seen a pic of me to judge.:) If he was calling a black people racist names, along with the numerous other comments showing his atitude that he's made, he'd receive a long block. He should receive the same for hate speech against women. Sticky Parkin 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel it is unfair to specifically say that the sticky comment was a personal attack against yourself, you are not explicitly mentioned. Though I do see how it is perfectly understandable for you to assume he is meaning yourself. Mathmo ^Talk 10:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say preceding 'hobag' with 'sticky' is a blatantly obvious personal attack on User Sticky Parkin. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just his exploits around the time of his previous block, I've not seen what he's been upto since his block expired as I was out, but I'm loathe to look as his comments are very unpleasant if they're along the lines of the 'hobag' one. Sticky Parkin 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to extend his block to "indef pending withdrawl of comments" in a couple of minutes unless I hear a good reason not to. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Two, two, two spies in one. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? Rob Banzai (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. Acroterion _(talk) 19:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! (slaps forehead) Rob Banzai (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've extended his block to indef, pending withdrawl of his offensive comments. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. I'd investigate further through the user's contribs, but I already feel like I need to wash my hands. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Per [44] and his interest in the Timothy McVeigh article, I think this person has far deeper and more disturbing problems than just enjoying making comments against other editors. Sticky Parkin 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed those two things, particularly the Neg deletion debate comments were what made me visit his talk page to post a comment only to notice not only had he been blocked for the personal attacks, but that he was continouing them, so I brought it here for action. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He says "Ironically, the reason for the block extension was a supposed continuation of attack, yet it does not, of course, prevent further comments from being written to the talk page, which was the venue of the issue at hand." [45]. Could someone please protect his talk page if he comes back and writes more on it? Sticky Parkin 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - fair 'nuff - Alison ^❤ 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison has already removed the protection at the request of two editors who see Aldrich as a misled newbie. I am disappointed at what is basically admin support of Aldrich's exceptionally bad behavior. Not only did Aldrich continue to add to his attacks after his initial warnings and block but when given an indefinite block he made a point of adding more parting shots to show exactly how little regard he has for Wikipedia's rules of conduct. Aldrich's behavior went far beyond that of an annoyed new editor who felt under siege. His attacks were personal, gender-base and included a disturbing element of fantasy. This is the wrong person to be bending over backward for and I can't see how he could have made that any clearer than by his persistent and unrepentant efforts. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on this [46] comment, the user is using Wikipedia for a deliberate social experiment, and is not a misguided newbie. Acroterion _(talk) 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The response so far seems reasonable at first glance; if abuse continues on the talk page, it's easy enough to revisit the issue of protection. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Copied response from my talk page earlier) As an admin, though I loathe what the guy has said and done here, I cannot leave his talk page protected for too long. It's not right and it makes unblock requests difficult. See this log for another extreme example of an abusive editor where I had to repeatedly protect and unprotect the page. Rewarded?? He's indefinitely blocked and highly likely to stay that way. I've been asked by two editors in good standing to unprotect so they can try to reason with the guy, so I complied. Any further funny business and it goes back on permanently. I personally dislike the guy and what he stands for but as an admin, I'm obliged to be dispassionate here - Alison ^❤ 01:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support block; and support unprotection of talk page. The user's contribs show a generally pointy approach; it's unlikely based on behavior so far, that the user will show a better attitude anytime soon. However, unless there are significant privacy or disruption issues, it does not seem necessary to stop the user from communicating on their talk page or using that page as a way of indicating a willingness to reform and join the community. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Avineshjose and inappropriate editing behaviour

User:Avineshjose has two proven cases of sockpuppetry behind him1 and 2. He has some WP:OWN and WP:COI articles which he wants to be the way they prefer. He removes tags without discussion and editwars on them. Santhosh George Kulangara (and several other articles related to the subject's business ventures like Sancharam, Labour India, Labour India Gurukulam Public School, Bluefield International Academy, etc. are his chief area of interest. See his recent editwarring [|here] and [here]. He has a history of recreating these advertorial articles [47] He has also accused me of vandalism [48] for putting maintenance tags on the article owing to its being replete with nonsensical sentences as I have shown on its talk page. [49]. I am a banned user, but those who know me know that I have weeded out much crap from WP related to Kerala. You don't need to shoot the messenger.Uzhuthiran (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have created many articles as you can see in my contributions. I personally feel proud of creating Government of Kerala along with many others (check my user page, it is listed all). User:Uzhuthiran accusation seems that I'm primarily interested in Labour India's promotion. It was earlier deleted and DRV'd later. About my sock cases are already discussed and I provided my rationale at my talk page. Let me come to the point that, User:Uzhuthiran is engaged in vandalizing Santhosh George Kulangara and Labour India , that are created by me. I already posted my rationale of reverting User:Uzhuthiran’s edit at article’s talk page. Additionally, please see these edits also by User:Uzhuthiran i.e 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. You could see that his edits were reverted by many users. Whenever his edits are being reverted by somebody he calls it as my sock puppets and engaged in an edit war. Santhosh George Kulangara was edited by many editors as can be seen at articles history. And he is primarily interested in targeting my edits and creating nn article's by using this sock id, as can be seen from his contributions. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Too many lies and too much ignorance. Nobody other than some IPs has reverted me on the page in question. The guy doesn't (or pretends not to) know that what vandalism. If anybody vandalises on that page it is User:Avineshjose. See the diff. [50]. I would call it vandalism not because it is stupid, but since the stupid additions came due to his deliberate attempt to preserve his own preferred version. Se this nonsense his reversion has brought back. " He is also writing a book on the space voyage hoping space closer to people." With this understanding of English language coupled with unabashed eagerness to revert, it would be hardly of any use to talk sense to this user. If some admin would step in this problem user could be curbed from denigrating Wikipedia. With such stupid sentences in the article, should tis article shed cleanup, grammar tags to please this guy? I wouldn't care further because I know that there is a retard's part for Wikipedia. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is you who (claimed to be a banned user) are lying. First of all, your sock id, i.e User:Uzhuthiran is primarily used for attacking my edits and creating unimportant nn articles. Your intention itself is wrong as only interested in adding those templates into the article that was already edited by many editors. Where are your contributions in Kerala related cleanups? What is your original id? How can an editor claim that I have weeded out much crap from WP related to Kerala though he has hardly 50 edits? I also raised this issue into SSP also. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.47.143.206

Not sure if this requires any action or not but the edits of this user seem, well, confusing at best. I'm not sure if this is just a minor ripple not worthy of attention or part of some crafty way of disguising inappropriate behavior. Could an admin take a look and see if any action is required? Some of the edits are just filling in details on the templates of long banned users and others seem to be removing sock templates previously added by IPs from the same range. -- SiobhanHansa 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange edits by this guy are long-term (but probably not anything "crafty", just him having fun/being useful); Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. See also the section below. --NE2 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked a checkuser if it would be practical to anonblock 75.47.127.0/17 for an extended period. If that can't be done, do admins have the ability to see all recent changes by IP editors from a specific range? It might be feasible to undo all his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is (with respect to roads) he makes a lot of edits, some good and some bad. --NE2 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Very concerning behavior by Elkman

Resolved

 – Daniel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has intervened

I am very concerned regarding Elkman (talk · contribs)'s behavior to this IP. It seems to be a clear violation of WP:NPA. Also, policy clearly allows for someone to blank their userpage. Might someone be able to intervene? Bstone (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The administrator in question is currently off-line, but I notice Daniel has left a note, at this stage, any further action is both un-necessary and considering the admin in question appears to be off-line, frankly impossible. If the issue remains unresolved, then reporting back here would be fine, but at the moment, reporting this administrator to ANI when they've not had the chance to respond to a couple of messages left on their talk page is rather premature. An amicable resolution might well be reached on the administrators talk page. I'm marking this resolved for the time being. Nick (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP's talk page should be unprotected. Any objections? –xeno (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and have just requested unprotection at WP:RPP Mayalld (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid the report because it's redundant to this thread, anyhow,  Done. No prejudice to reprotection if he begins abusing unblock templates, etc. –xeno (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Overreaction to the user described in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. This guy is a problem but Elkman lost it. --NE2 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User with a WP:OWN issue.

Ahunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps reverting an image which I uploaded from Flickr on Commons since it's a better photo (I don't own the photo I've just been using Flickr to find better images for articles) then the one used within the article however the user keeps reverting[51], [52] back to an image that they took which is a lower res and not on commons. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bringing it here seems a tad premature, after only one comment each regarding the photograph on the article's talkpage, and no violation of WP:3RR. See how the editor responds to your reply at Talk:Embraer E-Jets first, see if you two can't work it out. Failing that, a request for comment or a request for an independent opinion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft might be the better bet. Hope this helps, Steve ^{T • C} 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I took it here as I thought it would have turned to an edit war. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to have an edit war; as long as you don't participate, one shouldn't occur. It doesn't matter which image remains in the article in the meantime; no-one will come to harm should the "wrong" image be left in until this is resolved. I urge both of you to refrain from replacing the image until you can thrash this out on the talk page, or with help from independent editors from WP:AIRCRAFT. Steve ^{T • C} 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's probably being protective because it's his own photo. How about including both of them in the article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an issue over having more than enough images in the article already. I say we solve the problem by offering to cut the photos in half so they can use both. Oh wait... that's something else. Steve ^{T • C} 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe splice the two photos together so it looks like one is taking off over top of the other. You can practically hear the screams. And that's just from the pilots. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Too many pics and it still can't beat airliners.net. Time for a cleanup? NVO (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Infact not only does it need a photo cull but it also needs some work done to the article itself. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely confused. They're the same image when I look at the pages. Boths send me to the same image. What's going on over there? ThuranX (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing them both as the same image. One is Image:EmbraerERJ190-100IGWC-FHNP.jpg, and the other is Image:Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100IGW 190AR C-FHOS.jpg. --Onorem♠Dil 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Image:Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100IGW 190AR C-FHOS.jpg is what I added and Ahunt Image:EmbraerERJ190-100IGWC-FHNP.jpg revert twice but now this (Image:Air-Canada-Embraer-190-YVR.jpg) image has replace both. Bidgee (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, isn't this a content issue that should have stayed on the talk pages. I encourage Bidgee to use the appropriate venues first. "If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC).

Harrasement.

After i busted User:RRaunak and his army of sockpuppets after a Checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rnkroy, each day, i get vandalized by his IP's. I keep IP sock tagging them and requesting them to be blocked, but he keeps doing it. Evidence is situated in my userpage and my talk page. What should i do? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Request indefinite semi-protection. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait a few days, i need to analyze his Ip range so there can be a proper Ip range block. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone considered e-mailing the person to try and talk sense into them? Email is enabled on the RRaunak account. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is little chance of a rangeblock, as the IPs are from 59.64.0.0/10, which contains over 4 million IPs. User:Blnguyen noted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RRaunak that this range had many users who would be affected. Semi-protection is the best answer here. Kevin (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User continually editing against consensus

Hello all. User:Sarumio is an editor who frequents association football articles on a regular basis. He's gone through phases of highly useful edits (such as updating league tables for new seasons) but on a number of occasions he has made mass edits (such as removing FC from infoboxes, capitalising "reserves" against good grammar) which go against community consensus. A lot of the edits are relatively trivial but, nonetheless, he continues to ignore the community. Most recently the edits have been performed subversively, by making other edits to take the scrutiny away from what he's trying to do. His edits have been discussed numerous times by WP:FOOTBALL, he has been warned by a host of different regular editors such as User:Dudesleeper, User:Number 57, User:Richard Rundle to no avail.

The various discussions have taken place as follows... A mass removal of F.C. from football club infoboxes raised initial concerns and was followed by an attempt at consensus. This was then followed by an infobox discussion whose outcome was studiously ignored by Sarumio (even as recently as today) and I blocked him temporarily. Funnily enough when he makes useful edits, it's fantastic and I've even gone so far as to congratulate him for doing so, but yet a drive for making trivial but controversial edits has ended up with me needing to discuss a way forward with you guys here. If anyone has any questions they'd like me to answer, fire away, here or at me personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, because normally a topic ban would be a good way of dealing with a useful but perenially disruptive user, but Sarumio only edits on one topic: football. I think I'm right in saying that all his disruptive edits have been in football club articles, so we could consider banning him from those. Sadly, his pattern of behaviour leads me to suspect that he'd simply disrupt in a new way, say in infoboxes of biog articles. In all, I strongly suspect this one will end up as a community ban, but I think he should be given a chance, both for fair play and because he is capable of really good editing.

Therefore, my proposal is: six months ban from editing football club articles, with the clear understanding that further disruption will inevitably lead to proposal of a site ban. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he'd return to previous form immediately after the ban expired, as he did with his recent block, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin comments) I oppose mass editing against consensus, because that isn't how Wikipedia's supposed to work. The diffs supplied by User:The Rambling Man above show how much editorial time, effort, and rational common sense gets disrupted by such behaviour. They also show that attempts were made to establish a standard for the specific initial problem, whether or not to use F.C. in a particular parameter of football club infoboxes, and that unfortunately no definitive agreement was reached. Since that time Sarumio has used his (male gender used for convenience only, don't know which would be correct) considerable industry and capacity for research to make a lot of useful edits, also as mentioned above. However, he will not confine himself to useful editing. This diff took removal of F.C. to a rather silly extreme; and the West Midlands Regional League edits section of his talk page demonstrate a lack of respect for other editors and for the encyclopedia as a whole.

If Sarumio received a lengthy ban, his good edits would be missed. But if that's the only way to help him decide whether he cares enough about improving the encyclopedia to abandon his disruptive edits, I would support it. Though maybe six months is too long; perhaps half that time, with the proviso that if he attempted to circumvent the ban by disruptive editing anonymously or under a different username, or if he continued disruption on his return, I'd have no problem with more stringent sanctions. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua disruptive edits of National Football Team Articles

Time reported: Aaron carass (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Originally reported on 3RR noticeboard. Was redirected here.

The user Fasach Nua is performing mass deletions, of sections about 'Notable Players' on 'National Football Team' articles, after repeated attempts to get him to discuss things. See User talk:Fasach Nua#Edit warring of Italy national football team, User talk:Fasach Nua#Vandalism and User talk:Fasach Nua#Vandalism 2.

Examples

• Italy national football team
  • 19:55, 11 August 2008
  • 20:03, 11 August 2008
  • 20:13, 11 August 2008
  • 20:49, 11 August 2008
  • 08:10, 12 August 2008
  • 07:57, 13 August 2008
  • 14:03, 13 August 2008

• Spain national football team
  • 19:31, 11 August 2008
  • 20:09, 11 August 2008

• Latvia national football team
  • 19:27, 11 August 2008
  • 20:09, 11 August 2008

• Germany national football team
  • 08:05, 11 August 2008
  • 18:16, 11 August 2008
  • 18:28, 11 August 2008
  • 08:16, 12 August 2008
  • 13:41, 13 August 2008
  • 15:44, 13 August 2008

See also the histories of the following pages for more examples:

Finland national football team, Sweden national football team, Lithuania national football team, France national football team, Club América, Northern Ireland national football team, Serbia national football team, Czech Republic national football team, Russia national football team, Netherlands national football team, Republic of Ireland national football team, Brazil national football team, Ecuador national football team

Have you discussed it with him? His main problem seems to be that nobody has come up with a definition of "notable". Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There were several tries to ask him to discuss the changes with the WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject (see the user's talk page), yes. SoWhy ^{review me!} 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

His initial and recurring argument was WP:PROVEIT see his edit comments for example.

When pointed to the fact that all the removed players have articles, which in turn have reference(s) (some good/some bad) about that players international career. He has not followed up or switched arguments.

He talks about consensus but then goes against what appears to be the consensus (ie. keeping these sections) by removing such sections from more and more 'National Football Team' articles rather than reaching resolution through discussion.

Aaron carass (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. So then, by notable, you mean "has a Wikipedia article". Have you then made sure that every single football player with a Wikipedia article is listed under "notable" in their respective country's page? Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't take 'notable' to mean "has a Wikipedia article". But I think the wholesale deletion of these sections isn't the answer. I, and others, have asked him to enter into discussion about players who he objects to being in such sections. Or even to discuss it on WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject. He has justed continued his 'policy', which doesn't appear to be the consensus.

Aaron carass (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

TBH, Fasach Nua has a point. These sections are by their very definition WP:OR unless there is some sort of criteria set (which there isn't). пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be beneficial if some criteria for 'Notable Players' existed. Fasach Nua has, however, chosen to not offer one, in any forum let alone the appropriate one (WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject). He has instead continued his editing 'policy'.

I think, for the most part, the player articles do go into detail about that persons international career and it's 'note worthiness'. But as mentioned earlier some are better at this than others.

Aaron carass (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't his job to offer one. It's the editors demanding the inclusion of this section. As far as I'm concerned, he's upholding policy, and the editors reverting him aren't. I have added such sections to articles, but with clearly defined criteria (see Sudbury Town F.C.#Notable players). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the sections where in place for a long time, so noone who reverts him does actually include the sections themselves. But I think the point that Aaron carass tried to raise is not whether this is a legitimate manner of policy interpretation but whether it really should be done in this way or whether a discussion prior to removals would be in order, given the large number of reverts on both sides. SoWhy ^{review me!} 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of these sections need improvement, but people who disagree with the way they appear now should propose deleting them, or attempt to define an adequate set of inclusion criteria on the article talkpage, or at WP:FOOTY. Wholesale deletion without even attempting to reach consensus on the issue goes against the the spirit of colaberation that makes Wikipedia work. The idea that stating that these are famous Argentine players is Original research is laughable, although I admit well defined inclusion criteria (such as 50+ caps, top 10 scorers, World Cup winners, multiple Copa América champions and long term captains of the team) would be better than a slightly recentist list of "famous players", the way to get better criteria is to discuss it, not delete the whole section time and time again after repeated requests to discuss the issue. EP 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fasach Nua's edits. Let's just take the Italian team - there are very few players renowned for the Italian team who are famous for their exploits for their national team - Dino Zoff, perhaps - references justifying their inclusion would be easy to find. However, the likes of Luis Monti and Alberto Aquilani are not - the former was a good player in his own right but was never famous for playing for Italy, while the latter is young and unproven for the Italian team. Which is exactly the spirit of WP:PROVEIT - in order for anyone to be on these lists, one has to justify why, otherwise it is WP:OR.

You say consensus is against Fasach Nua - I'd like to see whether this is the case, through perhaps WP:FOOTY, or some central discussion area. It's probably the easiest way forward. But (non-admin) I agree with Fasach Nua.

Here are two of the many discussions on the subject Discussion - No consensus, Discussion - No consensus to keep or delete, there are many more attempts to talk on his talkpage. It is important to note that these discussions were conducted against a backdrop of near constant edit warring over the issue with protagonists on either side refusing to wait for consensus to form, which totally undermined the discussions. These discussions will never lead anywhere when mass deletions and addition of hundreds of utterly pointless {{fact}} tags (often in violation of WP:3RR) and the reversions are going on simultaneously. It shouldn't matter if you agree with his piont when the way he goes about it is so disruptive. EP 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember, of course, that we're talking about X national football team and anyone on this list has to be famous (notable) for their national team exploits, not the fact that they are a famous footballer in X. There are many players, excellent in their own right, who were never famous for their exploits on their national teams. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for dog's age. There has been widespread related debate in several areas such as notability of athletes, both in general and specifically in WP:FOOTY. There has been back and forth about famous player lists as well as lists in general, which are recognized by their very nature to be potentially contentious. Everytime it comes up there is some wrestling back and forth and the folks who make up the footy community settle on leaving it be in the meantime. I think that there is a sense that the lists are useful, but no strong definition yet as to how they should be handled. The group tends to be self policing insofar as additions made to the lists that are way offbase tend to get nuked sooner or later. I'm sure a standard will eventually emerge, but in the meantime mass deletes and tendentious editing does not contribute to resolving the issue or help foster a productive, respectful community.

This is also the fifth or sixth time that FN has been to ANI over this and related behavior. There are opinions on all sides of the issue(s), and right or not, it is inappropriate for him to continually ingnore concensus, to refuse to provide meaningful edit summaries, to be unresponsive or obstructive when questions are put to him, and to choose the policies and guidelines that suit him while ignoring those that actually might be helpful in resolving disputes with other editors. His approach almost invariably ends up causing another futile riot because it is insensitive and close minded. Other editors are not just a "mob" to be so rudely handled as he imposes his vision of what is "right". He has a duty to be civil and communicative and to respect other editors here. That is not his approach and that's why we are here repeatedly. There is no consensus for the edits he is making nor for the sweeping manner that it is being done. The individual issues involved should be subject to genuine debate and not the arbitrary imposition of a single editors views. Wiggy! (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus he has a duty not to breach WP:3RR. Jheald (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I started this incident report for these reasons (ie. Disruptive edits, without making any effort to reach consensus, and possible violation of WP:3RR). I guess the question I would like to have answered is whether this behavior is acceptable or not ?

Aaron carass (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, think that FN's behavior in relation to this and other issues has been the furthest thing from acceptable over the last several months. If you look at the archives of his talk page around the time of the two archived discussions from WT:FOOTY linked to above, you will see that several times I had tried to open a dialogue with him about his edits and his view of policy, but all of my edits to his talk page were reverted, often with an edit summary of "rv - unread." Quite simply FN is a dick and seems to relish in his endless struggle against "the mob" (read: the entire WP community). I think at the very least he should be given a heavy dose of WP:TROUT, if not a lengthy ban for repeated and unapologetic abuse of WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, and several other policies until he figures out how to be a more constructive member of the community. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I'm more in support of FN's edits here. It is the duty of people wishing to insert content to provide verification for their edits. However, the conduct after that is not appropriate — it behooves all editors to engage in discussion rather than revert and ignore messages.

I see there was an RFC opened six or seven months ago regarding images, but it seems to have died out. If, as has been mentioned above, this issue has been here several times before, it might be worth opening a new RFC, or moving to RFM, with a view to arbitration if the situation doesn't improve. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree. That's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua, however. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI

Resolved

CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new editor, seems intent on undoing all of my edits. For a newcomer (account started six weeks ago, started editing enthusiastically two weeks ago), he is very familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia policy, and (ab)uses WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP to justify his edits, all of which seem to favor current Republican talking points. If contradicted, he edit wars immediately and at length. He has already been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. I don't want to edit war with him, but having well-sourced edits undone because of unspecified violations of policy is getting monotonous. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very rich coming from goethean, who is a blatant Democratic activist, such hypocrisy screams to the heavens.76.217.103.251 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at recent history on The Obama Nation, I've blocked 76.74.8.86 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours and CENSEI (talk · contribs) for 48 (not their only recent problem with edit warring). Any objections? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Tiptoety ^talk 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. User:CENSEI should also be given a stern warning on his/her talk page that continued edit-warring may result in longer blocks. Has anyone brought up WP:DR to them? Shereth 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have been handled appropriately. CENSEI needs a block template notice on his talk page, though. Could an admin do that, please? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just finished leaving a note for each user, regarding their respective blocks. As I may be occupied unpredictably over the next day or two, I'll trust to the community should any unblock requests come up (no need to consult me, in other words). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have decline his unblock request. Tiptoety ^talk 18:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The word is incensed, not "inceseid" also, I removed the personal attack atack by Mr Baseball Bugs He should learn to behave better.76.217.103.251 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also blocked this IP; they seem to be interested only in stirring up drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I spelled it "incenseid", and only because it looked like a punning situation. And of course I'm a "Juvenile edtior" (sic) - I'm only 13 1/2 years old. Or at least that's what my user page claims. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by Folantin

Folantin persists in trying to create trouble by reverting my talkpage to questions which I do not wish to answer and which have nothing to do with my editing this encyclopedia. He's done this [here] and again [here]. This account is not banned, is not a sock puppet of anyone and is currently engaged in adding information about the Prix de Rome winners which are missing. Please tell this person to stop stalking me. Gretab (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this user is well-known to all of us here, and at Wikipedia Review. It is a sock of the Wikipedia Review editor, the fieryangel, User:Musikfabrik, aka User:Batshitinsanedoofusfromhell on Encyclopedia Dramatica, who has used it to circumvent the ArbCom ruling against him. --David Shankbone 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What David said. Per the ArbCom, "accounts associated with MusikFabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog". "Gretab" has also indulged in other trolling. --Folantin (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If the user does not wish to answer the question, she doesn't have to. This is not the place for accusations, either. Gretab removed the text, leave it gone. Repeatedly adding it, even if you are correct in your assumptions, is harassment. So stop it. If you have evidence to back up a claim, take it to WP:SPP or request a checkuser. lifebaka++ 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I believe a checkuser was run on them awhile back, and confirmed it a Musik Fabrik account, which makes sense since two articles that "Gretab" takes credit for, "La bonne d'enfant" and "Jacques Leguerney" are Musik Fabrik products. Strange how they have called for the death of Wikipedia, and spread scurrilous pedophilia rumors about Wikimedia staff, yet here he is again...trying to use it for his own gain, in violation of ArbCom. That's principles for you! --David Shankbone 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser is not necessary. Alison knows exactly who this is and I am not editing disruptively (unless you think that updating the list of winners of the French Prix de Rome is disruptive). When I am editing disruptively, I hope that people will let me know. Until then, please stop harassing me. Gretab (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. You aren't supposed to be editing those articles. That's why you have an ArbCom ruling against you. --David Shankbone 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, stop it. Unless you have proof, which should be filed elsewhere, stop making accusations against other users. This is not the place for it, and you are becoming disruptive. lifebaka++ 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I thought ANI was the place to make accusations against other users ("Please tell this person to stop stalking me"). Get a grip and do some basic research before you start picking sides. --Folantin (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the place for accusations, Lifebaka; what exactly do you think is the point of ANI? Fact is, this person has libeled and harassed Wikipedia editors to an enormous degree. --David Shankbone 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Point. This is a place for accusations, but not baseless ones. There's no evidence that the two users are the same, other than tangential items and a load of data on the blocked user. So, unless there is some hard and fast evidence the two are the same (which I've yet to see), I highly suggest you stop. Thank you. lifebaka++ 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the adminning round here seems to have gone downhill recently. The last person calling for my head on ANI turned out to be a sock of a banned neo-fascist troll who was allowed to harrass me with impunity for over 24 hours, no thanks to our keystone cops admins. Start doing some research before you talk about "baseless" accusations. Read the ArbCom, read User:MusikFabrik's edit history then read User:Gretab's, including "her" contributions to the now deleted article on Paul Wehage. --Folantin (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh - Lifebaka is making a baseless accusation that we are making a baseless accusation. I've alerted some more experienced admins as to the issue. --David Shankbone 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I welcome more eyes, but I'm still not seeing at all that the accounts are connected. All I've seen is that Gretab likes to edit articles about music. And it appears that User:Musikfabrik is blocked, not banned, and for reasons which wouldn't (in my mind) preclude a new account by a single editor. Gretab is not being disruptive from what I've seen (please provide evidence to the contrary if you wish to dispute this) and is not doing any of the things which resulted in the ArbCom proceedings for User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau. So, I'm not seeing at all how you're connecting the two. As the accusations do not appear to have proof, they appear to be baseless. And, before you bring it back up, the business with Paul Wehage appears to be a good faith attempt to find sources. Given the edits on the (now deleted) talk page, I would find it hard to believe that Gretab was very knowledgeable about the subject before those edits were made. Thank you. lifebaka++ 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not an admin, but I have to agree with Lifebaka to some extent here. It seems to me, if there is evidence Gretab is a sock then this evidence should be taken to the appropriate forum, be that here, WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. If it's decided Gretab is a sock an is violating policy or an arbcom ruling, then an appropriate punishment enforced (e.g. a block). I don't particularly get how trying to force the preservation of a 3 month old question on Gretab's user page helps particularly when our policy on user pages has been that users have wide latitude, basically more or less full discretion over their talk pages and may removal warnings, legitimate or otherwise. The removal of a warning is taken as a sign that the user has read it but unless I'm mistaken edit warring to preserve a warring is disallowed and liable to get the person trying to preserve the warning blocked. There may be some exceptions I'm not fully aware of, e.g. block notices, SSP templates, unblock requests but I'm pretty sure the kind of comment that Folantin is trying to preserve is not covered anywehre. Now I'm not against Folantin, Shankbone, or anyone starting a thread here about Gretab's alleged sockpuppetry (although I agree with LB here it seems WP:RFCU or WP:SSP would be a better place) but surely this should be covered in it's own thread or at least a seperate subheading and is any case unrelated to Gretab's complaint which if you haven't realised already, I think is legitimate. Whoever Gretab may be, and whatever he or she may have done, there is no reason to violate policy and try to force the preservation of a message he/she doesn't want on his/her talk page. To put it a different way, it seems to me a lot of wikipedians energy would have been saved, if users who suspect Gretab is a sockpuppet go through the proper channels to get it addressed rather then trying to preserve a 3 month old talk page comment which isn't going to achieve anything and then when Gretab complains, bringing those allegations into the discussion when they are largely irrelevant... (In any case Alison's comment may help clear things up, LifeBaka has already asked her to clarify if she know's who Gretab is. It would also be helpful if Gretab is willing to say precisely who he/she is but it is his/herright to remain anonymous provided he/she isn't violating policy) Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"She" is violating an ArbCom finding. Try asking some useful admins: User:Moreschi, User:Antandrus, User:JzG and User:Makemi. They'll have more idea of what's going on here. --Folantin (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood my and I believe LifeBaka's point? To be clear I have no idea what she is doing. But if she is violating an ArbCom ruling then she should be blocked ASAP. There are probably various ways this could be achieved but preserving a 3 month old comment on her talk page against her wishes isn't one of them. Bring the issue up into an unrelated discussion also isn't one of them. Bringing this issue to WP:SSP or WP:RFCU is one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Try asking those admins what they know. Sorry, I don't have time for this at the moment. --Folantin (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Besides, since Alison knows who this is, even though they have never corresponded on-wiki before today (how does she know?) then she should be enforcing the Arbcom Ruling. That is what Alison does, correct? So why go through WP:SSP when we have a high-ranking Wikipedian charged with doing exactly that who should enforce things, right? --David Shankbone 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Likely, if Gretab was skirting any sort of ArbCom ruling, Alison would have already blocked her. Again, without specific evidence, please stop making accusations against other users. Thank you. lifebaka++ 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone protect my talk page and userpage, please, to prevent further stalking by these people? Thank you. Gretab (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No need; they haven't edited your talk since you came here. lifebaka++ 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your help, then. Gretab (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is abusive sock puppetry going on, file a report at WP:SSP and leave a link on my talk page. If there is evidence enough, I will block any accounts. This procedure will minimize drama, and provide a clean record that future administrators can refer to if there are future incidents. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely by saying this "A checkuser is not necessary. Alison knows exactly who this is"- the user admits it is a new/alternate account of someone, and doesn't have a problem with people knowing that. S/he just says s/he is not editing disruptively. Sticky Parkin 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Whistle, the ruling is clear. "users affiliated with Musik Fabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog. Further, they may not add any such artist or project to any article." It doesn't also say unless they profess to edit productively or we like what they do. We have already shown that Gretab has added Musik Fabrik products to Wikipedia, and continues to edit articles that deal with those products, including just today. --David Shankbone 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would consider the Musikfabrik accounts banned, and I am also persuaded that this is a sock out of the same drawer. There is some inflammatory language above, but not without justification: Jean-Thierry Boisseau was extremely disruptive, and the attacks on various individuals were vitriolic in the extreme. A checkuser is unliekly to be productive due to the length of time since Boisseau / Musikfabrik edited. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think there is a larger issue here, which is why these kinds of shenanigans are going on over at the Wikipedia Review, yet we have two admins, one who is a checkuser and oversighter, not enforcing our rulings and policies. This damages the community and makes a mockery of our procedures. --David Shankbone 21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a tad too paranoid for me, David, but the article focus of Gretab is very specific and Musikfabrik-like, these are not what I would call mainstream music subjects. I think there is a problem, it would be interesting to hear what Alison has to say here. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the issue to me is whether the people entrusted to enforce our community's decisions are going to uphold their end of the bargain. If not, then that needs to be addressed. Gretab has already confessed to being on Wikipedia Review, where the two admins who apparently know who he is (I guess Paul could also be considered transgendered) have seen it. There are too many games being played. --David Shankbone 22:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped it wouldn't happen, but there's spillover at Alison's talk page. Please keep the discussion here, for visibility. Thank you. lifebaka++ 22:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Has User:MusikFabrik been unblocked, if not I'm afraid they're not 'allowed' to edit are they? :( Unless we're going to agree to unblock s/he? Sticky Parkin 22:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MusikFabrik was blocked as a role account; this in itself does not prohibit people who had been using the role account from editing on their own. However, if Gretab is one of the MusikFabrik editors and is editing articles relating to their sales catalog, [53] clicks in, and the enforcement provision allows for blocks up to a week. However, given that User:Gretab has also created accounts for harassment -- among others, User:Vanish, Dead Knob, User:His Banned Vodka, User:Invokes Bad Hand -- one might think this would be grounds for stronger measures. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just removed an edit from David Shankbone outing another editor. David, cut it out NOW or you will be blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gretab is certainly associated with Musik Fabrik and is subject to the editing restrictions imposed at Arbcom. The right to vanish and the right to privacy do not create an invisibility cloak guaranteed to protect someone who continues to edit in a recognizable way. (Although for the sake of that privacy, let's avoid using the real name and stick to the account name.) Best to refer the matter to WP:AE with diffs of edits that violate the arbcom ruling and let the experienced editors there make a decision. Thatcher 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As Josh and Thatcher have stated above, User:Gretab had created three dubiously-named accounts with obvious connections to David Shankbone. These three accounts only ever made one edit between them; to remove the PROD notice that David Shankbone had placed on the now-deleted Paul Weihage article. These accounts have all now been blocked indefinitely. To enable this situation to be taken to WP:AE for evaluation, we are declaring Gretab (talk · contribs) to be  Likely related to the accounts mentioned in the Musik Fabrik case. None of us, though, are au fait enough with the ArbCom case to determine if there has been a breach of Arbcom remedies here, nor is it within the remit of checkuser. To all, I'd ask people to respect the privacy of other editors and refrain from using RL names and identifying information. It's not appropriate. Nor is speculating about the gender identity of other editors - Alison ^❤ 00:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Alison's comment that derisive comments about another editor's gender or sexual orientation are grossly inappropriate and unacceptable. Not commenting on any other issue at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi just to say that I don't mean any allegation of gender queerness by saying s/he, I just mean that I don't make any assumptions about the person. From some people we can expect nothing less than such talk. And if DS is accusing someone of libel etc, isn't that a violation of WP:NLT? Or is it the sort of "libel" allegation that one sees bandied around all the time on the internet? Sticky Parkin 02:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi SP. It was actually a reference to this comment, really and nothing you said! - Alison ^❤ 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gretab (talk · contribs) has now been blocked for 24 hours for "creating harassment accounts that were anagrams of David Shankbone". I guess a WP:AE case may yet follow - Alison ^❤ 07:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with the MusicFabric case but 24h for creation of a farm of abusive socks appears to be to lenient. I propose to extend the block up to 1..2 weeks. I am not sure about the violation of the Arbcom Ruling. If it is only adding non-controversial info to a list of prize winners (among a lot of other work without COI) I would tend to limit the punishment by a stern warning (or add 24h to the block or sockpuppeting). Any objections? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is very lenient for a block-evading sockpuppeteering harassment account. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I imagine Moreschi will reveal all when he turns up. But this account has violated the ArbCom ruling on WP:COI on several articles (including, of course, the now deleted Paul Wehage) as well as indulging in other trolling and time-wasting (details later). This person (under the name "Fiery Angel" on Wikipedia Review) has also harrassed several editors involved in the MusikFabrik ArbCom (myself, Moreschi, Makemi, Guy and "Vanished User") as well as carried on a vendetta against David Shankbone. --Folantin (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The block was placed by Thatcher for the socking discovered by checkuser, so it's probably best to take it up with him. I guess it's up to the community to figure out where to go from here but WP:AE can probably handle the Arb remedy allegations - Alison ^❤ 08:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the link between User:MusikFabrik and the "Fiery Angel" refers back to this edit in the article which led to the ArbCom [54]. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked Gretab indef. Reasoning has been left at AE. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I support a fixed time block for setting up the sock puppets, which clearly are harassing, the user should have known better. 1 day maybe is too lenient, 2 weeks maybe too much, but that can be sorted. I'm not so sure about the indef. I've asked for info on which edits are COI at the AE page... the rationale for indef seems to hang on that. Perhaps further discussion needs to be there? I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 10:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

People can't just happily come back after a block, completely ignoring it, even after they've create three accounts to wind up another user, and still be welcome here. Some things mean that you can't come back as an accepted contributor. And I say that as someone who really likes TFA/MusikFabrik. This doesn't need arbcom/AE, as Guy says, it's just block evasion. If we're really going to unblock MusikFabrik there should be a discussion about it. Alison, say someone made three accounts based on one of your nicknames or something, would you want people to go "oh they didn't use them much so that's ok?", especially as that person was not an editor in good standing who's just had an 'off' day and done that, but someone who's blocked anyway? Sticky Parkin 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow up re:Folantin and David Shankbone

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

As much as I would like this whole thing to go away, I would like to bring up an issue with these two users.

Folantin inserted a thinly-veiled personal attack on his user page, mocking the user who's been blocked above. I have removed that section and cautioned him against readding any further gloating there, or elsewhere. (At risk of spreading his harassment further, here's the diff of what I removed, so you can judge for yourself. [55]

David Shankbone is complaining that Lar and myself are "harassing him", complaining that we are somehow complicit in the issues he has with the blocked editor above, when we basically cautioned him to stop carelessly identifying another user's real name, and responding flippantly to Newyorkbrad's request to stop casually mocking another editor's sexual identity. Since David has threatened to bring this to ANI, I figured I would preempt it, and do it for him. SirFozzie (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. Wehage/Boisseau/perhaps others and co have spammed us relentlessly for yonks now, and have been complicit themselves is real harassment on Wikipedia Review, ED, and elsewhere. If we can't mock these pathetic types, who can we mock? They're banned, let's just say goodbye to them, have a drink to celebrate, and move on. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have a problem with banning, saying so long, and whatever, but the policy isn't WP: No personal Attacks, unless we don't like them, Moreschi, and especially in David's case, where he continued on, after being asked not to by myself, Lar, and Newyorkbrad. Wikipedia is not in the business of revenge. SirFozzie (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, again, please. You have no problem with me calling someone a troll when they deserve it, yes? So what's the problem with a hilarious piece of satire (which almost no one will understand anyway) describing Wehage's spamming and lies? How is that a personal attack? This is just over-enforcement of civility again. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, there's a difference between, "X is a troll" and a 25 line, 1K+ character mocking of the user (again, using his RL name, and calling that editor's sexual identity to the forefront), designed specifically to gloat that the target of his ire is blocked from Wikipedia. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. It's not "over-enforcement of civility", it's enforcing Wikipedia's policies, fairly and honestly. SirFozzie (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did Folantin go on about Wehage's sexuality? Or, for that, use his real name? He didn't. Moreschi

(talk) (debate) 13:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We already discussed this on your user page. The Perils of Paul (falsetto) Pauline? Or the one that Virdae corrected earlier? One second while I dig that edit up for you. Ah, here we go. [56] (It sucks that I have to spread this crap further just to prove my point. SirFozzie (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just sheerest hypocrisy. I'm using slimeball Wehage's real name right now, and have done in previous posts, and while Shankbone gets threatened with a block, I don't? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it deserves a block, myself, but there's no way in heck I'd be the one to do it, considering, I'm by any definition possible involved in this issue. Come on Moreschi, ratchet it back, you're letting your temper rule your brain here. SirFozzie (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's code for angry, well yes. I'm furious that you can spend two years fucking around with Wikipedia, bitching incessantly on WR, and at the final end of it all (here), there can be no consequences. Not even an innocuous piece of satire on someone's userpage. That's just plain immoral. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"We have met the enemy, and we are him", more like. Moreschi, the thing that gives us the high ground in dealing with folks who are here to cause trouble is that we DON'T lower ourselves to their level. Stop digging your way out of the high ground. SirFozzie (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's like a gang pileup. Perhaps SirFozzie, if you started with this rather than this nonconstructive commentary, you would have received a more pleasing response. It's no shock just where you pull from SF, and your bias in this case gives only further credence that you should remain uninvolved. Just sayin'... seicer | talk | contribs 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break, Seicer. I told him not to out another editor, and if he did it again, he'd be blocked per WP policies. Which was immediately backed up by multiple experienced editors (both administrator and otherwise). And your badsite innuendo is noted, but ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Who have conflict of interests and should also remain uninvolved. If in doubt, get someone who is truly disinvested in the whole discussion. Not saying both of you are poor administrators or any of that crap. seicer | talk | contribs 13:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Durova has a conflict? User:Newyorkbrad has a conflict of interest? I'm sorry, I disagree with what you just said. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, SirFozzie, but I believe both you and Lar belong to Wikipedia Review, and SirFozzie, and is this another SirFozzie at MyWikiBiz (terrible name), the site of Jon Awbrey and Greg Kohs? Durova and Newyorkbrad chimed in, and then were done with it. You and Lar, both Wikipedia Reviewers, continue to badger me after I said "I get it" ages ago, both on my Talk page and at ANI. It isn't Durova or Newyorkbrad hitting my talk page three times, and coming here. In the end, you are over-enforcing, as Moreschi said. Our polices and guidelines don't exist to be used as weapons against us, which is the entire point of WP:GAME. When you don't see through the BS of a serial harasser and defamer off-site when they come here to promote their business, and instead take task Wikipedia editors, you come across as a faceless bureaucrat who looks at the letter, not the spirit, of the law. That's problematic. Privacy is there to protect, not to shield people like serial sockpuppeters and self-promoters like Greg Kohs, Musik Fabrik or Jon Awbrey. The Wikipedia Review crowd specialize in gaming our polices and guidelines to use them against us, and then cry foul when we call them on it. It's little surprise that the people who frequent the site, and sit around listening to its carp and dim view of humanity, come here and act with their fallacious opinions in mind. I'm jus' sayin'....--David Shankbone 14:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

David, you have a long running grudge with some of the people you brought up above (and again, I really wish you'd cut it out with the real names.) That's well known. Brad asked you to cut it out. You basically mocked him on your talk page. If I was some overly officious bureaucrat that you seem to think I am, I would have come up with some reason to block you, something like "WP:JUSTWONTGETIT", and called it a day, instaed, I asked you to stop pouring gasoline on the fire. You went off on me, and on Lar.. and then threatened to take Lar and I to ANI. So is it any surprise that I took you up on your offer?

You're misusing WP:GAME, by the way, I'd like to see how the person behind the blocked account blocked Folantin to write what he did on his user page. You can't hide behind WP:GAME to excuse petty, gloating, misbehavior like that. That's not the letter of the law, nor the spirit.

And as for your first paragraph, yes, that is me. i was writing up reviews of Iron Chef episodes. Hardly WP stuff, wouldn't you think? Especially because I think my writings broke WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and several other rules I can't be arsed to type now. I posted them to various places on the net (couple boards I hang out at), and one of them was WR's "Not Wikipedia related forum". MyWikiBiz asked me if I wouldn't mind posting them on MWB. I saw no harm in it, so I posted.. what four episode reviews? Nothing to worry about.

And as for your last statement about people who frequent the site, and sit around listening to its carp and dim view of humanity, come here and act with their fallacious opinions in mind. I'm jus' sayin You know what my most recent discussion has been about over there? Busty Heart. Although after seeing the clip of her on NBC, I can understand where the "dim view of humanity" part comes about *shudders* SirFozzie (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie, I only read your first paragraph, but you need to learn our privacy policy, which is not "No real name shall ever be used." Seriously. Greg Kohs ran for the Board of Trustees, so get real. Jon Awbrey also has never hidden who he is. You are arguing for something that is not policy, but is policy-gone-amuck. The ENTIRE point of anonymity is to protect people who feel they need to be protected, not to say "You used a real name!" as you are doing. You are the one who keeps pairing yourself with LAR, and I think you should also read WP:KETTLE with WP:JUSTWONTGETIT. Also, you continue to assume bad faith, and you are now harassing both myself and User:Folantin on this page. Now, back to your essay... Well, there's nothing more worth commenting on. Your opinion is registered Sirfozzie, but unless you are raising a policy violation, why are you here? Make your case, cite to policy, and state how I and Folantin broke it. "He made a joke I didn't read as a joke" and "He explains it, but it's not bad faith to continually tell him that his explanation is a lie" are not policies, so stop using them. --David Shankbone 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Ok, that's enough Colons to fill my quota for the week, lets start over, shall we?). No, it states that you shouldn't use another editor's personal information to harass them, which Folantin was doing (even Moreschi admitted it was aimed at the user, although he called it "harmless satire"). I brought it up here, because I removed Folantin's sack dance aimed at the blocked user in question, and figured to bring it up to try to get more attention on it.On my watchlist was you telling Lar "Go away or I'll tell ANI on you", basically. So I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone, and bring it up while I was here. And how is answering your questions harassing you, by the way? SirFozzie (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What personal info? Apart from the first name, which without the surname is meaningless to almost everyone? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"The problem many Wikipedia editors have, including me, is that they allow critics to affect them. Most of us have no hidden agenda or conspire to control information via Wikipedia. The root of every cabal conspiracy theory is the fear that a group of people are working together to paint a false reality in order to advance an agenda." [57] Well, except for Lar and SirFozzie - they're evil WR people working together to advance an agenda! ;-) ATren (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Look everyone, it's ATren, the guy who never contributes content, but always inserts himself in arguments, thus inflaming them and prolonging them. ATren, don't you have one of your "Why Wikipedia Sucks" user page essays to write? --David Shankbone 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now this is what I was talking about by taking a fire and pouring gasoline on it, David. Come on, man.. do you really think you're making any points by coming out like this? SirFozzie (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but you're making mine, SirFozzie, by focusing on me again, and not focusing on ATren (who has told Guy he will stop interacting with me since he has followed me around for a year. You're actually proving my point. How was ATren not inflaming the situation, and why did you not feel the need to say something to him? Perhaps because he was defending you? --David Shankbone 14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

David, this is a noticeboard; I hardly think this qualifies as "following you around". And anyway, this post is not exactly what I would call "disengaging" on your part. ATren (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ATren, this is a noticeboard for policy violations that require admin notice, and neither you, nor SirFozzie, are raising any. You are here doing what you do: which is sit around on Talk pages and argue. That's simply what you do on Wikipedia, insert yourself in arguments; we all get it. As to following me around, that's why you are now here on this thread, despite saying "you will never seen me interact with DS again" to Guy, and it is why you are reading my blog and quoting from it, despite its inapplicability. I will give you the last word, since you always demand it. I wouldn't want you to, you know, build an encyclopedia or anything else that takes away from your time arguing. --David Shankbone 15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone: You need to knock it off. Seriously. You are casting aspersions fast and furiously. Every time some other issue with your behaviour is brought up, you cast aspersions at that person, or some unrelated third party. I think your behaviour is disruptive and if you don't stop, I think the wiki could do without your contributions for a while. You wanted this brought to ANI? Here it is. Stop this disruption. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Ok, de-indenting again) Well, three reasons actually. 1) Unfortunately, despite my requesting Santa Claus for Omniscience five years running, I'm not knowledgeable in every conflict between users on Wikipedia. Unlike highschool, knowing "Person A likes person B but hates person C" isn't as useful on Wikipedia (Plus there's rather more people on WP, then there was in my high school). 2) The difference between his and yours, is at least he's borderline, using humor, where you come out, with fangs bared and fists a-swinging. 3) (I only came across this after your diff), that was.. what 10 months ago? SirFozzie (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is bigger than high school; so it's amazing that it's always people from Wikipedia Review who land on my talk page. Look at you here, now, continuing to assume bad faith, making personal attacks ("you come out with fangs bared and fists a-swinging" is not pouring gasoline, SirFozzie? Oh really?!), and you continue to argue on here against...what? You don't like my jokes? I don't "get" that you don't like my jokes? Fine. Move on, unless there is something in this morass you have created that is a violation requiring admin attention. --David Shankbone 15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I "landed" on your talk page because you outed another editor on ANI, and I told you not to, and was backed up by multiple other editors. You felt that because the other person was a "bad guy", you and Folantin had full rights to mock them and make fun of them. You don't. And as for "Show me the policy violation?" Well, that's what started this whole topic, David.. yours and Folantin's violations of Wikipedia's rules on WP:NPA. Somehow, it got sidetracked into "OMG, BADSITES" and personal attacks. Wonder how that happened? SirFozzie (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, please don't call a living person a slimeball again. It doesn't matter what you think of them. Neıl ☄ 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as exceedingly good advice. I think a lot of people would benefit from some reviewing how to bring up issues without hurling invective. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been harrassed and stalked by this account for almost two years now simply for the crime of editing Wikipedia (by the way, I've never used this encyclopaedia to promote myself). Finally, I respond with a bit of humour rather than vitriol with a user page joke I was planning to take down at the end of the day. Nobody not already in the know would have worked out who the target of the squib was. For this, I get jumped all over by one of Wikipedia's inhouse Civility Police who comes here to turn it into a Big Drama. The suspicion that off-wiki friendships are playing a role in this is rather strong given the places where I've seen some of the admins here commenting. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Personally, I think that too much time spend wittering at WR has caused some people here to lose perspective. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I get the feeling it's that being here has caused people to lose perspective. Too much drahmahz. So, here's my take on these things. Folantin, don't do it again and it should be cool. David, I suggest you drop whatever issues you have, and stop making personal attacks. Yes, some of what you've said is personal attacks, and yes, likely some of them are justified. But we don't have a policy that says justified personal attacks are okay. As long as you stop, no action needs to be taken. Continuing is disruptive, however. And to everyone: stop the freakin' arguing. It's pointless, doesn't go anywhere, and just gives trolls things to feed off of (not saying anyone here is a troll). If no one else does anything against policy, we likely don't need to keep doing this. Okay? Okay. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What Lifebaka said. They said it better then I could ;) SirFozzie (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting from Moreschi. And Folantin seems to be suggesting admins who have a WR account are the New Cabal. Are all such admins being unfairly tarred with the same brush? I'd normally discuss such things at WR, but I don't want to twitter and lose perspective - that's what IRC is for. Wait - is WR the new IRC? Does that mean Giano has gone to the Dark Side? Neıl ☄ 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, maybe. Really, if we all just did our stuff here, life would be a lot easier. Applies to both IRC (which is fine for discussing Jordan's breast size and Eurovision, but not much else), and WR. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this discussion is devolving. I'm outta here. --David Shankbone 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I only know the names of some of the admins here from their off-wiki activities so they should start to think about that. None of them intervened at ANI when I wanted edits which violated boring old policies like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV looking at. Didn't see them here to defend me against harrassment by the sock puppet of a banned neo-fascist troll who was genuinely violating WP:BLP on this very noticeboard. Of course, it's a different matter if somebody has hurt a troll's feelings. But we all know this is now more of a social networking site than an encyclopaedia, so let's get our priorities right. --Folantin (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why we should be aiming invective, biting humour or whatever else at other people. We should do exactly what we need to do to get rid of troublemakers and stop there. We should not be crowing over defeating others, even if we have "defeated them" and even if they really, really deserve it. We aim at a higher standard of behaviour than that. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Spät kommt Ihr, doch Ihr kommt. Here's another one who wasn't around to enforce the boring old policies I mentioned above but feels entitled to deliver a lecture on being nice to stalkers. "We aim at a higher standard of behaviour than that". Because this is a Finishing School for Young Ladies not an encyclopaedia. If it were the latter our admins would be a bit more concerned about aiming at a higher standard for our articles. --Folantin (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, please stay civil. I can understand if you are angry, but generally insulting the project and making heated remarks is not going to help your cause. The editor has been taken care of, and there is no need to continue this. Thank you. lifebaka++ 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, if you ask me nicely to look into something, I will. Just turn up on my talk page and give me a pointer. I don't watch every noticeboard, nor does anyone else. But what I'm seeing here is disruption. Not one sided, there's some to go around, but it seems like things are escalating. Don't answer disruption with more disruption. That seems fairly straightforward to me. Collegial, even. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Criticism is "disruption" now, is it? As I've said, I've really no idea who you are apart from your off-wiki activities so I'd hardly be heading for your talk page. The "escalation" occurred because SirFozzie reported a problem which had already been fixed to ANI. If the admins who initially assumed bad faith on this "Stalking" thread and took the actual stalker's side before "she" was busted want to issue an apology to David and me, I'll accept that as a demonstration of civility by example. Otherwise, no more lectures. If any social networking admins' egos have been bruised they can massage them in the usual way by issuing each other with the requisite barnstars for "sterling work". Now, unless anyone has something to say, I think we're done here. --Folantin (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Lar, instead of continually responding, why don't you act like an admin and let it go? Disruption is not defined as "you do what I say, or I will block your ass" and that attitude is a good way to have your admin status questioned. You only have the tools because we allow you to have them, so stop power tripping. Then above you are answering disruption with more disruption. The only reason I am posting is to point out the hilarity that here we have Gretab, who created three accounts that were anagrams of my name, only using them to remove a PROD from an article about...Gretab. Gretab on-wiki has violated the terms of "her" ArbCom (you question how over at WP:AE, even though it's obvious) with almost all of "her" edits. Off-wiki, we have Gretab over at the Wikipedia Review calling for Wikipedia's destruction; ridiculing people who "she" thinks self-promote (!!); writing letters to people off-wiki spreading rumors; and spreading unsubstantiated rumors on WR. Let's not forget that according to Gretab, "Wikipedia will never, ever get EU cultural funding because of me!!!" Then Folantin makes a very covert joke about this serial Wikipedia abuser (both on and off wiki) and the main people here who are continually feeding this are...people from Wikipedia Review; the same site where the head of it shares IP addresses with Daniel Brandt of those who go there. That's all well and fine, Lar, but you need to disengage instead of puffing out your chest like an internet tough guy demanding people listen to you or else, as you have done here in this thread. That's not the way you admin, and I doubt you'll find support for your "You better listen to me!" bullying language. Tone it down, and leave it alone. --David Shankbone 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All of you just need to let this drop. Wikipedia is not about second-guessing every action of every editor. That's not how we get work done. Most of this discussion amounts to a waste of Wikipedia's resources, and is an embarrassment to the project. I'd like to request that everybody involved just let the matter drop for 24 hours, and take a look again in 24 hours, with particular attention to your OWN actions and how they reflect on YOU. The possibility of sock puppets and ArbCom violations is legitimate, and should be pursued diligently and WITH DISCRETION; all else is wasted pixels, and wasted volunteer hours. -Pete (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Honestly, can't we just close these threads? 'Gretab' has been blocked, no-one has covered themselves in glory to a great extent by their conduct. Let's just have business as usual; everyone taking down this thread to use in evidence against the others next time they annoy you, and other than that let's move on. No-one else is going to get blocked this time IMHO, but of course also no-one on the respective silly sides of the debate will forget but instead will file it for future reference.:) End of. Sticky Parkin 18:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There, closed this one. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be another sub-page here for this kind of discussion: "Food fight du jour". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Arcayne RE: Civility & Good Faith

Resolved

 – Arcayne is right. This is trolling. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please stop Arcayne from bullying? Is this kind of personal attack really necessary? [58] There is no foundation to his attack - and I'll be happy to dredge up all his baseless and unproven previous attacks against me if necessary - but seeking to ostracize a fellow editor as a "Proven Troll" is a new low even for him. His relentless style is neither civil nor acting in good faith. Period. And should not be considered acceptable by any neutral party. Thank you for your time. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, here. I don't see that Arcayne moved your post (rather, it looks like they posted immediately above it, which on a diff may look like they "moved" it)... but even if they're offended by your accusation, their response seems a bit harsh. Cup of tea or wikiquette alert might settle things down, unless this is a pattern of behavior? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Although my complaint here is with the false and decidedly uncivil slander, the text itself was moved by him more than once, dropped down to the bottom with several spaces between it and the discussion. He's actually done that to me and others several times before, it's kind of his own personal way of "blocking", so to speak, other editors that get in his way.75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What I see is an edit war going on on the talk page and an accusation that the IP is a troll. Tell me, 75., have you taken the liberty of informing Arcayne about this thread? Nevermind, Luna did so. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has been informed of this thread by Luna Santin, I saw it when I went to his page to inform him myself.75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Luna. Sorry, I chose not to post anything that could be considered a reply to the IP anon, who has used at least fifteen different IP addresses since April to evade admin oversight, and has been blocked repeatedly for both that evasion and personal attacks. I chose not to feed him, aside from asking him to behave. My reply was not to him, but to the others involved in the discussion.

The comment prompting the troll descriptive was the anon's continued sniping at my educational background. The anon does this every few weeks and each time, he is told to either grow a thicker skin or a smaller mouth. Were any further posts to recur, I would have probably consulted an admin regarding this IP-farmer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne please show some "diffs" for your unfounded and uncited allegation that I have evaded administrative oversight or been blocked for such. That you have made many ATTEMPTS to have me blocked for having a dynamic IP is known- but I have always claimed my posts and abided by the rules of WIkipedia. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, your claim to be 'warning other users' that I was a "Proven Troll" is uncivil slander and decidedly NOT in "Good Faith".75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, if I'm following your reasoning - Can any Wiki editor use your Wiki block log of TEN blocks to publicly tag you as a Troll during discussion, or is this just a special privilege (The personal application of Scarlet Letters by Arcayne) you reserve for yourself?75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange interpretation there Sceptre. I said that Ibiza was not itself an autonomous community of Spain and made referance to the citation. Arcayne dismissed the citation reverting myself and others several times and then moved my comments while calling me a "Proven Troll". Yet he's a saint and I'm the bad guy? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with your unexplained finding and unilateral termination of the complaint without consensus. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I want you to remember that you asked me to provide that proof, anon. I suspect that attention (even negative attention) is what you crave, and I am loathe to provide it to you, I am tired of your repetitive and baseless fishing trip ANI's (this is ANI #7 OR 8), If an admin or someone else wishes to see that proof, I will take the time to pull up the blocks for the following IP addresses:

• 75.57.165.180 (talk · contribs)
• 75.57.181.83 (talk · contribs) counseled to stop the personal attacks and wikistalking
• 75.57.186.159 (talk · contribs)
• 75.57.196.81 (talk · contribs) blocked for disruptive and disputative editing by JzG
• 75.57.200.103 (talk · contribs)
• 75.57.201.254 (talk · contribs)
• 75.57.205.135 (talk · contribs) blocked by Mastcell for PA and harassment (of me)
• 75.57.205.163 (talk · contribs)
• 75.58.34.144 (talk · contribs)
• 75.58.39.148 (talk · contribs)
• 75.58.36.51 (talk · contribs)
• 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs) blocked by JzG for block Evasion
• 75.58.41.230 (talk · contribs)
• 75.58.57.10 (talk · contribs)
• 75.58.62.44 (talk · contribs)

Of course, these are just the IPs I know about and have watchlisted (they are listed in numerical and not chronological order) them as they pop up. I haven't detailed all the RfCu's and ANI's and wikiquette complaints he's raged at. Good faith doesn't mean my overlooking the anon's disruptive - and especially repetitive - bad behavior.

Now, Ricky and others have encouraged me to just ignore the anon (in whatever IP address he uses) and, apart from asking him to be civil when he pops up, I have done so. The last time this situation came up, I asked for a range ban for this user. As the personal attacks, sniping annoyances and multiple, baseless ANI's don't seem to be ending (and have in fact led to some real world issues, which I will detail via pmail to an inquiring admin), perhaps a stronger message needs to be sent than the responses he has received in the past at RfCU, Wikiquette, SSP and ANI. While I am by no means perfect, I don't really need my own 'Grawp'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A list of dynamic IP's all claimed by me is not evidence of evasion AND ARCAYNE has been told this repeatably! Here is the supposed "Block Evasion", for which as always I respected the proceedings of Wikipedia: Hi, I seem to have been blocked for making this AN/I report.[59] I'm not exactly certain why bringing this post[60] to an Administrators attention is a Blocking Offense. I was completely unaware of this block as my IP changed and I had confirmed edits at my new IP at 14:07, 16 April. This was hours after ThuranX's post in the section at 01:57, 16 April and many hours before I was blocked at 21:35, 16 April. My IP automatically changing 7 1/2 hours before being blocked has now been used as the basis by Arcayne for a full press to be banned for "Block Evasion". After his current attack [61] against me on AN/I failed he went back to the original Admin on his talk page and lobbied there. I am now banned. I have abided by the Wiki rules and since being informed of the ban and discovering where the block that Arcayne was referring to came from I have only posted to AN/I and directly to the Administrators involved. I have honored and respected the rules and customs of this institution and tried to speak with civility and reason - I am disheartened by the lack of protection and dismayed by my sentence for having used the correct channels to civilly address my concerns. Arcaynes ruthless and deceptive obsession, and his ability to somehow always find someone, somewhere to try another avenue of approach with is troubling. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And I am not comfortable with your baseless and empty accusation of "Real World" issues to be detailed privately. I am certainly not comfortable with McCarthite accusations being handled by a star chamber. Please outline your charges.75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you say his real world issues are "baseless and empty accusation," when he hasn't given any details on them? My advice here is to register a wikipedia account, so you have a reliable and tracable history. As it stands now, you're just a number without any legitmate contributions and no history, other than a hatred of a long-time editor. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't hate him, I wouldn't even think of him other than when he attacks me, baits me or others or ramrods indefensible edits. If this Wiki is just for insiders and facts and citations don't matter, and civility is only a one way street, I'd be disappointed.75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec') Comment 1': As you claimed that you hadn't been blocked for block evasion, I pointed out where you were wrong. I am sorry you are unhappy with that, but you must expect that if you are going to target me every few weeks for an AN/I or some other sort of frippery, and pointedly slip between IP addresses so you can claim to have not seen any talk page history, warnings of blocks, you sacrifice most good faith. As I see it, you simply come here to attack me. Sad, but your last four AN/I's used IPs with no other edits behind them.

Comment 2: No. I will do so privately, as real world considerations are on point. There isn't a star chamber, and if it is just a coincidence, you should be fine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One of my axioms as regards this type of editor: "Why are you messing with this guy?" The IP is an obvious troublemaker, belligerent from the first edit, and clearly no stranger to wikipedia. Yet he remains unblocked. This discussion does have entertainment value, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I am just supposed to ignore the anon for the eighth time? Sigh. Okay. Maybe when number nine rolls around, someone will piupe up and say, hey, hasn't this anon popped up before? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Openjurist

This user, a company account for openjurist.com[62], decided to mass upload a Federal Appeals Case database onto Wikipedia. They are, however, using a bot that was never authorized by the BAG[63][64][65]. Considering the mass file size of each of these articles (100kB+), would it be prudent to ask for a temporary block? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't personally think a block is necessary, as it appears that they have been in communication with an established user about this current series of list creations. A problem with the account might arise, though, if it's revealed that there are multiple people editing from this one account. ^S._D.Jameson 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • User has been notified and asked to stop posting until this is resolved. —Travis^talk 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Y Blocked -- communication or no, the bot was still running at 3:03 UTC, 20 minutes after the original complaint at a rate of about one every ten seconds. - Revolving Bugbear 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I must admit, it was clogging the hell out of NPP when I tried to do some patrolling. ^S._D.Jameson 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Openjurist has requested unblocking, and claims to be running a PHP script of some sort rather than a Bot. That's as may be, but it still does nothing to address why he kept posting after being told to stop pending discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe with his setup he just didn't see the orange new message bar? -- Ned Scott 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• The way I understand it is that the PHP script was off-wiki, and the individual editor was manually cutting and pasting the formatted text it generated onto the appropriate page name. He wasn't even using a script of any kind, it doesn't sound like. ^S._D.Jameson 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We have his word for that. 500 new pages in three hours? That sounds an awful lot like a bot to me. Check his contribution log. He needs to cut it out. - Revolving Bugbear 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tabs. In any case, if the only problem here is the amount of creation, why not unblock him and do one of the following: A, ask him to limit himself to a certain amount of article creation, or B, have him request a bot flag (on another account). -- Ned Scott 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

__PLEASE NOTE__ This user is in good faith in all respects. They are just new to Wikipedia and enthusiastic about helping us extend our articles about case law. I am assisting them and I will advise them from now on on Wikipedia policies and procedures. I therefore request this user be unblocked as blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this good faith user says they will not do it anymore then we can not keep them blocked. --mboverload@ 04:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did ask about a temporary block. I am confused though, as to why you, as their mentor, did not inform them about this. (Also note that I am not an admin and can't do anything about this) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got in. I am not on Wikipedia 24/7 and was not aware of their plans to mass create 500 articles. Proof he is not a bot: [66] --mboverload@ 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I unblock with a couple of helpful, very friendly warnings? I think the block was ok for so long as editors thought it was a bot, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, blocking admin was correct in his response. Just a misguided new editor. =P --mboverload@ 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it was a good-faith block, based upon the facts present at the time. I also support an unblock now, given that the user very clearly appears to be editing in good faith, and is trying to understand what all is going on here. ^S._D.Jameson 04:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do, Gwen; I was just reading this over and thinking the same thing. Perhaps a proposal to do the uploading during a specific time, with arrangements for a dedicated editor to conduct the new page patrols for the account, might be a good way to coordinate this. Mboverload, do you think you might be able to work out such a plan with Openjurist? Risker (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith block to me, but I agree with the account now being unblocked. Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked, asking the editor not to start up again at speed until a consensus has been reached on his talk page, so I think any suggestions having to do with things like timing and watching can indeed be made there. Again, this was a good faith and fitting block through and through, the account behaved like a bot, but as it happened, wasn't. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at what they want to do, I don't think these pages belong on Wikipedia but rather, as MzMcBride suggests, the content would fit on Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Further looking into this, I think these contribs are CSD A7, carrying no assertions of significance (and indeed, red-linking to mostly non-notable court cases in an unencyclopedic context). What do other editors think? Can these contribs be speedy deleted? Should they be sent as a group to AfD? Or rather, should these pages be kept as a skeleton for some day in the far future when one could dream that they held mostly blue links to articles which the community thought were notable? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I agree, they are A7 and probably A1. One has to ask whether these lists, per se, serve any encyclopedic purpose. – ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on deleting these A7 as a batch in a few hours unless... Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Gwen, would it make sense to move these to Wikisource instead of deleting as others have suggested? ... including you:

"I do agree this content likely doesn't belong on Wikipedia (WP:NOT, WP:N) but would be so helpful on Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"

MZMcBride: "All of this is to say that perhaps Wikisource is the best place to contribute what you want to contribute."

Openjurist (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving the content to Wikisource means deleting it from en:Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

That is fine, but isn't there a process to move it over ... That needs to be done before it is deleted here?

MZMcBride said:

"There are mechanisms to move the articles from Wikipedia to Wikisource pretty easily. ... I realize that you want to help Wikipedia, but the ultimate goal is to create and share free content, and Wikipedia truly doesn't seem to be the place for what is being created here. Wikisource is a sister project and obviously if we were to move the content there, links could easily be established between Wikipedia and Wikisource."

Openjurist (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is an automated way to do this, however I was thinking that given the semi-automated way you were doing this, it would be easier and safer to start over. Now that we know thousands of these opinions are indeed already at Wikisource, automation doesn't seem to fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--- It took many many hours and lots of copying and pasting - manually to do this. Is there any way that you might consider saving me the headache? Please. Openjurist (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The "hard/mean admin" answer is, you should have looked into what you were doing much more thoroughly before you put in your own time carefully (and very skillfully, professionally, in utter good faith) showering Wikipedia with over a thousand new articles. The "caring/nurturing admin" answer is, yeah, wow, I understand but the time it would take to run down all those duplicates at Wikisource and rm them from the automated script would also amount to at least several hours, likely more, with no assurance of accuracy, given the likelihood that some page names are not the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---The honest answer is that I did look into it carefully. I conversed with MZMcBride who wrote:

"It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Openjurist#Re:_Open_Jurist

I was trying to do a service ... that I guess turned out to be less useful for Wikipedia than MZMcBride - and I anticipated.

Is there someone I should speak with to be "more thorough" before putting these pages on Wikisource so that a similar saga does not unfold?

Openjurist (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please understand, I think it's been widely acknowledged you meant to help out with a wonderful plan! Yes, I think you should first ask at the Wikisource scriptorium and get some knowledgeable help there before trying to tackle this again. Also, keep in mind, it was only a few hours lost and truth be told, you very likely learned a lot for having spent them this way, as happens to all of us here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Batch deletion pending I'm going to do this in an hour or so and am giving another alert here since deleting over a thousand articles through CSD is kind of a big deal. Please speak up if there are any worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion's on hold for now, still discussing how to move the content to Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Marriage

Resolved

 – Semi-protected by Luna Santin

[67] Would a rangeblock be appropriate here? If so, would someone with experience implementing rangeblocks care to do the honors? Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Page has been semi'd. HalfShadow 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Allen

This person has recently died, upon reading the article I discovered that there was Plagiarism on the article. Several sections appeared to be directly copied from an Associated Press report published on foxnews.com.

I left the following message in the talk section of the article.

Plagiarism

There are parts of this article that are 'Plagiarized!!

read the article written by the Associated Press at http://www.foxnews.com

This article should be fixed so there are no Plagiarism issues. --Subman758 (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The link of the article is here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402741,00.html

Please take appropriate action.--Subman758 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article's been edited heavily, since you posted; is this still a problem? I poked around a bit, but couldn't find anything highly obvious. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph that was lifted from the AP release; I didn't see anything else. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There no longer seems to be a problem with the article. I just didn't want to see some AP Writer jump up and call out Wikipedia. There are some users on this site that give it a bad name, and that is a shame.--Subman758 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job -- though I'll admit my first reaction to seeing the text was to check and see if AP was lifting from Wikipedia as opposed to the other way around. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism edits

User Daysofdayso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a new user, is going around making comments and removing many CSD tags inluding a clear G12 with no explanation. I prefer not to deal with this on my own opinion and would like 'backup' --triwbe (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe a page they created was speedily deleted, and their current behavior stems from frustration. Many of the pages they untagged have been deleted; I see Ned Scott's left them a note asking for an explanation of some sort. Will try to keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing this up. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually just blocked the user feel free to reverse if you feel the need. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Insults again

Hi.
I've reported this user Kirker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) before, because of his bad behaviour.
This is my first report [68], 14:40, 4 Aug 2008 (he called me "snide arsehole).
This is my second report [69] (14:47, 6 August 2008) and [70] (09:16, 7 August 2008 ) (inflammatory messages, inciting, perpetuation of discussion on multiple pages).
Despite admin's reactions, he hasn't improved.
14:25, 12 August 2008 he sent me this message on my talkpage [71] "Kubura, have you lost your tongue as well as your nerve? A cruel fate for a gossip-monger.".
I've explicitly asked him [72] not to annoy me and again explained him my reactions, again I've reminded him that Wikipedia is not a forum.
Still, he perpetuates discussion infinitely, continues annoying me, and he has continued with insults (he said "you're too spineless"), despite being previously warned by admins [73], with his next message [74] (16:19, 13 August 2008 ).
Such users do not improve Wikipedia. I haven't become the contributor on Wikipedia so that some troll can annoy me and insult me. Kubura (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The first report regarding him was in December 2007 (where everyone else got warned), the second was just a few days ago, and he was warned. Three days later, you came back about the same remarks (seems no consensus for admin action yet). I've asked Kirker to respond here and may wait on him. Editing about the Balkans is usually a mess, but I'm for some response. If nothing, he's been warned enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Ricky81682 for drawing my attention to all this hot air being expended on my account. Kubura did not have the courtesy to do that, although as a user who is familiar with this website he/she will be aware that he/she was supposed to raise the complaint with me before running off to the administrators.

There are a few points to be made here.

First I never know who is an admin and who is not. I appreciate that admins are not there to be punchbags but if some user who may or may not be an admin annoys me (and being patronised annoys me), there is always the possibility that I might retaliate.

Second Ricky has dredged up an earlier complaint about me, which again I had not seen till now. Perhaps he needs to read it more carefully. It seems to me that one contributor to that discussion considered my behaviour was not worth the complaint; all the others wanted the complainant banned (which he eventually was, when his sockpuppet status was established). If Ricky is right that, along with others, I was given a warning, perhaps he would tell me when and where.

Third the recent comments of mine that are now at issue arise from a snide insinuation (the adjective is fair) by Kubura on Rjecina's talk page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjecina#Checkuser) I suggest people read it before taking views in this discussion. Kubura was urging Rjecina to complain about me, no doubt thinking that if Rjecina obliged, I need never discover Kubura's hand in the matter. Rjecina, who doesn't usually need any encouragement to chase potential socks, must have thought Kubura's tittle-tattle was just too gratuitous to pursue. He/she decided that to do so might damage his/her own credibility and that it was safer just to "fully support" Kubura. A minor detail: one of my many typos slipped through when I tried to say "arsehole," so apologies for that. The term itself was used metaphorically and, in the circumstances, quite reasonably.

Fourth, Kubura said that people like me don't contribute anything to Wikipedia, or make it any better, or something to that effect. The best way to judge that is to look at my editing of articles - for instance a substantial re-write of the Stepinac article a few months ago. Or look at the Miroslav Filipovic article which until last week, when I ditched it and started afresh (adding about 20 references ti the original two), had been the subject of endless petty editing, wittering on the talk page, etc. A good example of how crappy Wikipedia can be, and how it really should be. (Someone awarded my new version a "barnstar" whatever that is.)

Fifth, I did not say Kubura was "too spineless." I merely suggested that possibility as an explanation in the event that Kubura neither withdraws the original insinuation nor sees it through by generating a checkuser process in his /her own name. So for now the jury is still out on the question of Kubura's spine. Kirker (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RSPCA Australia (and the Controversy Section)

On the article RSPCA Australia a section call Controversy keeps getting added to the article and removed due to it being a Unsourced POV paragraph. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 10:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Paragraph in Question:

“ Some now see the support of the RSPCA for breed specific legislation and the killing of animals due to looks and in the name of good management as being a betrayal of it's founding fathers and principles. Their support for policies which increase the kill rate and the seizure and killing of innocent pets certainly makes the current organisation seem distant and unrelated to it's origins. Many believe the organisation would be unrecognisable to it's founders who sprang from the Enlightenment. ”

• Instances of it being added:

1. (cur) (last) 17:40, July 30, 2008 70.38.11.43 (Revision Link)
2. (cur) (last) 13:49, August 12, 2008 Alexcan99 (Revision Link)
3. (cur) (last) 19:27, August 12, 2008 User:202.61.215.43 (Revision Link)

I've reverted the section based on that it fails WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I like to see a Controversy Section that is POV free and sourced. Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the edit histories, it all looks like the work of a single editor (1st IP is a blocked proxy) with a POV issue about dangerous dog breeds. The named account was blocked a while back for edit-warring, so I'd guess the IP editing is to get round 3RR. EyeSerene^talk 11:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bjrothschild7: racist gibberish

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked

Please see all contributions for anti-semitic attacks.--Gregalton (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Given out a {{uw-npov2}}, if it continues issue some more. The editing is clearly POV of some sort. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems more serious, [75] is agross breach of blp. Have given user specific warning, but isn't that grounds for indef?--Bsnowball (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in to WP:AIV. Basically a vandal with a specific agenda. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That took all of 3 or 4 minutes. User now indef-blocked. [76] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 76.186.64.155 - 2nd offence

A few weeks ago, he was banned for abusing me. Now he's jumped on the racist bandwagon and chucked a hissy at me again, for no reason. He's also previously used the username: Special:Contributions/Mr. FixIt902 (talk). I don't really know what extent you guys can take this to whether permanent is plausable (please!!!), all he has done on wiki (looking at his contributions and talk page) has been ignore warnings, rules and changed things with personal opinion and POV. I tell him no, he abuses me calling me a "fucking faggot" etc etc. Attacks me with racists remarks about me being Australia (for some reason he thinks that's a problem? I feel sorry for those of you Americans with half of a brain!!!!). IP in question: 76.186.64.155 (talk). First offence here (report). Latest offence here: [77] (in Genre and 3rd single..). Hope you do the right thing by me and get rid of him. Thanks. kiac (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gave the IP a {{uw-npa4}}, hopefully it won't happen again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible banned user back under a new account.

It looks like that XxJoshuaxX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as Xxlaura88xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not only did the username look suspect, I looked at the contributions and has edited articles of singers which XxJoshuaxX use to do. Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:SSP would be good for this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going too but I'm a bit confused about how to do the report. Bidgee (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You can request a checkuser also if you have hard evidence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I've dealt with 98E from time to time, before. Will take a second look at this one in a day or two, see how things look by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quack. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Issues with the Chupacabra page

I've noticed that the Chupacabra page has had it's page protection deleted. I would like to tell Caribbean H.Q. about this little mistake seeing his editing actions deleted the PP tag, but after I warned him and another editor that their editing actions might be a 3RR violation, he told me to "get knotted" and will ignore any attempt I make to communicate with him, feasible or not. Will an Admin look into this? (The page protection part is the main issue right now; the 3RR is not a priority for me unless someone else thinks it is a priority and will direct me to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule page)--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, couldn't you just add the {{pp-semi|small=yes}} tag back yourself? Neıl ☄ 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought only an Admin was allowed to do that? And the chances of me being an admin....I'd have better luck bagging some Bollywood Star like Shilpa Shetty. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as the page really is protected when it gets tagged, I wouldn't see a problem. :) Looks like the tag itself might have been tangental to the reverting (which appears to have stopped). – Luna Santin (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The protection thing is a non-issue. Removal of the tag doesn't remove the protection. No comment on any 3RR violations by anyone, as I haven't looked into it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:65.216.70.60

This user was first reported for a 3RR violation on Gemstone IV, and at the same time began to vandalize my user talk page. He received a 24-hour temp block for the vandalization and incivilities, and as soon as the block expired, heavily and obscenely vandalized my user page, claimed that he was "going to gut this article" on the Gemstone article, and has hit other user talk pages with WP:CIVIL violations, as per these diffs: [78], [79]. It seems a 24-hour block didn't get his attention.  RGTraynor  15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Has he made any useful contributions at all, or is it all disruption? If the latter, you could try posting it at WP:AIV. They can't indef-block an IP, but they can do a lengthy block if needed, provided they take the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's made constructive, good-faith edits in his time; this is not a vandalism-only account. There may also be another account in play: Special:Contributions/68.239.20.96 shares recent edits to the Gemstone article, to Ray Carver (darts player) and to Superman (film series), including WP:BLP violations to the Carver article. Another admin put a 72-hour block on the 65.216.70.60 account, but I bet this guy isn't going to just take his medicine gracefully.  RGTraynor  15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Following Ed's block, I think we can wait for any further incidents and take action from there if needed. Probably report it here if disruption continues. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's hoping; no doubt I'll see it if it does. Thanks for the help, folks.  RGTraynor  16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring at 2008 South Ossetia war

The recent edit history from 14:30 UTC time until now, see [80] appears to suggest an edit war is brewing. Admin intervention/full protection may be required. D.M.N. (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Watching, for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragemanchoo - not getting enough attention?

Ragemanchoo (talk · contribs) has a habit of leaving inappropriate comments on article talk pages (some recent samples [81] [82] [83] [84]), sometimes reverting when other editors remove them. I've pointed them at WP:TALK at least twice, to no avail. Now they seem to be leaving uncivil messages such as [85] and [86]. Can someone give them a stern talking to, please? On a completely unrelated matter, I recall that there is a recidivist sockpuppeteer interested in German ships, but their name escapes me. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Both Toddst1 and myself have left them a note about this. Can't comment for or against any possibility of sockpuppetry, personally. Here's hoping the situation improves. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. My sockmaster question actually was meant as a question, not a veiled accusation, although it was inspired by one of this user's contributions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing problems with Libro0

I have had nothing but problems with Libro0. I try to get him and another user to stop their war, and he calls me a sockpuppet of the other user (among several others he suspects, most without cause) and has launched a series of passive aggressive attacks. The latest was a series ultimatums and threats, in his typical passive aggressive style which implies I am a sockpuppet. Take a look here [87] and here [88]. His "evidence" of sockpuppetry is laughable at best, delusional at worst - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy and this [89]. Action is needed! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Persistant misuse of the minor edit flag

This user is persistantly marking edits as minor in breach of Help:Minor_edit. I warned them when I discovered they had removed a contested sentance from one of my watchlisted articles [90] and they have removed the conversation with the comment "This whole conversation is achieving nothing, if I had removed 10,000k and marked it as minor then fair play, but a 117k edit is minor by any standard, as it didn't affect the content of the article." indicating that they're judging it by the size of the edit.

Since this they have changed the movie box office taking here [91] as a minor edit indicating that they are going to continue their abuse.

I'm now sick of this. Why should people making an effort to comply continue to do so ? Do Wikipedia rules stand for anything or not ? Are there any sanctions that you can apply ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with a user seeming to mark their every last edit minor, but I don't recall ever seeing this become a big issue, before; I'd hesitate to take any action without prior discussion, either here with strong support or via a user conduct request for comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This comes up now and then. I think marking all edits as minor, if all the edits are not minor, can be misleading and disruptive. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Kanabekobaton. Hopefully, one day we'll have a community consensus on whether or not the meta-help pages on edit summaries can be taken as policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is a little too obvious but it seems like the editor in question thinks "minor" has to do with the size of the edit, rather than the actual content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried patiently explaining the difference between major and minor edits? I'll do that now. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(3 ec's) If the editor, for instance made a huge copy-edits to the article, and marked them as minor, then in my view there would be a problem. However, the editor is only making small changes which do not affect the overall standard of the article. While I do agree that he shouldn't mark every edit minor, I don't think a RfC should be started. The editor does try and have an edit summary on most of his edits, I think it would be more troublesome if he went on and ignoring the edit summary block. This edit I think was a good thing, as it was removing unsourced material that was violating WP:BLP from an article. I also didn't like the fact that Daytona templated him, which goes against WP:DTTR, I think a civil message could of solved this instead of bringing it to ANI. If I'm to be honest, I think the templated message caused more trouble than what it's worth. D.M.N. (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see no need for an RFC over this. I too have left a note for the user. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Darren hasn't edited in over an hour, currently, so at this point we're probably best served waiting for some response or a return to editing. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Darrenhusted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
User links added for ease of navigation. Anthøny 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlists

Resolved

 – ...and back to normal.

Hello, currently my watchlist is not updating. It is shows the current edit to this page was made at 10:52am EST. Is this a new issue or is it being fixed? - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. It just arose a couple of minutes ago, I think. 14:52 UTC or 9:52 CDST. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User contribs are also affected. --Kbdank71 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The IRC fairies are working on it. Thatcher 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they appreciate that characterization. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...I will keep an eye on the recent changes pages for the time being. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk 18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a recovery of some kind is going on. The watchlist is slowly catching up to current time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 12653 seconds down from just under 14000 seconds. - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was going crazy, seeing all my days work disappear from my contribs, slowly it's coming back. — Realist² 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It got down to about 2800, but now it's going up again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a 3700 second delay. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Every edit we make delays the servers' ability to sync up...oops Thatcher 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, done. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at the Village Pump technical section. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sandstein closing AfDs against consensus or reality of sources apparently to oppose me

I am noticing a trend of singling out my arguments inaccurately and dishonestly in a number of AfD closes and therefore ignoring the consensus of others just to apparently oppose my stance. For example:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balliol College in fiction - I cannot see how there was a consensus there
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Dante - article was in active process of dramatic rewrite to acknowledge a major historical figures most commonly used by that name, deleting the article deleted a good basis for an article on the historical figure and was done immediately after it was listed under the relevant real world deletion sorting pages; calling my arguments boilerplate is dishonest when I made numerous posts throughout the discussion and hypocritical when some of the deletes are copy and paste style across multiple AfDs as well; plus, why single me out when others argued to merge?
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien) - could have easily been "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness) - again, close rationale focuses on me, when others argued to keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind - could have easily been "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force lightning - could have easily been "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) - could have easily been "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia (third nomination) - could have easily been "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khorne - again dishonest focus on my arguments when I made multiple posts throughout and when a number of the deletes are copy and paste across multiple AfDs
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination) - could have closed as "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kenny's deaths (2nd nomination) - another should have been "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (2nd nomination) - fortunately a DRV overturned this one
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nom Anor - possible "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbitaly Drop Shock Troopers - focus in close yet again on me
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pancor Jackhammer in Popular Culture - consensus was to merge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination) - no consensus to delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination) - no consensus to delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supertall - no consensus to delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time and fate deities in popular culture - no consensus to delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Futurama - consensus was to keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines in popular culture - could have been no consensus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters - again focus in close on me with the falsehood boilerplate comment when I made posts throughout the discussion and when deletes were copy and pasted across multiple afds

Now by contrast to the above, I have had some pleasant enough interactions with Sandstein and he has made some good closes, and I really really hate to ever comment on anyone at ANI, but talk page discussions seem to not go anywhere lately or even become hostile, and the trend of closing against consensus and particularly focusing on my arguments in the closes rather than the other keep arguments is a bit disconcerting and suggests influence on perhaps dislike of me in the closes or hypocrisy in focusing on one inclusionist's posts as "boilerplate", while not applying that same standard to deletion posts that are just that. Therefore, I propose that the above be relisted and that this admin recuse himself from closing (not commenting it, which is fine, but just closing) on the fence AfDs I am in to avoid any appearance of bias. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not examine each and every one of these closes, but the random sample I looked at seemed like perfectly reasonable closes. The appropriate way to challenge deletions is to raise the issue at WP:DRV. If there is a consistent pattern of Sandstein's closes being overturned at DRV, then some sort of further action might make sense. But I don't see any reason for him to recuse himself from closing AfDs that you have participated in just because you don't agree with his assessment of the consensus. Nandesuka (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the closes disregard the reality of existence of sources or active efforts to improve the article, or make it a point to make false and hypocritical claims about one particular editor in the closing rationale, i.e. he seems to be closing them as delete even if that's not the actual consensus or even if source exist just to oppose a particular editor or out of a personal bias against these sorts of articles. It's not a mere matter of disagreement with his assessment of consensus, it is concern over making a biased assessment of consensus. The Commander Dante and Sonic Shower ones have me most baffled. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see that I wasn't clear, so I'll try again. I looked at some of the closes, above, that you characterize as "no consensus to delete", and I completely disagree. In the samples I checked, I see a clear consensus to delete. If you believe that Sandstein is getting it wrong, the thing to do is to bring the contested closes to DRV. Accusing him of making these closes out of personal bias is a terribly serious accusation, and I sincerely hope you have more evidence for that than the above list of AfDs, because they are a terribly thin plank on which to place such a heavy accusation. Nandesuka (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In the ones that I indicate above as should be no consensus there was no clear consensus to delete. An unbiased or neutral closer would see that there was no decisive arguments that should have made these outright deletes. It's not merely getting it wrong it's making it a point to single me out in some of the closing statements and make false comments about my argument that could be applied to some of the deletes or to close prematurely when some significant revision was made or to ignore sources presented during the discussions. I and others have tried to discuss with him (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), so I am not alone in my concerns with some of these closes and as you can see it seems as if are disagreements are escalating, where I see no harm in recusing oneself from ones that are close. If say I was the only keep or something, then okay, but I don't as a non-admin and I wouldn't as an admin close any discussion in which I would give of any even remotely hint of bias and nor would I make it a point to single out any one dissenting opinion in multiple closes. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're wrong there. AfD is not a vote, and Sandstein gave good rationales where there was a discrepancy between the vote count and the consensus which is represented by policy. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If went with policy, they'd be closed as no consensus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Sandstein does appear a bit irritable, but most of those closes are good. Sonic shower (currently at DRV on the August 13th log page), for instance, was a reasonable close for the state of the discussion, and only sources found afterwards are changing that. So, Sandstein, do you need a break? I and other closers can take over at AfD if you do. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lifebaka. I don't think I need a break and I don't intend to recuse myself from any process. If I appear irritable, that may be because the lengthy and highly unpersuasive arguments made by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles here, at DRV and on my talk page have become repetitive to such a degree that I view them as frivolous, bordering on disruption. That's why I generally don't bother to reply to them in depth any more (for a previous extended discussion, see here), and I wouldn't fault others for doing likewise. Contrary to what Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles may believe, I am not in the habit of closing AfDs based on any opinions that I may hold about the participants. If I mention particular opinions that I have discounted in my AfD closures, it is generally because I consider this to be necessary to explain the outcome of the AfD.  Sandstein  21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I find many of these AfDs frivolous and disruptive which is why I challenge them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the amount of information being presented is so large and nuanced that you ought to consider filing an RfC if you really have a concern, since ANI is not well suited to these disputes. That said, I don't see Sandstein's actions running outside of normal discretion. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to "get Sandstein in trouble" and really don't want to cause as much headache for him as a request for comment would. When all is said and done, I hope that we can both get along and if anything find ways to work constructively. All I am really seeking is that someone who obviously currently has animosity with any particular editor in AfDs take a step back from closing those discussions as it seems blinding from the reality of some of these discussions, i.e. calling one person's arguments boilerplate while ignoring others' that are so, closing a discussion while a serious reworking of an article is underway with a rationale that a real world article can be created but deleting the start of what could be that real world article, etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

These closes look within bounds to me. I would agree the place for this is either DRV or an RFC (I suggest the former, not the latter, though). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with DRVs is that at least one other user makes it a point to go to all my DRVs in opposition to me (see here, yes, this is actually a list kept by another editor of only DRVs that I started...). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

puuuuuuuuulleeeeze. This is getting really tiring. Your "dramatic rewrite" of Commander Dante is a total red herring, because rewriting an article to add material on a completely different subject is perfectly acceptable post-deletion; you don't need the history of a Space Marine character to do so. This is really the opposite of deliberate targetting - you've proven yourself to be a non-useful gauge of community feeling on AfDs, so closing admins are simply ignoring your comments entirely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We can be bold and dramatically rewrite articles during AfDs, which is what I began to do with the Commander Dante article. There's no harm in having the Space Marine edit history preserved. In fact, there's a benefit of it being merged elsewhere. I don't know why you and some others are so uncompromisingly and irrationally bent on deleting stuff without keeping an openmind. As such, no one should take your comments here or in AfDs seriously as they are to be blunt increasingly dishonest as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason is that I am initimitely familiar (prize-winningly familiar) with the source material, and am in an excellent position to gauge its real-world importance. Another part is that my comments have all reflected the current wording and spirit of our notability guidelines. Yet another is that it would be truly irrational for me to be so bent on removing valuable content on Wikipedia that I would go to the bother of writing things just to delete them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed part of Chris Cunningham's comment about Kurt. It's not necessary here at all. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt's position is perfectly apt here - he sticks by it, he has his reasons, it never really has an effect on the result of an RfA, and yet that doesn't mean that he is being "targeted" by closing admins where by the numbers he might be a swing !vote. It's a perfectly cromulent analogy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid analogy, I just objected (and still do object) to the method in which it was made. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do crats close RfAs based on Kurt? Here, I'm talking about someone specifically mentioning me in his closes. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but I have to say "hear, hear" to Chris Cunnigham's comments above. Why would Le Grand Roi think that his comments are being ignored? Probably because of his knee-jerk reaction to vote keep on every single AfD he participates in without any policy to back him up, and his contentious argumentation whenever anybody opposes his viewpoint? Corvus cornix_talk 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I have argued or nominated to delete over fifty times now; many of those on the delete side can't say the same for what if any they have argued to keep. So, as usual, I suppose the hypocritical "knee-jerk" deletes that are not based on policy are okay, then? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what we have here is an echo of the ever-lingering inclusionist/deletionist debate. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, in my experience, is a meta-inclusionist, which is ok, but consensus doesn't support his take any more than consensus is likely to always support anyone's keen take on inclusion/deletion. I don't think this is the place to try swaying consensus on deletion policy and I don't think Sandstein closed those AfDs out of spite towards Citrouilles. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters, I made multiple posts, which is hardly "boilerplate" and by contrast a few of those who posted to delete copied and pasted their posts across multiple AfDs, but why not comment on that? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbitaly Drop Shock Troopers, why comment only to me? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khorne, again with the "boilerplate" accusation when I posted several times throughout the discussion and those on the deletion side themselves copied and pasted across multiple AfDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Dante, why if you think a real article can be written would you delete the basis for such an article, and yet again the dishonest "boilerplate" claim when I made all sorts of posts unique to that discussion throughout and that guy is known as Commander Dante and not his real name a lot like how Stalin is not known by his actual last name. And yes, again, we had some copy and paste deletes that aren't mentioned in the close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness), of the two keeps, I am the one commented to. Etc. I naturally expect as I see from some of the posts above that any thread I start such as this one has a good chance of being derailed by the diehard deletionists (I am not of course calling Gwen one) from these discussions, but I have to do what I believe is right whether I am hopefully of getting somewhere or not. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness), of the two keeps, I am the one commented to." Incorrect. Look again, I didn't reply to your post, I replied to the one following your post. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Oops, I thought you were referring to my comment, whereas I'm now guessing you are referring to the closer's comments. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wouldn't say I'm a "diehard deletionist," though I likely had that coming for calling you a "meta-inclusionist." :) However they got there, I see an overwhelming consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters. Again, if you think the discussion was oddly bent somehow, please do take it to DRV. FDR called him Uncle Joe, by the bye. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I said, I am NOT calling you a diehard deletionist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Look like good closes to me. Most of those ought to have been deleted. Shouting 'Five Pillars' over and over makes you look like a deranged Doric architect, and it seems that others have caught on to that, and disregard it as you rarely specify how any given article fits that directly. At best you throw a link to google up, as if people are too stupid to do so for themselves. Consider each articles merits based not upon inclusionist philosophy, but on the article's quality, and relevance. Read the sources your google search pops up too. ThuranX (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately they were all bad closes that disregarded the sources and policy reasons given for keeping and in many cases were in AfDs with people just shouting "nnontable" without any actual basis. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you've said that enough times. I think everyone here understands that you think they were bad closes. Liek you've been advised, take ones you disagree with to DRV, the appropriate forum for your concerns. FWIW, you've probably lost a lot of clout with AfD concerns based on your blind judgment of RfA candidates for a few AfDs you disagree with. Tan ǀ 39 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See reply below. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is so clear, then obviously taking the closes to DRV will result in them being reversed. In the meantime, I don't see any indication that administrative action of any kind is required here. Nandesuka (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem there is as indicated above, a couple oppose my DRVs regardless of merit. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire argument is a non-starter. There is nothing to indicate that these closes have any kind of "vendetta" element to them, and I don't see any egregious issues with any of the closes. As has been stated, the proper way to handle a disagreement over a closure is at DRV - if it was a bad close, it'll get overturned. There is absolutely nothing here requiring administrative intervention. That an editor does not see eye to eye with you is not a reason for a report. Shereth 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD and DRV behavior as Disruptive

Well, I thought this conversation was finished, and then I nipped over to DRV to see if any of these had been raised yet, and I found this. As near as I can tell, Le Grand Roi's argument goes like this: There was an article about Person A that was on the verge of deletion. As part of contesting the AfD, Le Grand Roi found some sources discussing a completely unrelated Person B who had the same name. Therefore, the deletion should not have happened / must be reversed, because of the necessity of an article about Person B. To be blunt, I view this argument as being so clearly specious and post-facto that it is practically insulting. Rather than focusing on Sandstein's closes, I'd like to solicit opinions about whether this sort of behavior rises to the level of disruption. Contesting AfDs vigorously is one thing -- emotions run high, and I think we all cut people on both sides of a deletion debate a little slack. But making this sort of plainly specious argument the crux of a DRV requires, in my opinion, a certain sort of calm deliberation gone completely wrong that goes beyond merely hitting the commit button a bit too fast. Your thoughts? Nandesuka (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the DRV list he links to, he has a success rate of about 1 in 20 DRVs, that seems so far on the low side as to require further scrutiny. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

LGRC has of late filled the role of perhaps the most strident inclusionism crusader on AfD/DRV. This is not a bad thing, in and of itself. He may be prone to the use of generic boilerplate in discussions and he may be prone to contesting deletions on what we might deem as specious arguments, but again, these things are not in and of themselves problematic. It is neither pointy nor disruptive. Whether or not LGRC's strident defense of virtually all material on Wikipedia is well-considered or rational is something that only the individual can decide for themselves, but these ideas and arguments are his opinion and he is welcome to have and express them. There is nothing wrong with having a lopsided opinion and there is nothing wrong with having a poor record of success at DRV. Shereth 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that repeatedly using specious arguments to contest deletions, when those aruments have been shown to be specious in previous cases, could well be considered both pointy and disruptive. There's no reason why users should have to waste time refuting LGRdC's limited stock of ploys over and over again. I'm sure he hopes that he will eventually prevail by simply wearing everyone else down, but I take issue with the opinion that there's nothing wrong with it. Deor (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would agree in principle - it's just that in my opinion I've considered LGRC's efforts to be misguided, not disruptive. However, in light of some of the links/diffs that are being presented below I'm beginning to question my original assessment of the situation. It's one thing to repeatedly use silly arguments, but it is another to continue to do so even after it has been demonstrated that said behavior is creating a drain on the community, and it appears he's been told so. So, yes, I am reconsidering my position. Shereth 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the third time he's tried this tactic: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)#Section break: Dark Angels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind#Section break: Beginning revised version that is no longer indended to focus on Warhammer. Response on each occasion has been universally negative. As far as "disruptive" means "wasting a disproportionate amount of other editors' time", I'd certainly regard it as disruptive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would generally have to agree here with Nandesuka. There was another (fourth) AfD here in which something similar happened. That article started out all about a fictional tribe in World of Warcraft (with no independent sources to demonstrate notability). Over the course of the AfD, this was transformed from the non-notable article it was to the one that currently demonstrates notability about the completely unrelated Arathi religion. (Note: I even argued to keep the *newly created* article that didn't have any of the WoW stuff in it.) Despite the fact that I argued to keep the new (now notable yet unrelated) article, I do not wish that episode to start a precedent, but it has already been pointed to as one. I agree that arguing to keep an article in the fashion you mention, i.e. find something completely unrelated to the current subject of the article and try to shoe-horn it into the article in question is a Bad Idea^TM. If, in the course of searching for references for subject A, references are found for subject B, a *new* article should (or, at the least, could) be started, and, if needed a disambiguation page can be created. Otherwise, we might end up with coatracks which include a lot of miscellaneous, generally non-notable, indiscriminate information, possibly masquerading behind an otherwise notable topic. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fifth AfD (still running): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamino, where the information he added to the article in an effort to "rescue" it was laughably irrelevant. Deor (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(3x edit conflict)) The other type of DRV filings he started doing excessively was that "nominator was a sockpuppet, overturn the AfD" after the AfDs had already been closed with a clear consensus to be deleted. He did this after being rebuked in several of these DRVs that the opinion of the nominator was irrelevant in light of the overall consensus, and the consensus was more or less a fait accompli. It's one thing to do it for one or two DRVs and then be told that it didn't affect the overall consensus, but to do so after that is tendentious. That and his conduct in the AfDs themselves should be a subject of scrutiny. It's one thing to have a very inclusionist deletion philosophy. I don't have a problem with that (as seriously as a !vote citing WP:5P can be taken in an AfD). I have a problem with commenting on others !votes with specious and almost trivial reasons (i.e. WP:PERNOM to every "per nom" delete !vote - but never to a keep !vote, WP:JNN to any delete !vote mentioning notability, even if it explains the reasons the article is non-notable, and perhaps the most egregious, WP:ITSCRUFT to even the mention of the word "cruft" in discussion). Again, I don't care about his inclusion philosophy. His conduct in AfDs has gotten to the point where editors simply don't bother to respond to him because it leads to an argument sunk in verbose nonsense and leads to WP:TE very quickly. I've asked him on several times to change the manner in which he presents his arguments to other users, but he's never heeded anything I've said. I consider myself a calm individual, but the manner in which he discusses in AfDs approaches such a point that I've lost my temper at certain points. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I did begin drafting a proposal for a DRV topic ban on Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles a few days ago on account of his repeated frivolous DRV nominations. I then decided it wasn't worth the bother, but it appears several other editors here share my concern. I personally feel it's not that much of a problem on AfD, because there one may simply ignore him.  Sandstein  22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally oppose a topic ban, just because sometimes he's right. Yes, I'm aware this was a time I agreed with him, but if there's even a chance of his stance being the correct one, I believe that we need to give him the chance. Because, simply, it's no OK to delete articles if there isn't actually a consensus for it, regardless of inclusionist/deletionist leanings. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As they say even a broken clock is right twice a day. There is a question of trade off between the amount of disruption when wrong against the positives of being right (factoring that other may nominate the same article for DRV in his absence). Regardless this seems like a RFC issue in the first issue to allow some self behaviour modification if appropriate before more formal action. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would never respect a request for comment filed by hypocritical and incivil extreme deletionists. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If LGRdC can create an entire new article about the things/people which happens to share the same name, as I effectively did with Macaroni soup, but with starting the article afresh, of course he can recreate them. But we don't need it to go to DRV for that, though he might like to make them in user space first and get someone to take a look. Sticky Parkin 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem arises more from him creating bizarre quasi-disambiguation pages during AfDs that contain information on both the original, nominated fictional character as well as the alternate subject he's found. Your work on Macaroni soup was more akin to converting a non-notable description of a subject into a notable one, as opposed to combining non-notable and notable in one confusing article. I certainly have no objection to him creating a new article on a new, notable subject. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I find Le Grand's keep arguments sensible only in 8th-dimension MC Escher-space?, yes, but generally he's not disruptive. The only exception I can find -- and it's recent, and I suspect an outlier -- is cutting content actively under discussion for deletion and indiscriminately pasting it into a (probably appropriate) other place; what remained at the article actually open for deletion was a dab. page of sorts, although including a dubiously notable real-world person. (It was the above comment about a fictional Dante/real Dante overlap that even sparked this recollection.) In my mind, it was a cheap way to preserve cruft; but, in my mind I also believed he was just trying to preserve content and avoid a redlink. We had a back-and-forth over it over edit summaries and a deleted talk-page comment, but he eventually settled with the status quo. The whole time, though, I assumed (annoying) good faith. --EEMIV (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have to concur that LGRC's behaviour in DRV has risen to the level of disruptive. When he's told on August 13 that he can request that a deleted article can be userfied upon request and then on August 14 starts another DRV instead of asking for userfication opens yet another spurious DRV, he needs to be reigned in. Whether that rises to the level of a topic ban, I don't know, but at the very least his DRVs should be held to strict scrutiny and admins should have the power to speedily close them if they are patent nonsense. As for his behaviour in AFD, I so dread the idea of dealing with him there that I have for all intents and purposes abandoned participation. When one editor's behaviour rises to the level of actively discouraging other editors from participating, that editor's behaviour needs to be addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• I would have to see Otto4711's behavior in AfDs has risen to the level of disruption as he keeps renominating articles for deletion that closed as unambiguous keeps. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: ban on certain tactics

It's not the inclusionism that's annoying, it's the lameness. An agreement simply to refrain from certain guaranteed annoyances which never influence anyone would be nice:

1. The WP:5P boilerplate crap has to stop.
2. The "there's an entirely unrelated subject also called X, so we should make this an article about both" argument should be banned.
3. The persistent WP:JNN, WP:ITSCRUFT spamming of every single user who uses the keyword "notable" or "cruft" on an AfD has to go.

That would be fine for me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied if he were (1) restricted to a single !vote statement (supported by any rationale he chooses) plus one additional comment in any AfD or DRV discussion and (2) banned from nominating, for a specified time, at DRV. (Note that in the DRV referred to above by Lifebaka as an instance of LGRdC's being right, he was not the nominator.) Deor (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can support all of these proposals. Can we also make him delete "happy editing!" from his signature? Because that is seriously annoying. Otto4711 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys really doing this? Really? You're actually trying to punish someone because they actively oppose Wikipedia's recent trend of mass deletionism? Consensus? More like cancerous mob rule. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be equating objections to a particular editor's methods with an overall trend of mass deletionism. That said, I don't personally see a need for a topic or action ban on LGRdC at this time, although I personally think he should tone down the doomed DRVs. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be worthwhile to say "You are in grave danger of having your ability to comment on AfD's and DRV's curtailed. Please use more discretion about which articles you'd like to keep." Then monitor the situation. I'd be reluctant to have any sort of ban without a formal warning and a chance to change behavior. Fair? IronDuke 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for that. He's a congenial editor and willing to discuss things, even if it hasn't changed the way he responds to AfDs in the past month of trying. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There has been a definite trend of mass deletionism on fiction-related English Wiki articles for about two years now, actually. LGRdC's methods could be toned down, but then agin he's one of the ten or less serious Wikipedians I've seen opposing this sort of thing. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the number of articles in en-wp has shrunk noticeably in the last two years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: ban of Otto4711, Deor, and Thumperward on certain tactics

Everything above comes from hypocrisy of these extreme deletionists and everythuing they allege against me can be spun back at them even more fold. These editors:

1. The non-notable boilerplate crap has to stop.
2. The other dishonest dismissal of reliable sources argument should be banned.
3. The persistent spamming of every single user who argues to keep or excessive use "cruft" on an AfD has to go.

And Deor needs to be restricted to one comment per AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that this is exactly why people consider you aggravating? We don't care about your inclusion philosophy. We care about ridiculous actions like this that make interaction with you impossible. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to take seriously a collection of extreme deletionists assuming bad faith and lying and all jumping on the bandwagon of wikidrama and disruption. No good faith non-extreme deletionist editor has any issues with me. And if those who only argue to delete, make frivolous nominations, make boilerplate delete votes, make it a point to harass those who argue to keep, want to jump on this nonsensical pile on, well, let's see how well they can defend their own actions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, LGRC - the counter-proposal here comes across as being somewhat pointy and disruptive and only serves to reinforce some of the arguments that are being made against you. It also seems a bit out of character, generally you have always struck me as being, at the very least, genial and good-natured and not the sort to do this kind of thing. Shereth 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You know I see some logic there and while I could post a tremendous amount of diffs that would expose them for the hypocrites that they are, in fact every reasonable editor knows that the only ones making the proposals against me are in fact extreme deletionists making them in bad faith, so from this post on I am going to ignore this thread and any other nonsense they start and if they want to go own fawning over themselves, well, that's time they aren't spending trying to delete other editors' volunteer work. Have a nice night! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You seriously need to calm down. I know you didn't mean to directly accuse every editor who has raised a comment on your behaviour here as a bad, faith, extreme deletionist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Entering in before wall of text argument. They're just going to defend their actions by saying "our radical boilerplate arguments and etc are well founded in Wikipedia policy yours are not.". nothing good will come of this battle. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Although we often disagree on AfDs, I wouldn't support a broad topic ban. Moreover, I think it's ok and even helpful for an inclusionist to steadily participate in AfDs. Hopefully, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles will take this thread to heart, coming to understand that some of his tactics have been disruptive and either way, are likely dampening support for what he's trying to do, rather than stirring editors into notions of wider inclusion. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with 90.199.99.31

Resolved

 – IP blocked, other editor warned Toddst1 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This user won't reason and shows no regard towards other editors, even after I've tried warning him several times. The user has done some good and valid edits, but also keeps reverting edits, deleting information, adding unsourced controversial material, keeps pushing his view etc, on several articles related to each other. I've proven several of his edits wrong aswell, citing official sources, but he keeps reverting them. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please? Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of them. [92] this is one of the major ones that he's trying to push, and he has redone it atleast 4 times now. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Resolved

 – BB&W fouled out. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs & Wahkenah (talk · contribs) gonna take a guess that this guy needs blocking as a category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ron liebman --Jac16888 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's at least his second one today. He's been busy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him on the username alone as an impersonator of Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. One of me is more than enough. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is this the proper place to bring this for an immediate block, couldn't think of anywhere else, WP:AIV isn't right and [[[WP:SSP]] is too much of a long-winded process--Jac16888 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When we're talking about ban or block-evading users where there's incontrovertible proof, yes. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually notify User:Wknight94, who's kind of the shepherd on this long-term abuser Liebman. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

figured as much, cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was the first admin to start working the problem - Wknight94 is usually faster to respond these days and should probably be the first contacted admin, but if you can't get ahold of him, go ahead and let me know about it and I'll thunder on down... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That accounts for why he posted to your page. He also posted to No Guru's page today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in Wild Arms articles

Talk:Wild Arms (series)#Objection to Title Capitalization

In the past two or three days, these two have been edit warring nonstop in every Wild Arms game article. My watchlist at the moment is just an enormous wall of them reverting eachother and breaking article links, well over 200 edits between them have been made. The cause of this is whether the games should be referred to as Wild Arms or Wild ARMs. It's really stupid and incredibly disruptive, I'm not sure what's called for here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My brane melted within six seconds on linking to the above... can you provide some specific diffs of them reverting each other, and either requests to stop or actual warnings issued so us sensitive admins can agree that 3RR or something is violated and we can then act? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really hard to do such things, seeing as how User:Mr T (based) aka IP 88.something has also been making dozens of nonstop miscellaneous edits on every page too. Here's a small instance of my watchlist that should adequetly prove my point. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... I'm not Mr. T. My account here is "Erigu" (I rarely use it as I get logged out all the time for some reason).

By the way, you may have recognized her already, but you've already dealt with Fragments of Jade a few months ago, Norse Am Legend. She was using the IP 24.3.180.166. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT my IP-please ignore 88's baseless accusations, as she's been harassing me for quite some time now. To clarify, Mr. T came along and removed/incorrectly altered huge amounts of information, incorrectly altered the title of the game, and removed references to other games simply because he had not played them. I assumed good faith and visited his talk page to inform him of how his edits were kind of causing trouble, but that I believed he had good intentions. He wanted no part in discussing anything, saying he could do whatever he wanted, and was generally rude and mocking towards me. I tried everything from reporting him to trying to reason with him, but nothing worked. The minute he was unblocked, he immediately went back to editting, despite being aware that there was a discussion going on. On top of that, he joined with some other uers on his talk page to insult me, much like 88 has been doing for quite some time. 88 admits to only having BARELY played ONE of these games. She has been watching my talk page and contributions, and whenever I make an edit, she immediately pops up to undo or contest it, without fail, despite never having and strong or non-contradictory arguments.Fragments of Jade (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT my IP

It was, back then. Now, your IP is 76.120.173.40 (as confirmed by Thatcher here), despite your claims to the contrary. I'm afraid your "style" is unmistakable. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not, nor has it every been my IP. Stop it already.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is almost never wrong. Claiming otherwise should only be done with very strong evidence. That being said, I think both users could stand to be whacked with a 72 hour block to cool off. Jtrainor (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser never proved anything, though. And I don't need to "cool off". I'm sick of being blocked because of how others treat me. She is the one who keeps coming after me. Look at our contribution histories.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser never proved anything, though.

I posted the link just above, Jade. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable image uploads

Pglukhov (talk · contribs) is uploading a number of images from what appears to be a Russian news website, claiming the images are free and providing a link to a copyright page. However, the page is all in Russian, which I can't read. I want to assume good faith, but I'm worried that the uploads are copyvios and/or that the license in the copyright notice is actually incompatible. It seems unlikely that a news service would allow their photos to be used commercially and adapted. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, several of them seem to be Kremlin photos, but the last couple are from news services. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos from the Kremlin cannot be accepted as free images for our purposes, since the Kremlin doesn't explicitly permit commercial reuse and also unlimited modifications, so they should be speedy deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though we specifically have a kremlin.ru free license tag? {{Kremlin image}} The ones I'm most worried about are these [93], [94], [95]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I will rectify that. I'll look at the other images and perhaps ask other Russian speakers to get involved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. If you're gonna kill the license tag it should probably be removed from the list too [96]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

License killed, along with several images. The only ones I kept were from the Osettian conflict, so if people want to try and claim fair use on those. I will remove the template from the free license category. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this page, it reads: "Запрещается любое использование фото, графических, информационно-графических, видео, аудио и иных размещенных на сайтах материалов, принадлежащих Агентству и иным лицам." -- Any use of pictures, graphics, video, audio and other stuff that appear on the site and belong to the agency or other persons is prohibited. Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy per copyvio. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please block repeat copyvio uploader

HiddenWolf (talk · contribs) has uploaded the same image again that was already deleted once as a blatant copyvio. [97] It's time to block this person. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, someone with sysop powers should keep an eye on 2008 South Ossetia war. I keep finding blatant copyvio images there, at least one of them was previously deleted and then reuploaded by the original uploader. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you just warned him, let's see if he does it again. John Reaves 23:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

My problem is mainly in regards to IP User User talk:88.161.129.43. A while back, me, her, and a few others were involved in a long-lasting dispute over an article, that was never properly resolved. During this time, I was subjected to quite a lot at the hands of this girl and her friends who helped argue her point. In particular, she made sock puppet accusations against me and anyone who supported my argument as opposed to hers. She also attempted to stalk me on the internet, but luckily mistook someone else for me. She then proceeded to track down this person's real name and location and post them here. She taunted me with this information, calling me by this "real name", which she believed to be mine. Naturally, I found this creepy. It was only by a strike of luck that the person she found was not actually me, but it's still not normal to try and end an article dispute by posting personal information, and I found it very off-putting when she posted how many sites she had followed this individual she mistook for me to and all she had learned about them. She also seems to be watching my contributions, because whenever I edit any article or get involved in any dispute, she will always pop up and try to involve herself. This, at first, happened once, during the above-mentioned dispute.

I'm generally not active on Wiki, and when the issue faded into obscurity, I did not make any edits here for a while, until fairly recently, when I noticed someone was making a bunch of generally disruptive edits on a series of articles I had put a lot of work into, along with many other people. The other user was unwilling to discuss it, and an edit war ocurred, resulting in both of us being blocked for a day. Naturally, user 88 stuck her nose in and made a bunch of irritating comments on my talk page over and over again, despite this situation having nothing to do with her. She then got involved in the dispute by arguing for the other editor's changed on these articles, despite herself admitting she has just barely played one of the games. This dispute is getting as aggravating as the first one, and she is completely contradicing her own stance in that previous argument. She still follows me to every article I post on, and it's getting irritating, not to mention seriously disturbing. I'm not sure if anything can be done, but an admin suggested I post the issue here. At the very least, I hope someone can get her to stop following me around Wiki and posting her insults. I've tried everything I can, but nothing works. Arguing for the sake of arguing because you have personal issues with someone is pretty lame, in my opinion, and she is really not contributing anything to these incidents she gets involved in, aside from stuff to turn them into all-out wars.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Got any diffs to illustrate this saga? Inserting them inline above would be helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs?Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia:Diffs Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.

Some corrections...

A while back, me, her, and a few others were involved in a long-lasting dispute over an article

I'm a man. I told you that several times already.

I was subjected to quite a lot at the hands of this girl and her friends who helped argue her point.

They weren't "helping arguing my point", we were simply agreeing. In fact, everybody in that discussion was in agreement, except for you, Jade.

And it would be nice if you could be a bit more specific... "Sujected to quite a lot"? In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the "hostilities" began when you accused me of "name-calling" and "racism" for no reason. I asked you several times to explain yourself, and you never did. Anybody can check how things really went down there.

she made sock puppet accusations against me and anyone who supported my argument as opposed to hers.

I did, but not because you were disagreeing with me. Because "you three" were highly suspicious. I filed a sock puppetry case with my evidence.

Thatcher, an admin, eventually confirmed that I was right on the money. Unfortunately, by that point, the sock puppetry case was already closed for "lack of manpower." Lucky you.

She also attempted to stalk me on the internet, but luckily mistook someone else for me.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I didn't.

I explained how I found out about that other identity of yours and how it is relevant to the sock puppetry case here.

She then proceeded to track down this person's real name and location and post them here.

I only posted initials, actually (I wouldn't post your full name). Funny how you got confused about that. 'Guess you recognized them after all.

And my point was that if you care about your privacy, you shouldn't play such games. It's easy to find your personal information on the net (you posted it), and your disruptive behavior really is the only reason I looked into it in the first place. I have better things to do with my time, trust me.

But you keep denying everything, even after an admin confirmed the sock puppetry... No lesson learned, I guess...

when I noticed someone was making a bunch of generally disruptive edits on a series of articles I had put a lot of work into

Not as "Fragments of Jade." You can't argue that you put a lot of work into these article without admitting that you're in fact 24.3.180.166... and that is why you shouldn't lie.

user 88 stuck her nose in and made a bunch of irritating comments on my talk page over and over again

Those were (good) advices. Advices you kept deleting. Good thing I'm the "rude" one, here.

She then got involved in the dispute by arguing for the other editor's changed on these articles, despite herself admitting she has just barely played one of the games.

That doesn't make my points any less relevant, Jade.

Arguing for the sake of arguing

... isn't what I'm doing: I honestly disagree with you.

But yes, I'm also fed up with your disruptive attitude. On top of all the bad faith, lies and baseless accusations I (and others) have had to deal with, I didn't want to create an account but finally opted to in order to submit the sock puppetry case and settle this affair once and for all... but that went nowhere, despite Thatcher's confirmation. And now you're at it again. So yes, I'm a bit pissed. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See? My point has just been proved. The minute I posted here, she came and in her rude way, proceeded to post more lies. Someone needs to put a stop to this, because it is clear she's stalking me. You honestly want me to believe that it's just by coincidence that she appears to undo my edits to pages she has no history of editing before, right after I make them? She's disruptive, hostile, predatory, and downright creepy. I want her to stop editting my talk page, stop stalking me to every Wikipedia page I visit, and stop badmouthing me. Any other user gets in trouble when they do those things, and she needs to too.Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The minute I posted here, she came and in her rude way, proceeded to post more lies.

'Simply defending myself against yours... And I posted some links to back up my claims. You never do that, for some reason... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I need an admin to step in and do something. She's already got arguments started on so many different pages because of her following and badmouthing me, and this will just turn into another. I have the right to edit on Wiki without having to be followed around and harassed by her.Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)