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

I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You

I don't think that this issue fits on any of the more specific pages, and I'm not sure what to do:

User:Die4Dixie contains a not-so-veiled statement that the editor is glad that a Cuban politician died a couple of weeks ago, and hopes that more will die.

This seems like it falls under WP:UP#NOT #9 ("Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons..."), but I haven't seen anything like this before, so I don't really know how the community usually interprets this line, or how (if necessary) these incidents are commonly handled. Any suggestions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Removed it. Clearly polemical, not to mention gratuitous and unpleasant. Black Kite 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review

And, after persisting in re-inserting the offensive material, despite being reverted by myself and another editor, and having had both of us explain why on their talk page, I have blocked User:Die4Dixie for 24 hours. Their previous block log gives me no indication that they would be stopping their disruptiveness any time soon. I don't think this counts as "involvement" by the blocking admin, but review welcome. Black Kite 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict, may be mitigated by Black Kite comments} More action may be necessary with Die4Dixie (talk · contribs). I was recently involved in a conflict with him which got into WP:CIVIL territory - it ended with him accusing me of racism for mentioning this essay as apparently "calling a spade a spade" is a racist expression where he comes from. Ok, whatever, but the point is that this compliant is not the first regarding this user. I am not fast to file actions against other users and don't know what the appropriate venue to proceed would be should his actions persist in this vein after coming off block. RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

from the ANI archives This isn't the first time Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has got in trouble for hinting that he wished another editor person dead. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable on first blush. Someone uninvolved might have suggested they take a break. But the behaviors do seem to have been problematic of late. It's unfortunate that the blocked editor can't post here in the discussion which is also problematic. Making the accused voiceless is unfortunate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I went back and forth on this before looking into it more. Bad block. I don't think the comment was collegial or appropriate, but we give latitude to editor's in their userspace. If Black Kite insisted on pushing forward he should have taken it to a neutral forum instead of acting unilaterally. D4D has been a bit too caught up in that are of the encyclopedia and may need a break, but one enforced by block instead of requested by a friend doesn't help anyone. Poor effort of dispute resolution.

And Sarek so rapidly reviewing and dismissing the appeal is also a bad look. Treating D4D with more respect, despite a comment on their userpage that isn't helpful, would have been preferable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Both myself an Veinor tried "dispute resolution". We were told to "go play somewhere else". But, as I said below, I couldn't really care less if people want to enable that sort of disruptiveness. Black Kite 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying "go play elsewhere" is just as dismissive as saying "I couldn't really care less if people want to enable that sort of disruptiveness." Show some maturity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• The content on his page was a bit too gray-area-ish to block without getting a neutral opinion. I'd recommend lifting it pending further discussion here and by other observers on his talk. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh. He placed an offensive item on his userpage, it was removed with a note to read the relevant guidelines, he replaced it (with a rv vandalism) editsum, had the information regarding soapboxing re-stated to him by another editor, and carried on replacing it. This isn't a content dispute, it doesn't require dispute resolution, it just needed that user to stop doing it, which he couldn't. It wasn't a grey area, if he'd placed "I'd be glad if {insert famous person) was dead" on his page we wouldn't be having this discussion, and it was effectively the same thing. Frankly, if anyone feels an unblock is warranted, I couldn't really care less, I think I was doing the right thing. Black Kite 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You were involved in the edit warring on a user's page. You needed to step back, exercise some restraint and good judgment and assist in alleviating the dispute and resolving the issue collegially without disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, removing offensive material doesn't come under the edit-warring guidelines. And seriously, if you're going to accuse me of double standards on the user's page, you'd better have your diffs ready. Oh, and [1]. Black Kite 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a userpage and the material is offensive to you. It's a gray area and once disputed you should have stepped back instead of using your powers unilaterally to enforce your will. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed that comment. Bad blocks often inflame situations. It's unfortunate that it's come to this, but I can attest to the double standards and rogue enforcement. I emphasize again that an admin should excercise restraint and lead by example as far as civility, collegiality, and good judgment go. There was no urgent issue here that a block was desperately needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying "I'm glad X is dead" (where X is a random famous person) is offensive full stop, not to me. Call me dim, but I'd never heard of the person. Seriously, if it had been "I'm glad Ted Kennedy is dead" soon after his death, would we even be having this conversation? Black Kite 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're posing that question to someone who once argued that it was OK to keep Nazi imagery on his user page, in reference to other editors. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BK, you made a bad block in a situation where you were involved and now you're lying about what was said on the userpage. The actual statement was "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida."

You're involved. You acted rashly and with poor judgment. I suggest unblocking and letting others who are more neutral and reasonable handle it, so we can restore some semblance of collegial cooperation. I think you may be letting pride and arrogance get in the way of clear thinking. (post-ec) And now I see other POV pushers are using the situation to push their own agenda. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please inform yourself of the facts before spouting off. The original version was This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida . One down and several leftists to go!. Dixie reverting the change as "vandalism" didn't help matters any either. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Making changes to someone's userpage IS considered vandalism, just as removing something inappropriate can be justified by other policies. There was a difference of opinion and rather than resolving it appropriately an admin took unilateral action to win the argument. That's not how we do things. I agree it's inappropriate as I've said repeatedly, but there's a right way and a wrong way to work through a dispute. And per your comment we see that Dix was willing to alter to the comment to make it less problematic, so it seems entirely likely that this could have been worked out through collegial discussion and compromise rather than an aggressive admin forcing their argument by using their tools. That cause ill will and resentment and doesn't help build the encyclopedia. Instead of having it reviewed after the fact, it should have been resolved in an appropriate fashion. Maybe our admins need a refresher course in dispute resolution? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Making changes to someone's userpage IS considered vandalism no it isn't. It depends on the changes made.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, CoM, an admin enforcing widely accepted guidelines per WP:USER is not vandalism. Your anti admin/ArbCom/wiki-authority figure crusade is beginning to get a bit tiring, especially when you try to make martyrs out of every blocked user you come across. Just...stop already. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. Look at what wikipedia has become: stupid arguments over stupid comments somebody put on their userpage. Maybe we wouldn't have a problem if there weren't any userpages? Or maybe we wouldn't have a problem if we just edited articles instead of paying excessive attention to what others are doing on their userpages? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT for advocating or gloating over the deaths of others. It should not have been been necessary for me to articulate this principle. Support block. Cardamon (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight, no editor so far has agreed with you. Rather than continuing to argue it, why don't you take a break from this argument for a couple of hours, and see whether any other editor shares your opinion?

If the only support your view gets is the empty sound of crickets in the night, then you'll know that the consensus is on the other side, and while it may not be pleasant, at least you'll know. On the other hand, if there is support for your view, then people will be unable to dismiss it as merely the view of a single editor with a reputation for endless arguing -- which would be trivial for them to do right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So far I count two other editors who think it's silly to handle a dispute over a userpage this way. Including me, that's three. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any other editors saying that removing offensive material from a userpage is vandalism. Perhaps you'll name the people who supposedly support this view.

I do see an editor bemoaning the time wasted in this discussion, and another editor thinking that the involvement of three admins instead of only two would be preferable, but that's not quite the same as saying that BlackKite vandalized the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't call removal of the obnoxious remark vandalism, but I don't consider it a no-brainer either. As a leftist, I may have been intended under Dixie's original polemic; but schadenfreude and general bad taste are not blocking offenses. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To be candid, I don't think that finding the right line is a trivial exercise, either. That's why I asked for information and help. The edit warring was admittedly stupid (can it possibly matter if your offensive comments are off the user page for an hour while you figure out what's going on?), but it's possible that what's "too offensive" to one person might be "just barely not offensive enough" to the next, especially after the editor removed the line about living people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good block; clearly inappropriate materiel regardless of who may have died, especially given the trailing (... to go) wishes for others deaths; Black Kite not even remotely involved - those who are saying he is do not understand "involved" as it relates to blocks, I am sorry to note - D4D was not acting in good faith to respect anyone's concerns about his offensive comment, which had absolutely nothing to do with building a better encyclopeida. WP is not MySpace. All drama since pointless. One puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight you've been a fantasitc defender of user Die4Dixie, but considering his long history of trouble in the realm of civility, I would advise you to please reconsider that role. Likeminas (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been my experience that civility is met with civility. When a gun slinging admin rolls in and bullies, that is (not surprisingly) met with frustration and anger. This is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopedia building effort and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect admins to use dispute resolution just liek the rest of us, as opposed to abusing their tools to enforce their personal opinions. I would have been happy to respond to a discussion on the userbox that I didn't think it was helpful. That is how this should have been handed rather than with Black Kite's abuse of his tools to win a dispute and Black Kite's edit warring on another editor's user page. Dredging up other issues an editor may have to deflect attention away from Black Kite's admin abuse just isn't fair. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement, but defending a guy who has wished several people dead (including a user's mother) is not a role I'd personally embrace. But, if you want to do so, that's your call and I support you're right to express any concerns.

In regards to Die4Dixie's latest block. I fully support it.

And if I'm not mistaken it has been supported by several other people, including three different administrators. Having said that, Black kite seems to have acted within what's expected of an administrator, and that is, to avoid further disruption and unnecessary offensive content within Wikipedia. Likeminas (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

$0.02

If I may offer some advice, if the purpose here is to keep order and edit the encyclopedia rather than punish, I urge administrators' friendly engagement of Die4Dixie rather than Wiki-sanction. He is a good, intelligent editor who listens, and like most of us is a lot more responsive to cordial overtures than being punished. His last two user page reversions[2] merely express satisfaction that a founder and leader of the Cuban dictatorship has died, and in response to the initial removal omit the imprecatory hope for more deaths[3]. Sure, it's still wrong for a user page even if the vast majority of the English-speaking world surely agree with the sentiment. But there's no emergency here. Nobody's going to die, sue Wikipedia, or become personally hurt because D4D expresses this. The rare reader who actually wishes the Cuban leaders to live indefinitely has heard worse. I understand and sympathize with the PC reaction, and the block looks technically correct, within administrator discretion. But drawing a line in the sand then blocking D4D for crossing it escalates a situation that could be handled far more calmly. First we double-check policy to make sure one may not express satisfaction here at the death of anyone, though to be consistent that would have to include terrorists, assassins, financial fraudsters, and child abductors and other unsavory characters. Next we can politely inform D4D that although we too are happy that Cuba may be one step closer to freedom, we can't have this kind of stuff on a user page so will he please humor us. Conversation is the best way I think. Same content result hopefully but far less fuss, and better feelings all around. Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are my observations on the matter:

• I don't think this quite falls within the spirit of the userpage policy in that the statement was not explicitly making any attack on editors. However, that's upon my interpretation that "or persons" pertains to those involved with Wikipedia.
• I do not consider the changes made by others to Die4Dixie's user page vandalism as I see the back and forth warring as good faith interpretations by other editors that the material in question violated the userpage policy.
• I've seen worse placed on userpages that should probably be removed upon my interpretation of the userpage policy.

With all that said, I would support an unblock, provided that either one of the two things occur: that either Die4Dixie agrees to keep the said content off his userpage, or that Die4Dixie and all editors involved in the userpage editing, the block, and this ANI thread agree to disengage from the situation. MuZemike 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has a clear history of rather egregious violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:CANVAS and, to a lesser extent WP:NPOV. When warned about these violations his response is invariably hostile in the extreme, saying anything in order to derail the conversation up to and including accusing other editors of racism and telling other editors that he wishes their parents had been disappeared by notorious death squads. Saying he is happy that Bosque died for the crime of being a leftist may seem minor in comparison but, really, how much of these sorts of morbid antics can the wikipedia community be expected to tolerate? Simonm223 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

reviewed an unblock request

I declined an unblock request. Here is a timeline of events:

• Black Kite and Veinor independently point out that the content appears to violate WP:UP#NOT.
• Black Kite also warns Die4Dixie to stop edit warring.
• Die4Dixie responds to these with this edit and then immediately begins edit warring again [4]
• Black Kite reverts again. When Die4Dixie reverts yet again, Black Kite blocked Die4Dixie

The block log message was "Repeated re-insertion of offensive material on userpage" and, according to the timeline, that is an accurate summary of events. Die4Dixie had ample opportunity to initiate a broader discussion of the content, which at least has the strong appearance of violating WP:UP#NOT point 9. Furthermore, comments such as this this are already in violation of our expectations regarding collegiality. I was not aware, when I reviewed the request, of the issues raised by Simonm223's post dated 02:36, 8 October 2009 (above). — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Carl. I too endorse the block. --John (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that CBM left out the fact that numerous editors have suggested that a better approach should have been taken and that this is not a clear cut case. CBM's summary also left out that Die4Dixie modified the comment on their user page after it was objected to. But I'm sure that was just an oversight and that CBM was trying to be fair to all parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to be fair to all parties. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've declined the third unblock request for the same reasons as my colleagues before me.  Sandstein  06:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he should have taken a more light-hearted approach. For example, when Jesse Helms died last year, I considered posting his photo next to, "Ding-Dong, the Witch Is Dead!" But I settled for, "So Long! Farewell! Auf Wiedersehen! Goodbye!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's twue! It's twue! It's twue! MuZemike 07:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"¡Señorita, por favor! ¡Yo no vivo en la Habana!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. Durova³²² 02:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)The Wiki Witch of the West

• And I would point out that when ChildofMidnight notes "Die4Dixie modified the comment on their user page after it was objected to", what this is referring to is the dropping of "...and several leftists to go!", leaving the rest. I believe the common phrase for that is "distinction without a difference". Tarc (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't recognize a difference between "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida" and "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida . One down and several leftists to go!" you are probably unfit to edit on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you can come respond to this after your latest, and deserved, 12h time-out. But I must ask, do you really think expressing a sentiment of "I cheer this person's death and can't wait for more like him to die" is substantially different from "I cheer this person's death" ? Do either really jibe with WP:USER? Tarc (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the edited version is slightly better -- at least it couldn't be (mis)interpreted as a wish for currently living people to be killed -- but "slightly better" is not always "sufficiently better". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools

Black Kite had made three reverts in span of 20 minutes ([5], [6], [7]) on Die4Dixie's user page and then she blocked him. Policy Wikipedia:Administrators states that Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party. In my opinion Black Kite misused her position as an admin. -- Vision Thing -- 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Those kinds of comments on his/her user page were unacceptable. Black Kite was doing his/her job as an admin. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite arrived at that page because of this very ANI thread. So the block was part of the same sequence of admnistrative actions as the reverts were. This is not the same as a situation where two editors are both frequent contributors to a page, and then one of them decides to block the other. Black Kite was only editing that page as an administrator responding to an ANI thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Administrative enforcement of policy, such as WP:UP#NOT here, does not constitute a "dispute" that precludes administrative actions. See WP:UNINVOLVED: "An administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice or opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them." No abuse of administrative tools occurred.  Sandstein  14:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LMAO So if I quote a policy I can edit war? That is a very interesting take on our policies. Please don't ignore the numerous comments above suggesting the userpage comment is in a gray area. Admins should not act as bullies and abuse their tools to win disputes. They certainly aren't exempt from edit warring and other policies. This discussion is troubling and the pattern of Sandstein's involvement in these abusive blocks after his recent fiascos indicates he may not have learned much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This situation was not a "dispute"; it was an administrator response to the post by Whatamidoing at the top of this thread. Users cannot ignore things such as WP:USER by merely claiming that the content in question is "disputed". The plain language of WP:USER#NOT point 9 applies to the content in question, as Black Kite indicated above when he responded to Whatamidoing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's a dispute. Just because soemone is an admin doesn't mean they get to decide the outcome of discussions. Once the edit was reverted, and especially after several editors commented that it is a gray area, consensus should have been sought through the appropriate dispute resolution discussion as opposed to unilateral enforcement and an abusive block. It's not one rule for admins and another set of rules for everyone else. We are all expected to resolve disputes in a collegial and collaborative fashion. Is there some reason you and Black Kite are incapable or unwilling to seek consensus on whether a statement of that type is acceptable? Have you even tried discussing the matter and seeking a compromise with D4D? Try showing a little respect and working with people instead of trying to enforce your will on others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you review the user talk page history, you will see that two editors (Black Kite and Veinor) did attempt to discuss the situation, but the response from Die4Dixie was "go play somewhere else". Actually no other editors had commented that this was a "gray area" before the block, but even if it was a gray area (which it does not appear to be), that would only be another reason for Die4Dixie not to reinstate the content before investigating why it was removed. The issue here was entirely that Die4dixe decided to ignore the comments on his talk page. That, not the content itself, is what led to the block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

When as many admins and users have disagreed with the tree of you, then it is a gray area. Using the tools to abitraily decide that your personal interpretation of a policy is the only one and even more so , when several admins in the best of standing and with years of experience voice concerns, then the capriciousness rises to arrogance.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADie4Dixie&action=historysubmit&diff=318564364&oldid=318538234]] didn´t cause any comment or threatening behavour from you three. It is the exact same edit I maade that you blocked me for. Nothing was said because the material was not a policy violation, or this is some twisted roll playing game where some users have the +10 vorpal blocker and the rest just have to cower.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That edit was reverted soon enough. The content does violate the literal text of WP:USER#NOT part 9, but that was not the reason for the block. The block was for repeatedly inserting the material without taking the time to figure out whether it was a policy violation. Even if you get consensus later that allows you include the material, you were still not in the right to revert its removal without getting that consensus first. If you want this to be a genuine, human environment, rather than a role playing game, you need to treat other's comments and edits in the same way you would want your own edits to be treated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I wonder why I was the only one who was supposed to do what you suggest. Why didn´t he have to figureout if he had concesus to keep removing in userspace? It is done, but there is nothing like supporting consensus that I couldnt have it, only someone who had tools making right mightily.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:USER#NOT states that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" are not permitted. So there is, in fact, a supporting consensus that the material you added is inappropriate. That consensus is documented in writing at WP:USER. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was calling for the death of leftists on political grounds.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As for you. You should either ask for a RFC to ascertain if I canvassed or drop the whole meme. It really is time for you to move on. I said something to a user who has now (ironicaly enough given my tasteless statement for which I have recognized as unfortunate) hs decided to "disappear" rather than reveal his disruptive and verily, I say, destructively manifested COI. Rather than disclose or face arbcom, he left. Given the nature of the COI, it is understandable that I became upset with him. I served my block, and its over. Coming here dragging up an old, and moot issue again and again when few have been inclined to act on it or validate your canvass "concern" should tell you you are wrong. In fact, more people have supported my right to have that on my userpage than have found your accusation credible. At this point, barring a RFC, I would ask you to drop it, as repeated saying this is now a mendacious attack. Just stop and eit something. As far as calling for the death, although I deny that it was an active call to their death, I had removed that before I was bocked, so it doesn´t seem germane to the block--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be launching an RfC when I get back from vacation. I leave in 10 minutes which isn't enough time and I thought it would be gauche to start an RfC before you were off your block as you wouldn't be able to participate in the discussion. I am very concerned by the tone of your discourse. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gauche, your word, was sitting over here making the claimwith up supporting it. I have been unblocked for a day.Your sensibilitis prevented you form requesting one, but didnt require that you provide one diff. Srains credibility.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. If it was towards regular people, the editor would have been blocked without any complaints. Joe Chill (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can defend the comment "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida . One down and several leftists to go!". I think that everyone would agree with me that if it was towards an average person, it wouldn't be acceptable. Joe Chill (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Fact that another admin, Orangemike, reverted Black Kite [8] shows that this was not such a straightforward issue for everyone.

2) Black Kite was not enforcing policy because WP:UP is not a policy but a guideline.

3) Even if we leave first two issues aside, block was not an appropriate action because user page protection would have achieve the same result and Die4Dixie would have been able to normally edit other articles and to defend himself here. -- Vision Thing -- 12:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

people knew d4d was a bad faith account when it was created. you ould have blocked it then (account creation disabled) and saved yourselves kilobytes of discussion. And it's pointless asking COM to back off the discussion - why do people bother responding to COM when it's clearly not achieving anything? COM could have one short line on the whole page, instead there's a whole slew of stuff that'll only serve to make other people look bad. Cool, I'm going to wait for some Jew to die and then I'll gloat about it, and say "only 6 million to go!!". But don't worry, it'll be ON A USERPAGE. 87.115.68.252 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland / Northern Irish

The standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland is 'Northern Irish'; it quite clearly says so on that country's article. However, Vintagekits (talk · contribs) insists on reverting my edits on Shea Campbell to say 'from Northern Ireland' as opposed to the correct 'Northern Irish' - can we have some neutral input please? Regards, GiantSnowman 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The ignorance of this is at this stage becoming predictable. 'Northern Irish' is not standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland - it is a politically loaded POV term that should be avoided - multiple discussion back this up.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence to support 'Northern Irish'. Not POV, fact. GiantSnowman 11:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If your arguement is correct Vintagekits, then we wouldn't be able to use English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, British, Spanish, Turkish... Eddie6705 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish is a subjective identity, and would need to be properly referenced. It's like saying he's British or Irish. Please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#British_or_English?. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is also down the hall, second on the left. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, anybody from Northern Ireland is 'British'. Having said that, using 'Northern Irish' is a powdered keg. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean a powder keg? Maybe to some, but there are good ways and bad ways to resolve these matters. I just came by to point out this (recent AN/I thread where we failed to reach consensus for a ban "The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project?") and this for which he is currently blocked for 1 week. Worth continuing to keep an eye on Vintagekits I think. --John (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

VK has a long record of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT type behaviour in regards to any and all opposition to his view of what 'Northern Irish' means. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ridiculous. "Northern Irish" is a perfectly acceptable term used by people all over the world. The only people who seem to have a problem with it are the Republicanists in Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt in my mind that User:Vintagekits is one of those people. This petty argument over a single word is utterly pointless and serves only to incite disruptive behaviour amongst a particular group of people. – PeeJay 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there really so few Wikipedian's aware of the incendiary effect of such loaded terms as calling all the residents Irish in one degree or another and not British? You need look no further than here:[9] "A 1999 survey showed that 51% of Protestants felt "Not at all Irish" and 41% only "weakly Irish" where 77% of Catholics polled said they felt "strongly Irish"." Calling a Campbell that played for Linfield, Armagh and Ballymena an Irishman would have done you no favors when I was in Belfast.

This is a content dispute, one in which a distinct political battle is being played out. And it's ugly, you either support a British peoples right to self-identify with the state - or you choose, as here, to forcibly label a people against their will. - 99.142.5.86 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the people of Northern Ireland feel particularly Irish or not is pretty irrelevant here. Demonyms refer to a person's nationality, not their ethnicity. In this case, I don't actually see the difference between referring to someone as "Northern Irish" and saying that they are "from Northern Ireland". – PeeJay 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The very contentiousness of the issue and the sectarian response above in this section dramatically underscore how loaded a term it is. Much of the world has quite similar points of political hyper-sensitivity. Its bias as an exceptionally loaded POV term is self-evident. We either recognize that - or we take sides. It's a big deal and astonishingly complex - we even record it as notable[10], "Therefore, it should not be assumed that everyone in Northern Ireland considers themselves to be "Irish", as is often mistakenly assumed by outsiders." 99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid the term "Northern Irish". People born in NE are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of NE, although the Republic of Ireland long refused to recognize the partition of the island. Most residents of NE do not consider themselves ethnically Irish. Notice that the name Campbell is a Scottish name. BTW the term Ulster (except when referring to the 9 county province) should also be avoided. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying we can't refer to people from Northern Ireland as "Northern Irish" because that term contains the word "Irish"? That is a completely ludicrous statement, and is a corollary to saying that we shouldn't refer to people from South Korea as "Korean" because they don't want to be associated with North Korea. "Northern Irish" simply means that the person is from Northern Ireland. If you see any implications of ethnicity there, that's only because you want to see them. Take off your rose-tinted spectacles and see the words for what they really mean. – PeeJay 02:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's just not the way it is, no matter how easy your rhetorical trap makes it appear. -99.142.5.86 (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Irish" is a demonym, not a nationality, although some people seem to confuse these two concepts. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We should respect the names that people call themselves. We do not call Canadians Americans although they inhabit the American continent and we do not call Israelis Palestinians although they live in Palestine. BTW the two Korean countries are not called N. Korea and S. Korea. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) this is a pretty good example of a person who does not identify himself as "British", and considers himself "Irish" as opposed to "Northern Irish". "Northern Irish" is a reasonable default term to label someone from the country, but I think the Good Friday Agreement should be taken into account:

"Recognition of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose."

As a default, I don't see the issue with refering to people as Northern Irish. But that if there is evidence that they consider themselves "British" or "Irish", we should recognise this in line with the aforementioned quote, with a phrase such as an Irish footballer from Northern Ireland.^<citation> WFCforLife (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The default setting is "from Northern Ireland" unless the person themselves identify himself/herself as "British" or Irish. This does not mean however that we cite a third party making the description for them.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How did we let this ANI report develope into a content discussion? GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "Northern Irish". A group of editors has recently taken to trying to erase the term from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, it is not neutral, from Northern Ireland is the only neutral term that can be used unless it is proved that the person identifies as such. BigDunc 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We have ample verifiable references as to it's divisiveness and political use - we even, as noted above, discuss it within article sections in the encyclopedia.99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkusers keep blocking me

Right, here's my problem; every time I make an account and start to edit, within a few weeks some checkuser comes along and blocks me, usually with the reason "abusing multiple accounts". I've been on IRC and talked to several admins and checkusers, and they've told me that these blocks are intended for a time wasting user, and that they simply do not believe me when I say I am not this person. WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? I can't make an account and edit because they'll just come along and block it AGAIN. Tell me please there must be a system in place for dealing with something like this. I swear I am not whoever the hell these blocks are meant for. I just want an account to edit with. Please, any advice is welcome at this point because I'm pulling my fucking hair out in frustration over this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.154 (talk • contribs)

I note that the IP that posted this complaint was blocked for 24 hours by Jehochman, for abusing multiple accounts. Someone should copy any advice to the IP's talk page, if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What are some of the account names in question? Thatcher 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has stated on their talk page that User:Avrillyria is one of theirs. I suggest that User:Light current is probably the "main" account, but I'm not the checkuser who knows. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a reference desk troll. Could be Light current or someone else. J.delanoy and Brandon are active on this case. Thatcher 17:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One has to wonder why the User name "Avrillyria" was chosen. There was a time not too long ago where a Reference Desk troll kept posting silly questions about Avril Lavigne. And now this User comes along with an Avril user name and goes direct to the Reference Desk... 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the Avril person. Please talk to admin User:KnightLago who knows the situation. It has been over a year ago since then, and all blocks on my ips are over. I have not done ANY vandalism since last September. Look through User:Avrillyria contributions, every single edit is helpful and constructive. I am NOT User:Light current, but apparently he is on the same ranges as me. Please speak to User:KightLago who can confirm what I am saying is true. I have NOT done any vandalism or trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed KnightLago and asked him to comment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago is going to have to interface with Brandon and J.delanoy. It's possible that the checkusers don't know you've been given a new start, or that there is another vandal on the same range, or that you are vandalizing and KL doesn't know about it. Thatcher 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This editor never contributes outside the reference desk, many of the edits are unhelpful, and none of them are ever signed. If he didn't cause problems, nobody would ever bother running a CU. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so unsigned comments are now a reason for blocking are they? Jeni ^(talk) 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there has been no agreement. I would support giving her a fresh start with strict conditions. I spoke with J.delanoy earlier today and he is understandably hesitant to do so. I am going to ask him to weigh in here and voice his opinion on the idea. KnightLago (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no question that this user is the refdesk vandal. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what everyone keeps saying. I've went on IRC after I was blocked because I couldn't edit my own talk page, and I spoke to several checkusers and admins and they've all said the same, but I am telling you, I'm giving you my word I am not. This is why I started this thread in the first place, to ask for help and figure out a solution. All I want is an account without it being blocked for things I have NOT done. I am willing to have a fresh start as KnightLago suggested above and accept conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

When what you say is contradictory or doesn't make sense it makes it pretty hard to believe you. On the first IP you used here you said: "every time I make an account..." on the talk page of that IP you say "This is my only account". You say "my ip address just changes on it's own every day" you seem to have gone through at least 3 ip addresses yesterday alone, ISPs don't do that and they certainly don't do it such that it'd frequenly change whilst you are using the net. Looking at the IP addresses indicates you are connected through Blueyonder who are the effectively the same as the ISP I use (Virgin Media) where the IP hasn't changed in 6+ months. Googling and indeed people indicate on blueyonder that their IP simply doesn't change and asking how it's possible to force it to change, which is indeed possible. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have had other accounts in the past. Thatcher and KnightLago know about that, I am not trying to hide anything. What I meant by "This is my only account" was that User:Avrillyria was the only account I had at this time. I didn't feel it necessary to bring up account from over a year ago which I don't use and cannot even remember the names to. As for the ips, my ip seems to change whenever I turn the computer off. I don't leave my computer on 24/7, so it usually changes daily or sooner depending on how much I use my computer on a particular day. If you have more questions I am happy to answer them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble believing that a DHCP server would change your IP address multiple times a day. No ISP would do that. It's difficult to take you at your word when you are making claims that seem at the least very improbable. -- Atama頭 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<--I don't object to allowing you to have one unblocked account to contribute with, however, the technical evidence does not support your claims about your IP, and you were using creating multiple accounts at a time when user:Avrillyria was not yet blocked. If you want to stop playing games and edit productively, the first step that is required is to stop playing games. Thatcher 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. May I have User:Avrillyria back as my account to edit productively with, as it already has lots of productive edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.124 (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits blocked for 1 week

Vintagekits has been unjustly blocked here [11]. The very maximum length should have been 24 hours, and that is debatable considering the circumstance and context. 1 week is unjust and worrying, one wonders why? The reasons given for such a long length are untrue and grossly exagerated, so the block cannot hold. Giano (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With a minute of me posting sandstein, with whom I am in conflict declines the block - how much longer are we to have to put with this so called Admin? Giano (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I came across the unblock request while browsing CAT:RFU, and was not aware of this thread prior to declining the unblock request.  Sandstein  15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you did Sandstein, no doubt you are again completely susprised by the instantaneous support your decision has received as you delve innocently into political minefields. Giano (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One week for Vintagekits sixth block seems lenient. Tan | 39 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tanthalus and with Sandstein. A more appropriate block length would have been indefinite. See also this section above. --John (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sixth block? I think this is more like 30! GiantSnowman 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block, I took that article off my watchlist this morning, when it was clear he was simply going to try and edit-war his way around the on-going discussions about the possible BLP issues. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Tanthalus, this user has had way too many chances. Perhaps next time it should be indef? Jeni ^(talk) 15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is generally the case with editors whose block log is several screens long.  Sandstein  15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• How speedily you all arrive. It must be just like old times for Sandstein! Giano (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How speedily Giano arrives. It must be just like old times... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't arrive speedily but I note that Bastun did. Kell supreeze as the French would say. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I hope you don't feel that I am in any way biased against you or VintageKits, but it looks like a perfectly sound block to me. VK's block log is extensive, to put it mildly, and the three-revert rule is a very bright line that he was well aware of. His edit warring is pretty indefensible. I think it may be best to let this one go. HiDrNick! 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a fair block. 24 hours would have been fair, questionable, but fair. A week is suspect - does he have a long long history of 3R? No. One cannot sentance a man to 25 years for speeding because he has previous convictions are for shoplifting, which is what you are all advocating. Sandstein's presence here is very suspect, but then again, I suppose no one is surprised to find that while most editors are busy writing content Administrator Sandstein is monitering a page listing even more people for him to punish. I also find the speed of all the responses interesting - more intersting, in fact, than Administrator Sandstein who sets himself up for such things. Giano (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"One cannot sentance a man to 25 years for speeding because he has previous convictions are for shoplifting" You can on Wiki. There is little logic or proportionality from these admins. The support the arbitration committee has given to gangs of score settling cabals only encourages this kind of behavior. These admins are totally unwilling to try to alleviate disputes in a collegial and civil fashion. They are Wikicops run amok. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki. Equazcion (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a decent block to me. I also don't want to have this thread turn into garden variety shit talking and whinging about admin abuse. We already know the opinions and positions of the usual suspects, it doesn't really help to remind us incessantly. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  Good block. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious issue with civility on Wikipedia (and I'm not talking about calling someone an idiot). Abuse of tools and lengthy blocks of good faith contributors is very damaging. Did Sandstein engage in discussion with the editor before declining their unblock request? What efforts were made to resolve the issue amicably? Vintagekits thinks the terminology Northern Ireland is problematic and violated 3RR. Asking them to revert themself should have been the first step. There's also page protection and warnings. There are lots of tools that don't involve belligerence and abuse towards colleagues. Try treating your fellow editors with more respect instead of patting each other on the back your take-downs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just answer me this. Is there a way out of this where I can say "this doesn't look like an abuse of the tools, rather it looks like a decent block" and not be accused of colluding to support some admin? Is that possible? Protonk (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you were able to note that appropriate dispute resolution was tried first in a collegial and collaborative manner, appropriate warnings were given, and that Vintagekits was unresponsive or refused to self-revert, then you would be in a better position to justify a one week block for a 3RR violation. (post ec) I trust Tarc's trolling will be met with an appropriate response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With CoM? Not a chance, no. This has be come another annoying habit; hopping around AN/I and making martyrs out of blocked users, esp if the block has come from or is supported by Sandstein. I really hope that this behavior is dealt with soon. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not about Sandstein's lurking about looking for people to punish (though, I suppose, that cannot be ignored) this is about the old adage: "give a dog a bad name and hang him", it's a simple as that. And Oh my! Don't Wikipedia's Admins love to show their power and do that? If it flatters them, they will ignore even the most obvious. I thank God, I was never tempted to be an Admin. There is something seriously wrong with this project and its justice system. Giano (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported Vintagekits and support the Admin action, he was obsessed with his edit and also got a bit uncivil, I was suprised that such an experienced editor was attempting to make the edit, perhaps if he understands why he was blocked a reduction would be possible. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I can so understand where you are coming from [12]. It's just awful when people become obsessed isn't it? How dare you? Even comment - do you think we are all so stupid? Giano (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss my edits I suggest you do it on my talkpage Giano. You ask me, how dare I comment..I can comment like anyone else...I have commented in support of the Admin action and that is the issue here, isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No we can do it here because YOU are the ne who reported VK for this "crime". Giano (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. That is based on the "Definition of the three revert rule." --Domer48_'fenian' 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(response to Domer) There is no obvious revert of vandalism.

There is no obvious revert of biased unsourced information.

There is no obvious revert of poorly sourced controversial material.

What exception of 3RR do you believe applies here? Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and the oppoint I am trying to make (poorly) in the link above [13] is that it seems quite OK for some to do (those who report VK for this "crime"), but not for VK himself. Just the usual rank hypocrisy, as usual endorsed by Administratir Sandstein. Giano (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits was blocked for edit-warring to insert multiple derogatory nicknames into the infobox of Audley Harrison. Per BLP policy, that cannot be considered an exception to 3RR by any means, even if those multiple derogatory nicknames are all sourced. Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with his "Northern Irish" edits, despite that inference from this section's heading. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my fault, I combined these threads thinking them related. –xeno^talk 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a big thing to put it vack where it was? It's biasing VK here. Giano (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all (done). Again, my apologies, I misinterpreted John's statement. –xeno^talk 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Easily done! Giano (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it now suggested that negative information on a BLP is prohibited? That we must only use positive information? That sounds like bias to me, and to remove correctly sourced information, either positive or negative is vandalism. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, Domer. Just because something is sourceable doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. For example, if you dug enough, you could probably find a newspaper clipping about my participation in the state Math Team, but it would hardly be appropriate to stick in here...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here here Domer. I can here everybody reaching for their 'xyz is a terrorist' sources as we speak, given this new epiphany in understanding of policy. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, with respect you are wrong. Removing well sourced information is not vandalism. Simple. End of matter. It happens all the time to make articles clearer. Just because information is reliable and verifiable does not mean it must be included. I have many quality secondary sources that there is a tree in my garden (planning applications, third party images, secondary reports from councils etc.) Should we include this fact on Wikipedia? No. I don't dismiss your arguments but you need to be more dispassionate here about what value is created by adding facts to an article.

As to the block, which I believe is the point of this thread, Vintagekits is a problematic editor with a foul mouth. So am I. As a supporter of Giano, COM and Sandstein (yes - it is possible to be all three) I feel a reduction to this hideous "time served" concept may be viable. I regret that I suspect it is only a matter or time before VK meets the indef. block line, and I for one would prefer we at least get the benefit of his quality article input before that, somewhat inevitably, happens. Or maybe VK can prove me wrong in my gross asumptions of his future on WP? Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• The simple long and short of this is that VK has been well and truly screwed for screwing up. He should not have 3Rd, but before anything could be done along came "Administrator Sandstein" adjusting his peaky cap, and upholding an overlong silly block to the echoes of delight from the well orchestrated heavenly chorus. In a nut shell that is it. Giano (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get a peaky cap... Tan | 39 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Be glad, perhaps they only get made in certain sizes Giano (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Vintagekits is one of the few for whom cooling off seems to work, at least for a while. 24 hours is not long enough for this. Indefinite blocking is not warranted at this time IMO but he is skating on thin ice. Giano is usually a good judge of quality of content writing so perhaps a mentor will come forward to help VK with his recurrent problems. To some above, baiting Giano is a really bad idea so please just don't. We're used to his ways and the best thing is to let the hyperbole wash over you. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup. I had a look at this earlier this afternoon but decided I didn't really have the heart to enforce BLP on Audley Harrison, quite possibly the worst boxer ever to enter a ring. Objectively, however, a week is probably fair enough. Such things don't really belong in infoboxes. Moreschi (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In my view all info boxes are all horrible, but anyway all sorts of amazing things are allowed in info boxes. Giano (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A hat-trick of toxic personalities, all pleading for poor behaviour to be ignored. Delicious. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• • A mentor for Vintagekits? A splendid idea! I'm shocked that no-one's tried it ever before.. (for those of you are aware of the history, I apologize for the massive amount of sarcasm that's dripping from this post). From what I understand, another editor let VK know that he was going to help him in getting info to support him, and VK just charged in anyway. Which is, if you're aware of the whole thing, status quo. VK's first reaction to someone opposing him isn't to seek consensus or to get other eyes on it, it's to edit war. Maybe a 1 RR rule, or requiring him to seek 3O before getting in an edit war? SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits is good when he isn't heated up. But if you think mentoring would work for this editor, what is there to lose?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, figured I would have to explain where the dripping sarcasm was from. Vintagekits had a mentor in the distant past (two years ago, now?). That poor soul was me. When I was a wet-behind-the-ears newbie admin. I fugred VK was getting a rough shake, and all he needed was someone to run interference for him, and smack him upside the head when he got out of line. That was 21 blocks ago. SirFozzie (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done though. With all due respect for this editor, this is a never ending pattern that is doing more harm than good. Like I said, as long as this editor is out of the heat, there are no problems. But he needs to be pushed back into line far too often for comfort.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that we don't have consensus (yet) for an indef block, 1RR followed by 3O might be a valid last chance for this editor who says he has retired from content work and now just does all the stuff he gets blocked for, and is proud of his block log. Just that he has had so many last chances already. But sure, why not? --John (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was I who blocked Vintagekits for edit-warring. I have read the comments above.

I based the duration on standard practice in responding to reports of edit-warring at WP:AN3 and upon the policies regarding blocking and edit-warring. Some people commenting have suggested that the block was too lenient; I would reply that a corrollary of assuming good faith is to err on the side of lenience. I have no opinion on whether, as some have suggested, Vintagekits ought to be indefinitely blocked and even had I any opinion it would be outside the scope of a run-of-the-mill edit-warring report to make such a block. Other editors have argued that the block was too harsh or was completely unjustified; this opinion I disagree with as not in keeping with either practice or policy. For that reason, I think their arguments would be better made at the relevant policy talk pages since a change in policy appears to be what they seek.

I have been trying to assist at the edit-warring noticeboard recently as it has been frequently backlogged since Dr Connolley ceased to be an administrator. I am not naive regarding the unpleasant consequences of responding to some of the reports that occur there but it would be helpful if more administrators could look in occassionally. CIreland (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

VK is unsurprisingly taking the advice of Giano QC and lawyering it up big style for his third unblock request, attacking Sandstein and claiming he did not edit war and he is not an edit warrior. If you were to suspend belief and pretend he has no other issues but edit warring, and were just concentrating on this 'I am not an edit warrior' claim, I simply scanned his last 500 contributions, which go back to 11 August, and found evidence of edit warring (using the proper definition, not the lawyer's one) on the following articles (reverse chronological order):

• Audley Harrison
• Shea Campbell
• Martin Rogan
• Joseph MacManus
• Matthew Macklin
• Derriaghy Cricket Club F.C. (and 9 other similar articles)

And if you do ingore that edit warring, in the same period alone by my reckoning he could have been blocked about 5 times for various other seriously tendentious behaviours, if admins were actually monitoring him properly. MickMacNee (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all MickMacNee, were I a learned QC, I would point out that in cicilised place QCs present evidence to a learned and wise judge. Here on Wikipedia counsell is shouted down and sentance handed out bu the ignorant mob. Giano (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd take mob-rule using the clarity of direct experience over special pleading to an uninformed judge anyday. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think myself or one of the other editors at the Audley Harrison discussion, should've requested page-protection there. That way 'nobody' would've been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. Clear violation of 3RR, with the number of previous blocks about the length of my cell-phone bill. Would he have supported "only" a 24 hour block for someone editing against him with such a history? WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks (a policy, btw) clearly states that penalties increase over time, not just stay lenient for the 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. times. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While I note that 3RR is not an entitlement, this editor did not make 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Edit warring, yes, 3RR violation, no. –xeno^talk 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1 maybe 2 3 4. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"maybe 2" seems to be an unrelated edit. I was basing my comment off the actual EW report which stretches beyond the 24 hour window. However, not to ruleslawyer, there was edit warring, but it just wasn't over 3RR. Just wanted to point that out. –xeno^talk 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just another example of Wikipedia's law-ignorant mob rule mentality. "If he has erred in one way, he must be punished for another" The mob wants blood so the mob is given it regardles of of any laws, justice or procedure. A project run in this way has to ultimately fail - the way justice is dispensed here is ignorant, without format, account of precedent and standards. In short, it's a beauty and personality contest. I think one only has to look at the Moreschi/Ottava Rima fiasco down below to see that. Giano (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So Vin did not violate 3RR but is still blocked, and not one Admin has seen fit to unblock them. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no consensus to unblock him; there is a consensus that the block was just. Don't edit war or you get escalating blocks, is the message to take away from this. 3RR is not an entitlement. --John (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that someone would defend all of this. Today, I have also seen people defending an editor that celebrated someone's death. Joe Chill (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody who understood Wikipedia's mission could defend an editor who boasts about his block log. Doing so is a clear statement of intent to further disrupt. I see he has blanked his user talk after unsuccessfully requesting unblock and "retired" again. We shall see. --John (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What amazes me, with this particular editor, is that he has been blocked perhaps 30 times now, over a period of years, by at least 19 different administrators. The blocks have been for transgressions that span the entire range of antisocial, disruptive behavior: sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, personal attacks, personal threats, off-wiki abuse, edit warring, pointy disruption, BLP.... Yet every single time a campaign is launched to attack the blocking admin with claims of bias or conspiracy.

Now perhaps some of these blocks were without merit, and perhaps some of the blocking admins had an axe to grind, but all 19, all of the time? Logic dictates that the common denominator is the issue, and the common denominator is VK, not the admins. Moreover as Mick McNamee rightly points out, the "poor Vk is being victimized" argument doesn't hold up. For every time his is blocked, one can find multiple examples of blockable behaviour that is ignored, simply because it isn't worth the mud slinging that will follow from the defense team.

The usual justification trotted out for his continuing participation is that he is an expert contributor on boxing articles, yet this time we are seeing a very questionable interpretation of BLP and our policies on censorship to justify adding insulting nicknames to a boxer, then edit warring over it. So this the kind of expert editing to boxing articles we are keeping him here for? Rockpocket 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock and John; neither of you appear to understand the issue of systematic bias on Wiki despite my best efforts to explain it in single-syllable words. You (plural) never fail to disappoint. But the fact that you are both totally predictable doesn't mean you are consistent, or right. That you are lining up with such as Mick McNamee should give you pause, but self awareness appears to be an insight neither of you have. WP:CIVIL allied to the Admin "hanging judge" system of policing is a goon's charter and anyone relying on a "block log" for their decisions isn't fit to be an Admin. Nor is anyone defending or excusing such an Admin. Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Given he has been given more second chances and returned from more indefinite blocks than any other editor, the suggestion that there is some bias against him is laughable. Every single other editor who has edited the way he has is blocked indefinitely, yet he is still here. But then again, every other editor does not have the loyal defense team that Vk does. Seems to me that you should be looking a little closer to home for evidence of systemic bias.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but am not and have not used a block log to make a decision on any given transgression. However, its entirely appropriate to use one's knowledge of a lengthy record of transgression to argue that there is a pattern of disruption that is not being resolved by short blocks. Rather than throw mud at me and John (neither whom have had anything to do with this block and thus who's self-awareness, of lack thereof, is entirely irrelevant) why don't you address the key issue here. Being aware of out polices, I expect (hope) you are not suggesting you support the actions of Vk in this instance. Assuming you don't, how do YOU suggest we stop it continuing? Because, guess what, insulting me will not solve the problem here. Rockpocket 23:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And I might mirror the Bastun remark to Giano and ask why you both keep turning up here to attack an Irish editor when so many real problems within the orbit of both your Wiki-worlds get no response at all? Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the same reason you felt the need to turn up here to attack us. Rockpocket 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, your posts here sadden me. That you see this as my "attack[ing] an Irish editor" says an awful lot more about you than it does about me. I truly could not care less whether Vk is Irish, Lithuanian, Puerto Rican or Scottish like me. His behavior up to now does not give me any hope that he can reform, so I think it would be better if he was removed from the project. Anybody who supports edit-warring to add derogatory nicknames to an article on a living person, as you are implicitly doing with your comments above which criticize me and Rock but say nothing about Vk's behavior, has no place on this project. Anybody who sees every single problem in narrowly nationalistic terms as you appear to be doing, has no place on the project. Think about it. --John (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits unblock request

Could someone have a look at this, please? It's been outstanding for a long time now. I'd do it myself, but my inclination is to unblock and I've been involved with VK before, so I can't really do it. Black Kite 10:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was just doing it when VK blanked the page and put up a retired notice. For the record I would have declined it giving the reason: The default for disputed material is to exclude it until there is demonstrable consensus for inclusion, whether it is sourced or not (it might, for example, be decided that it violates WP:UNDUE). The WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include material, to achieve consensus for inclusion. As such, your unblock request does not address the problem and gives no kind of assurance that you understand the problem and will not repeat it. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

user informed of this discussion, he is still active on wikipedia. Ecoman24 (talk page) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I had asked Vintagekits a question (seeing as how there was opposition to unblocking, and also support for blocking indefinitely) with an eye to lifting the block , but they did not respond. –xeno^talk 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that two pages on a block log from January 2007 till now is worth the block (maybe even indefinite). Joe Chill (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, write the laws as we go along - never mind what the transgression, but he has a long block list so ban him for ever - don't bother to look at each "crime" individually - some of you people are totally amazing. I suppose where you all come from, five convictions for speeding and you can be sent to the electric chair for murder. Giano (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you such a dick in real life? No way that your comments are civil. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• What an interesting choice of words. Twice in one day [14]. Good job I'm not a suspicious type of person - who ever it is you are - I'd be more careful in you choice of words if I were you. Giano (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You should choose your words carefully. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you were being civil? Also, that talk page comment isn't mine! Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote another editor, "The blocks have been for transgressions that span the entire range of antisocial, disruptive behavior: sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, personal attacks, personal threats, off-wiki abuse, edit warring, pointy disruption, BLP." Don't you think that he would have learned by now? Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to contemplate indefinite block for his small crimes. Vintagekits has been offered two olive branches, one admin said if he would remove the retired template then he would look at his unblocking request (why unblock when a retired template is at the top of the page?) Vintagekits resisted this and said he would rather sit the block out, Giano removed it, but that was not the point, also User Zeno has offered him a 1RR condition and if he accepted then unblocking, to this offer Vintagekits has not even responded. He has been offered avenues of opportunity, he could have easily been unblocked by now. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What are small crimes? Why can stuff like that get people blocked for a long time and not others? Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, from you posts over the last 20 minutes (here and elsewhere) Joe Chil, that you have turned up here, with completely unconnected issues and proplems of your own that you feel are unresolved. Attacking me, VK or indeed anyone else is unlikely to resolve them. You clearly have a grudge against me, yet I have until 30 minutes ago never heard of you - I suggest you sort yourself before attempting to sort others. Giano (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I called you a dick. All of your comments here were uncivil and you said that I posted an uncivil comment on your talk page when I didn't (it seems like you were calling me a sockpuppet). I don't need to know an editor for a long time. I just need to see the type of comments that they make. You're the only one that I attacked. My comments about Vintagekits are similar to the other comments. Do you think that you are being civil? Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. Same with this and this. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact he has ignored those two olive branches shows what type of editor he is, and what type of editing he is likely to return to. For one, I'd support an indef of this user, the kind of incivilities that come out of his mouth are not welcome on WP. Jeni ^(talk) 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

2C-B-FLY - someone please watch

According to a source on a forum [15] the alleged proprietor of a company thought to be involved in the distribution of this drug is supposed to have died from incautiously sampling his own wares from a batch which is postulated to be contaminated. Two IPa and User:Cegli have attempted to add the info to the top of the article, on the possibly good faith grounds that they are issuing a public health warning. They are arguing on my talk page that by reverting them I am somehow responsible for the death of anyone who might die from consuming an overdose of the product from the alleged faulty batch.

I'm going to bed. Could someone keep an eye on the article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. Crafty (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reports of at least two deaths appear to be genuine despite having not yet been picked up by mainstream media sources (the Danish dead guys family and friends have set up a facebook memorial site for God's sake) so I added a brief note in the "Dangers" section. Agree a "Warning" section right after the lede is hardly appropriate though! Meodipt (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And not surprisingly I have been reverted already. I would cite cases such as this and this as precedent that WP:IAR can and has been in the past applied in the public interest to try and protect people from death under specific unusual circumstances. Certainly there are differences on which the cases can be distinguished, as in the cases of the kidnapped journalists there was a definite risk to an identified individual, whereas here we have a risk to an undefined class of individuals of unknowable size, but similar principles apply. It appears that a contaminated batch of 2CB-Fly containing an impurity which may be lethal at milligram levels, has already been sold to many people around the world before the "bad batch" was discovered due to the death of the person selling it. Obviously this has not yet been reported by reliable sources but when it does, those reliable sources will be reporting deaths that might have been prevented merely by allowing wikipedia's flexible rules to be bent temporarily. Can we get some consensus on this? Meodipt (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, for my money the info should only be added if reliable sources pick it up. How do we know the source in the forum isn't trying to damage the company's reputation? Protonk (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Meodip, you reverted back at a few minutes later, giving the very poor explanation "pending discussion"; pending discussion would be a reason to have the material deleted pending sourcing. My own view is the same as Protonk's. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By pending discussion I just meant I expected it would be discussed here and consensus reached. The bluelight forum on the deaths is only reporting what is being said at a Danish drug forum psychedelia.dk which is a members-only Danish language forum, as many people are members on both sites. Reading it with google translate is slightly hard going but it appears a lot of people knew the guy personally and he is definitely dead after ingesting what was meant to be 2CB-FLY. There may be reliable sources already linked off there but they would be in Danish I suppose, foreign language newspapers were deemed good enough sources when the first deaths from mephedrone and bromodragonfly cropped up a while back though, as they were also in Scandinavia. It was the boss of the RC company who died so discrediting the company seems unlikely! Meodipt (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this content for lack of sourcing (saw the note, then came here). Just because something is mentioned on a danish drug users forum doesn't mean it should be here until picked up by sources. (I'd be happy with one in Danish, but google didn't turn up anything that mentioned the drug). And besides Wikipedia is neither a how-to guide, or place for medical advice. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Google didn't pick up anything? Look at this 2cbfly death search. Out of the top 7 results, 6 mention it, and one doesn't (that'd be Wikipedia, folks).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia may indeed be be neither a how-to nor a place for medical advice, but given IAR (and basic human pragmatics), maybe we should try and come up with a way to make it fit, at least for the time being. Maybe something similar to "On October 07, 2009, many internet forums suddenly began discussing reports of the death of a Danish distributor and purchasers of his products which were labeled as 2-cb-fly."^{Reffed with a bunch of message boards.} And yes, policy says "Primary sources may be used to make descriptive claims."

Relax, no one is going to be sitting at home thinking "now just before I pop these pills, I'll drop in to Wikipedia to see if the pills might kill me". If such a person finds the rumor online somewhere, they have been alerted, and the fact that it is not in Wikipedia (nor any reliable source) will not influence them. If in a day or two it turns out that there is some basis for the excitement in an Internet forum, we will again have not been a news outlet; so be it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

@Peace and Passion: the top hits are not reliable sources as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why I say word it as such. I clearly realize what reliable sources are, I don't need to be linked there; why'd you think I suggested it be phrased in such an epistemologically-sound way as "On October 07, 2009, many internet forums suddenly began discussing reports of the death of a Danish distributor and purchasers of his products which were labeled as 2-cb-fly." I was just trying to be realistic and look on the situation in a healthy way. I fully well realized it wasn't fully in line with policy, that's why I phrased it the way I did and mentioned IAR. Nicely, Meodipt quoted the de facto standard of quashing something if it was believed to help someone, but it's now clear that such a "quashing" needs to be initiated by a newspaper editor and Jimbo at the upper levels of Wikipeida, not by us "regular" editors who are supposed to be the "flesh-and-blood" of Wikipedia.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well actually if you look here page views for the 2CB-FLY page have gone up considerably since the guys death on the 7th, so it seems that quite a lot of people may be looking to wikipedia for information about this incident, perhaps precisely because it has not yet been mentioned in the mainstream media. But as I said I came here for consensus and that is clearly that this information should not be added until a suitable source is found, so I guess we will have to wait until some Danish newspaper picks up the story. Meodipt (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice sleuthing, Meodipt :) Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument that IAR should allow the publication of unsourcable (as far as reliable sources go) rumors is actually self defeating. In the examples given where reports of the kidnapping of journalists was concealed for their own safety, the suggestion of potential harm was based on reliable, if somewhat private, information. And the purpose was the opposite - to remove, not add, mostly unverifiable information. The reason we have rules like verifiability and reliable sources is that, as one of those pages mentions, anyone can go on the internet and make a claim. Wikipedia is not in the business of investigating rumors, and it would tarnish the reputation of the Encyclopedia to place warnings on the page of every chemical ever claimed by anyone to have caused a death. Alarmist email chains have achieved great followings in the past, so the fact that lots of people on the internet are pushing this is irrelevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, now I'm really interested in what happened with this "kidnapping of journalists" story on Wikipeida, as I've never come across it, though it sounds significant. Could anyone point me to a link which discusses what happened, if one exists? I'd be curious to read it!

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS, I'm giving up on this one as the experienced consensus seems to say otherwise; but, Someguy, just a friendly reminder to be careful brandying blatant strawmen ("place warnings on the page of every chemical ever claimed by anyone to have caused a death.")!  :)

From the horse's mouth: NY Times — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, then, a case where it was decided that one person, based on a bit of circumstantial conjecture and newspaper influence, should have their article "influenced" on Wikipedia in order to "protect" them→and Jimmy raises a mini-cabal to suppress the info. I'm basically okay with that, but it's more than slightly debatable. Here, a case where many lives are much more clearly at risk, and this previous situation is not allowed as an analogical example of de facto policy here? Weak double-standards, community.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

...It's not like we took a poll and agreed to let jimbo do that. Also the two situations aren't really analogous. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Again Backlogged

Resolved

AIV is again backlogged. If an admin or three could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No longer backlogged. Until It Sleeps ^{T • C} 03:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We need some more admins  :) Equazcion (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not more admins, just admins taking a look in at AIV more often. It seems AIV is getting backed up twice or more daily. I know admins can't be everywhere at once, but I think it would be a good idea for admins to, once in hour as they have time, to look in at AIV and clear off what they can. That would lessen the frequency of these backlogs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

NeutralHomer; have you looked at the New Pages backlog recently? :P Backlogs really aren't a concern; just like server loads, you don't really have to worry about them. CSD is backed up almost every hour, for example. It's really not a big deal; an admin will get to it when they've got a second (for example, myself right now while I'm waiting for my pizza to cook). Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A backlog at AIV is a bigger deal than, say, CSD. It means vandals can keep vandalizing, and while they're not being blocked, everyone has to keep on top of reverting them. Equazcion (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As a recent non-admin, let me attest that backlogs at AIV, RFPP and AN3 are particularly frustrating to regular editors, since the reported problem is ongoing and the editors are helpless to do anything about it except follow the vandals around and continually reverting them. After one has given the fourth level warning saying specifically that the vandal will be blocked if they continue, it is disheartening to see them continue with impunity. So it would be really helpful if few more admins could devote some minutes/day on these boards. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not a shortage of admins from counting them, there's only a shortage that actually do admin work. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what mathematical calculation you're performing to determine how many admins it should take to cover the amount of work out there... but it seems to me that whatever amount each one is handling, having more of them would help, as long as they all pitch in at least a little. It's also much easier to talk when you're not an admin. If I were an admin I really can't see being thrilled with spending my time refreshing AIV. Equazcion (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There was discussion not long ago about how a large percentage of the admins are inactive, and what to do, if anything, about it (apparently, nothing). I'm sure tending AIV is boring, but it's one of those things admins are expected to do. There must be a solution, but since it's all volunteer work, it's hard to know what that solution is - beyond simply having more active admins around. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Dealing with frequent AIV backlogs Equazcion (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Racepacket at University of Miami, again

Previous threads can be found at Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles and Racepacket at UMiami article

This is the third time that I've felt the need to bring the actions of Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this board. Now he is constantly reverting changes made to the "History" section of the article because of what I feel are semantic word choices or paragraph structuring based on what he has told me. In the past 48 hours he has done so many reverts to this section that it is now impossible for me to improve upon the wording and structuring that I have tried to change because it is back to his preferred version.

• "Not a valid measure or a relevant basis of comparision. See "19 Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami" on talk page"
• "History: going back to prior version that gives national benchmark and does not attribute fundraising strongly to Shalala"
• "see discussion page under "19 Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami""
• "hearing no objections, we are returning to the last consensus version except for Ryulong's "During Shalala's leadership""
• "History: moved consensus version back to main article"
• "History: added hospital acquisiton. Please work off the consensus version"
• "fix date of acquisition of UM hospital" (misleading)

In the last diff he is even hiding his change to what he considers the "consensus version" (a revision he put on a subpage at User:Racepacket/UMhistory). In his arguments he seems to be throwing in non sequiturs and it is becoming impossible to work with him or even understand him through his verbosity. He is obfuscating too much at this point, and I want something done because he obviously doesn't blame the edit warring for the failed GA nomination he put through.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I deeply respect Ryulong's devotion to Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Miami, however a sense of ownership, incivilty and even profanity, [16] [17] makes working through editorial disputes very difficult. He dismisses my attempts to be polite to him and to try to discuss our differences as "verbosity." He is in such a hurry to make changes that he misreads his sources and takes logical leaps that cause the assertions he makes in the article to go beyond what his references say. Hence, we have had several differences of opinion that took time to work out.

For a long time, the history section was written in short, easy to read paragraphs covering separate ideas, most of which had 3 or 4 sentences. Ryulong, without first discussing it, decided to reorganize the history into paragraphs organized around each UM President, and I reverted that change. From Sept 2 - 5, there was also a debate over how to report UM's 2003 fundraising campaign in the history section. I thought that consensus was reached on Sept. 5. But since last week, Ryulong has been edit warring over trying to make comparisons between the size of UM's fundraising campaign and those of other schools in the State of Florida. I feel that his comparisons are not objective and have tried to draw in more views from WP:UNI.

In order to avoid confusing the main article while we worked out our differences, yesterday morning, I created a draft of the history section on User:Racepacket/UMhistory and posted a {{caution}} template on the history section of the article inviting editors to work out a consensus there. I also left a message on Ryulong's talk page and that of another user. Instead of contributing to the effort, he deleted the caution template. After incorporating one change from another user, this morning, I reposted the draft as the history section of the main article preserving the long-standing paragraph structure that had existed before Ryulong's reorganization this week. Now that he has made clear that I misinterpreted his removal of the caution template, I have offered to return to working on a new consensus draft with him, but he has posted the above complaint. One problem is that we are both making extensive edits to the history section at the same time, resulting in "edit conflicts" as we both try to save our changes. This results in his (I assume accidental) deletion of various additions that I have tried to make. I have proposed third party mediation before, but Ryulong did not agree.

Ryulong is coming within 20 minutes of violating 3RR:

• Revision as of 04:50, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 04:38, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 03:57, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 04:28, 8 October 2009

I think if we put aside "ownership" and "control" issues, we could make the article at least a Good one. Racepacket (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This extensive text is one of the issues I can't stand. This four paragraph reply is ridiculous. This is why I can't work with you, Racepacket. I cannot sit down and read all of this to understand your issues. I don't know why you oppose the minor changes to paragraph structure or order because I can't tease it out of your essays. And I would like someone else's input before you say anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, I have to say that what he has said makes perfect sense to me, and characterising it as 'ridiculous' is unhelpful. This should not be at ANI, this is a content dispute, and content disputes often require lengthy discussion to hash out versions of the text that are agreeable to all. The idea of working on a draft may be a good one - I've certainly seen it done before. And you do need to agree whether the history should be done by topic or by President (which is perfectly clearly set out as the basis for the disagreement in Racepacket's statement) - either would work but they can't both be used at the same time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The four paragraphs are ridiculous. Not their content. It is nigh impossible for me to meet every single one of his needs when he keeps undoing the edits I've done in good faith by only referring to the version he is replacing them with as the "consensus version" in his eyes, when he is merely going off of a version that has sat on the article for over a year until he began editing. He's done several reverts to his preferred version since he decided whichever instance of the article was the "consensus version". And this is not a content dispute. This is a behavioral issue on Racepacket's part, coming about as the content issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, his characterizations of my behavior (ownership, incivility, source misreading, etc.) are wrong. I have not tried to take ownership of the article. My blunt statements and use of profanity are not incivility. And I certainly have not been misinterpreting the sources. I don't know why the current state of the history section is such a contentious issue that it requires Racepacket to continually replace it with his preferred version, even after myself and other editors have been working on the section live.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this has not become personal, but I find it very odd that in the diffs you cite above I repeatedly removed your incorrect claim that Coral Gables was a part of the "City of Miami." However only after a third editor, User:Do go be man raises the issue that you start to take the matter seriously. If a version of the history sat for a year with a given organizational structure, then it is "consensus." Ryulong's reorganization of the history section into Presidential paragraphs starting last week has been very unilateral and disregards my stated concerns. Again, what I propose going forward is that 1) we set up a separate draft of the history section. 2) we each take turns revising it. 3) When one person is through with his turn, he lets the other have free reign without overlapping edits. 4) We share thoughts about the other's proposals 5) We work toward a consensus. 6) When we get consensus we move the draft to the main article page. Racepacket (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer part of the content dispute. It is your behavior in regards to the content that I have issues with. You have been obstinate in any change to occur. When I removed a handful of items that I didn't feel fit with the flow of the article, you reverted me because the content was there for a year and was therefore "consensus". When I reorganized the short single sentence paragraphs together into larger paragraphs, you began to revert me and because of this "consensus" that you think existed. Consensus can change and forcing an article to be static is not going to help the project in the long run.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ryulong, who else agrees with you? Also, WP:BRD applies here. You made some changes to an article that had been static. You were reverted. Now you have to DISCUSS the matter. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo and MiamiDolphins3 seem to be in some sort of agreement with my edits and disagree with Racepacket's. BRD is fine, but it doesn't seem to hold when it's Racepacket being reverted for his proposed changes (not my reverts from his "consensus" version) as was the case with the previous "commonly/locally"/"the U" dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, nothing requiring admin action.--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How are multiple reverts and misguiding edit summaries not requiring of admin action?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Again he uses misleading edit summaries. Here he claims to change the paragraph structure, while at the same time removing content he disagrees with: the fact that something was the first of a series of things, the name "Momentum", the fact that something was the most within Florida, and the reference that supports the last claim.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Edit summaries must be short, which is why I spell things out on the talk pages. (Hence "verbose.") By the edit summary in the above diff, I meant that I was proposing a change in the context of a paragraph structure I still think is wrong and was trying to be concise with the matters changed. I have also responded to Ryulong's specific concerns on his talk page and on the UM talk page. Since he has been blocked for 24 hours, the conversation really can't continue here, but i regret an inconvenience this has caused. Racepacket (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Momentum" removal

Every single time the same sentence has been changed in his edits, and he flat out ignores mentioning it in the edit summary and has yet to provide a reason as to why this particular aspect of the article has to keep getting changed: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. This has been going on for a week now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lamer than a lame thing. It's crufty but I don't see why it needs excluding either. The obsessive reinsertion is also incredibly lame. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was not aware this dialog was continuing here. I have left a detailed discussion under Talk:University_of_Miami#Momentum:_The_Campaign_for_the_University_of_Miami, and also exchanged comments with him on his talk page and sought additional views at WP:UNI, so I don't understand the claim that i have "yet to provide a reason." We all know that Miami is not Harvard University, so why can't we find a way to present it in Wikipedia without claiming "bragging rights" on the fundraising front? Racepacket (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, Bishonen, and Risker

Unresolved

 – Split 89 kb section to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker slakr^\ talk /

Ah yes, subpages, where problematic threads go to die. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If a discussion is so long that it needs a subpage, it seems like there is no possibility of a result and that the discussion isn't fit for ANI. Joe Chill (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Convention is that threads longer than 50kb can/will be split onto a subpage—especially if it looks like they're gonna keep going. Editors need to be able to tend to the other things on ANI without their browsers slowing to a crawl. If you feel this is an unfair convention, please consider discussing it on the AN talkpage. --slakr^\ talk / 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying the longer the discussion, the farthest away from concensus. Joe Chill (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Point?

What is the policy on this, which is a comment made in regard to this? It doesn't seem constructive to make such edits just to make a point, in my opinion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on the users talk page mentioning this discussion. There's no provision that allows you to be a most-time productive editor and part time vandal. If this user has been making these edits they need to stop, plain and simple.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Only very rarely, when I'm bored, or feel that something or some one really deserves it. 99% of my edits are legitimate, I promise.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I’m a little confused. With this edit, the wikieditor in question admits that he vandalized the article and behaves thusly on other occasions. Why, then, does he not draw a block, however brief? Should this be taken to WP:AIV? I ask this only because, for doing recent changes patrol, the answer would provide future, general guidance to me and other recent changes patrollers. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You have almost 12K edits. If your number is correct that means you're responsible for about 120 vandal edits. Hopefully it's less than that. But how many are acceptable? There's only one correct answer and it's zero from now on. There's enough vandalism from IP's and throwaway accounts that there's no reason with your experience that we should have to follow around all your edits to see if this is the 1% of your edits that damages articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to indef...but I think we need more discussion here. An editor who has been around that long should know better. The fact that they don't...well, it's a little scary. --Smashville^talk 20:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, no more joke edits from me for now on. I swear, I havn't made 120 vandal edits, so that less than 1% in a career of what, Three or four years? And this was the only one which wasn't taken off within seconds -- a fact which made me point it out to the admins. So am I being punished for pointing out that the admins were slow in deleting my own vandelism? --Dudeman5685 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, any likely sanction would be because of your vandalism. And yes I agree with Smashville, the fact that you do not realise that as a veteran editor is quite disturbing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest an explicit warning on the talk page (for record keeping sake) and then an indefinite block if vandalism like that again. If his purpose here isn't to help the encyclopedia, but to make some sort of point, he can do that somewhere else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Help fixing vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley,_Minnesota

Resolved

 – Vandalism undone. Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

When I try to 'undo' the vandalism, I receive a message that the edit must be done manually due to conflicting edits. FYI, this is at least the second time that this page was vandalized.

I'm new, so if this is not the correct place to post this, please let me know.

Thanks, MNJon (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. I see what you mean!! Dunno! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

K, someone fixed it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the intermediate edits came about because someone vandalized the article pretty thoroughly, eliminating the interwiki links, and then the interwiki linking bot came by and added those links again. Sometimes you have to check through the edit history to see what's really going on, but this looks like it's fixed now. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The many Wikikings

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Abecedare (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've recently noticed we seem to have many conflicting claims to the throne of WP. So far there are WikiKing1 (talk · contribs), Wikiking10 (talk · contribs), Wikiking15 (talk · contribs), Wikiking12345 (talk · contribs), wikikingyou5 (talk · contribs), WikiKing2012 (talk · contribs), Wikiking3030 (talk · contribs), Wikiking69 (talk · contribs), Wikiking41 (talk · contribs), Wikiking757 (talk · contribs), and WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk · contribs). Those are just the ones with talk pages - there may be more lurking out there. Many of them have no visible edits and I'm not sure it means anything, but I thought I'd share for amusement and edification (and in case we have a spate of regicide as they battle for the crown). 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now, now! Wikipedia:Verifiability applies. Reliable sources tell us that Simon Pulsifer is king of Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Hardouin

I'm publishing this anonymously as I am being dogged through my contributions list, and I would like this dealt with in a quiet a manner as possible.

I'd been editing Paris-based articles fairly extensively until around two years ago as ThePromenader, but stopped because of other projects (work!) and my wish to give others a go on making improvements. During my time editing, I often found myself in head-to-head conflict with a certain User:Hardouin, an editor rather bent on pushing his own theories ('studies') in the same and protecting any editing that was his own. This would often end in revert warring, incivility, and endless reverts to any edits not 'his'.

After about a ten-month period of absence, I returned to continue editing some of the articles (after noting almost no changes were made at all) - I made relatively minor edits to two - Paris and Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture - and what should I see, not hours after I had edited the articles, but User:Hardouin reverting/tagging the very two articles I had edited - and no other article at all. (To his credit, he did correct one error I had made - a date). Also, these edits were his first as Hardouin since... nine months.

This user is obviously editing here under another name, otherwise he could not be able to track my movements so quickly. He is known for his sockpuppetry.

In all, this user ruins any pleasure there is in editing Wikipedia - finding fact should be the challenge here, not the behavior of other users. I strongly suggest looking into this user's background (different editing names, etc) and history of civility towards others.

I will avoid editing any 'sensitive' (major Paris-based) articles until all this is over. Cheers.

81.65.149.65 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not very convincing. Your edits were not "relatively minor", they were pretty extensive, and the only way he could have known about them was to have at least one of the articles on his watchlist -- editing in another name wouldn't have made that any easier for him. Your complaint would only be legitimate if his alterations to your edits were incorrect, and you haven't made any case that they are at this point. As far as I can see he could legitimately have done a lot more, since much of the material you added is questionably worded and lacking sources. (However, looking at his talk page, Hardouin has been quite busy recently uploading a whole bunch of images that have all been deleted due to copyright issues.) In any case, I have notified him of this ANI section -- I know you don't want to but it is mandatory when somebody is being discussed at ANI. Looie496 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I left off editing the Ceinture article in mid-section, and planned to continue this weekend - and most of the article content comes from the same source already cited. As for the Paris article, I do have issues with fact there, but I won't get into that here (for an idea look at Hardouin's talk page). The Hardouin username has been dormant since almost nine months now - those (ignorned) message are about images were uploaded sometimes years ago; look rather at the same user's contributions page.

If you should retain anything in all this: a) two users don't edit for almost a year b) one editor returns to make edits after months and c) the second returns just hours later to revert/re-edit the first users edits, and edits only the articles the first user was working on. Is that what one could call civil?

Cheers. THEPROMENADER 05:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This user Lisa uses personal attacks and insults on other user! I am very offended.... Please block this user

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours. Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. diff  GARDEN  21:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This user uses personal attacks and insults other user! I am very offended....

Take it elsewhere, kids. -Lisa (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're both a couple of assholes. -Lisa (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! Ptrwatson418 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for this edit, especially in light of recent borderline stuff. Tan | 39 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What about this move? I'm not suggesting a block extension but still suspect.  GARDEN  21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is clearly disruptive, but since the user is already blocked it doesn't require any further action for now. Lets hope the user is more productive once the current block expires. Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved administrator to close a slightly messy RfC

Resolved

 – Not sure if this will stick. — Jake Wartenberg 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[25] will spiral out of control if it is not ended soon. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake, could you offer some commentary? I don't think it's an outrageous request to let the RfC end of its own accord. The debate seemed to be making some progress despite certain disruptions. And on handling said disruptions, any advice would be appreciated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw a lot of discussion and no chance of getting the criteria removed. There is consensus to close the RfC in the last section. Please just let it die. — Jake Wartenberg 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not enjoying this either. I can understand that the FLC regulars are tired of it, I've seen arguments going back to 2006, but the fact of the matter is that the RfC was opened to get community input. The regulars have had years to figure it out where the community received less than ten days. And this sets a very bad precedent when five oppose votes—all regulars too, I believe—can shut down an argument which closes in their favour. Forget every other argument, forget that criteria 5 contradicts the last part of 5a, forget that there is community consensus stating that red links are good and none labeling them "ugly" or "distracting". I will let this matter drop if you or anyone can show me that there is a consensus that minimal means definition 1c and not a or b. Going through the FLC logs I've seen about half a dozen regulars that oppose based on red links and everyone else either doesn't care or reads it the same way I do. Maybe Dabomb can confirm that as his name appeared quite frequently. Otherwise, I would ask that you reopen or restart the RfC, possibly with a reminder of its purpose—even the FLC director seemed confused about it. I'm sorry that it's "messy" but I didn't ask regulars to repeat themselves ad infinitum, or to attack my character or insult newcomers. A couple more days isn't going to hurt anybody. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Madden NFL 21's disruptive editing

Resolved

 – Madden NFL 21 is a sock of MC10. All now blocked. either way (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've lately been seeing Madden NFL 21 (talk · contribs) reverting whatever he sees. He's been continuously warned on his talk page, but continues to revert. Admins, could you block him for his reverting? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• No edits since Crossmr's post. No permanent harm done. I'll block him if he continues, but would prefer not to. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that this user claims multiple accounts, including HaloGod144424 (talk · contribs), Samen1234567890 (talk · contribs), ChessMaster13 (talk · contribs), and Wikisodia (talk · contribs), at least two of which have been indef blocked for vandalism. Sockpuppet much? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Madden NFL 21 reverted Department of Peace without providing an edit summary or engaging in discussion on the talk page. Since this is a persistent problem for which repeated warnings have been made, there's probably a reason behind it, though I am unsure what it could be. Шизомби (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Block the lot of them and run a checkuser to weed out any leftovers.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Negative ghostrider, that pattern is full. Checkuser the lot of them and block them if there is any truth to the assertions. Protonk (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:Madden_NFL_21.--Crossmr (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • And see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MC10 which spawned out of that. Apparently a case of good hand, bad hand going on here with MC10 reporting his own sock for disruption. either way (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by User:Exucmember

Exucmember (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a pattern of violations of WP:NPA. His inappropriate behavior was noted at his user talkpage by two users - I pointed out WP:NPA and asked Exucmember to strikeout his false negative comments [26], and DigitalC pointed out WP:BATTLE to Exucmember [27]. Exucmember has not redacted the statements in question.

I am requesting that another administrator take action with regard to this matter.

---

• 08:00, 2 October 2009 - Exucmember removes sourced material from the article Moonie (Unification Church), with edit summary: nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source; rm
• 13:18, 2 October 2009 - I restored the sourced material [28]
• 06:56, 5 October 2009 - Exucmember makes inflammatory comments and strong claims about my use of sourcing, in a post to the article's talk page. He accuses me of adding a "false reference" to the article. Example: It's astounding to me that CIRT would admonish me for removing a false reference when I stated clearly in the edit summary "nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source." He cites the diff, but does not answer the objection I raised! I did a search of that paper, and finding none of the keywords from the quotation, I then read the entire paper (quickly); not only does the quotation not appear in the cited reference, but no discussion about anything related to the topic is present. Perhaps he cited the wrong source, but it makes me wonder how many other sources don't really contain the stated claim.
• 13:08, 5 October 2009 - I added further information to the cite (not needed for verifiability, but extra information) to make it explicitly clear that I had not added a "false reference". [29]
• 13:14, 5 October 2009 - In posts to Exucmember's talk page, I made it clear that he was incorrect, I had not used a "false reference". Here [30] I pointed out that the information is actually in Footnote 16 of the cited source. Here [31] I responded to his strong allegation that I inserted "factually incorrect" information into the article. And here [32] I noted the inappropriateness of his posts to the article's talk page.
• 17:24, 5 October 2009 - A second user posts to the talk page of Exucmember about his inappropriate behavior. DigitalC commented: Exucmember, you may also want to read WP:BATTLE if you have not already done so.
• 03:34, 7 October 2009 - Exucmember has not removed or redacted his inappropriate attacks and claims about my editing, nor the allegations that I used "false references". Instead, he has chosen to continue to make further inflammatory posts about me at the article's talk page: [33], [34], [35], [36].

---

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue that seems to be the primary emphasis by Cirt seems to be not that big a deal since it was a statement that was incorrect about the sources and has since been resolved. An apology would be nice but it isn't required by any policy. I'm more concerned about some of the difs that Cirt gives at the end. Especially troubling are comments like this onewhere after Cirt asks for sources Exu says "'Ive seen this before from Cirt. When he either doesn't have an answer or doesn't understand the issue raised (I have no idea which), he presents this mantra, an obvious and complete non-sequitur in this case. Perhaps his meaningless comment is an example of "wasting" talk page space (which he is so fond of arrogantly pointing out)." That seems to be pushign CIV and NPA issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Joshua said above. I'm not sure that Exucmember realizes that his actions are wrong. In any case, if there's any further aggressive comments like what s/he has said, I think a block is in order. Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the above - it took a while to find it, but the cited quote is definitely in the source (Exucmember, footnote on page 21). I left a note on Exucmember's talk page asking him to comment here and pointing out the page number, but if these comments continue a block would be in order for a short period of time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although that was before I noticed he's been here since 2006. An editor with a three year tenure should know better than to make comments like that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: After being notified of this ANI thread and then indicating he was aware of it with a rather inappropriate response [37], Exucmember received comments at his talk page from admins Killiondude [38], and Hersfold [39]. Exucmember subsequently posted this inflammatory language to the article's talk page [40]. I fear he is choosing not to listen to the messages posted by these admins to his talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Exucmember posted another inappropriate comment about me to the talk page of the article, saying: he seems to be adopting as factual the arguments of people who in some cases are bigoted. I have repeatedly asked for Exucmember to back up his claims with independent reliable secondary sources - he has instead chosen to engage in this sort of talkpage diatribe - despite warnings from multiple admins and editors. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm beginning to think this is block worthy, primarily per WP:BATTLE. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above is somewhat bewildering. Cirt picked a fight with me. I feel I have been quite restrained under the circumstances, but he has gone out of his way to provoke me. I do not have unlimited time, so I am not going to spend hours trying to accuse him by selectively placing difs here and characterize them (as he has toward me) selectively, in a biased way, and out of context. I feel I am being bullied by Cirt. Even now, in his latest comment, Cirt is continuing his aggression toward me by exaggeration, claiming that I have received "warnings from multiple admins and editors." Two people responded to this ANI with very reasonable and helpful comments (not warnings). I responded to their comments by saying that I didn't disagree. The only one who has issued a warning was Cirt, who did so while involved in a minor content dispute with me (one might see this as a conflict of interest and judge that it would be more seemly to invite another editor to issue an admonishment, but no one has taken this approach to my knowledge). In my view this warning from Cirt about not removing sourced material (one sentence with one source) was done inappropriately after my good faith edit which stated clearly in the edit summary that I concluded the quotation was not in the source provided. He chose to high-handedly lecture me on my talk page instead of simply informing me on the relevant talk page where the hard-to-find quotation was (it was a passing comment in a footnote in a very long paper which I spent a half hour reading and in which I was not able to find any content anywhere at all related to the topic cited). I thought a mistake had been made.

I would invite anyone who thinks they need to discipline me to read the whole exchange on the article's talk page (and on my talk page), noting the timeline and what edits I made to the article when. I have refrained from making any edits that could be considered by any reasonable person to be controversial since 03:39, 5 October 2009, as soon as it became clear that Cirt was going after me in an aggressive way. There were quite a few edits that I felt would improve the article, but I didn't make any of them because of Cirt's accusations and to protect myself against the charge of edit warring. Better to let others make the edits. I raised the issues very directly and poignantly on the talk page (Cirt has tended to ignore points I raised in the past, or responded with repeating the phrase "please cite sources to back up your claims" even when I was making no claims and citing sources would have been completely inappropriate or even in principle impossible, as though he didn't even read what I wrote).

I believe the article has some major problems at present. Some of these have to do with issues other than sources, but this seems to be Cirt's only concern. A good article needs more than just sources, however. One point of frustration is that Cirt seems to have developed a sense of ownership over the article, something which I mentioned recently and Steve Dufour agreed with. This is in spite of the fact that Steve and I have some expertise in this area, but several of Cirt's statements show he doesn't have much background knowledge of the topic of the article. But Cirt seems to be unwilling to allow any edits he doesn't agree with.

I am an occasional editor (less than 3000 total edits I think - not even sure how to find out), so there are a lot of things I don't know about the system. But I do know that people shouldn't be treated the way I've been treated. Again, I feel I've been targeted, bullied, harassed, and repeatedly falsely accused by Cirt. Frankly, I find it disheartening that on Wikipedia an admin would be allowed to game the system and bully and provoke an editor and not even be asked to back off. -Exucmember (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to focus talkpage discussion to suggestion of independent reliable secondary sources and how to utilize them. Unfortunately instead it seems Exucmember (talk · contribs) chooses to focus many of his comments on the contributor, as opposed to content discussion. I fear this pattern of inappropriate behavior by Exucmember will continue – as he has not gotten the message in comments in the above thread and at his talk page from myself, DigitalC, JoshuaZ, Hersfold and Killiondude. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Cirt's WP:Ownership issues with the article also should be considered. There is no rule that primary sources can not be used in an article, only that notability can not be based on them. (I also have disagreed with Exucmember at times. He is mostly a very sincere and positive contributor to WP, although he does have strong personal feelings on Unification Church issues which sometimes (I think) get him too worked up emotionally. Somewhat ironically his feelings sometimes seem to be stronger than mine, a current UC member. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also made what I hope are some constructive comments on Exuc's talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I am noticing Exucmember throwing a fair amount of snarky comments at Cirt on Talk:Moonie (Unification Church). The "If you are not familiar with the basic background of this article's topic, perhaps you should not be the one to take on trying to write the article largely by yourself" comment is not particularly beneficial to a collaborative environment. Granted, that might be a bit of bias on my part (given that I talk to Cirt on a fairly regular basis), but I do think that comment sets a bad tone for an editor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If there has been a conduct problem on Cirt's part, please provide specific diffs in substantiation. What this thread contains so far is an organized presentation of evidence from Cirt and unsubstantiated claims from Exucmember and Steve Dufour. Fair disclosure: I used to mentor Cirt. But the community is pretty good at evaluating diffs when they are forthcoming. Durova³²² 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't care to make any charges against anyone. That's just not my kind of thing. I was just trying to show Exuc a little sympathy. He is a good and well-meaning WP editor, although we have had our disagrements, including on the article being discussed. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Will see if an uninvolved admin will take a look. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view:

• Exucmember, you made what was an understandable and good faith error in removing content that you thought was unsupported by the cited sources. However, your subsequent insistence and accusations that Cirt was adding false information, instead of double checking your work, was less excusable. Worst of all, even when the footnote was explicitly pointed out to you, instead of admitting fault and graciously apologizing, you chose to blame Cirt for "provoking annoyance". Honestly, your comments here and on the article talk page seem to reflect a I didn't hear that attitude in as much that you refuse to admit when you make (good faith) errors, and instead choose to disparage other editors for their supposed lack of knowledge of the subject. This is really not helpful in a collaborative environment.
• Cirt, while Exucmembers conduct has been non-ideal (as I state above) I don't think compelling him to apologize or rescind his remarks will serve any purpose. In my experience, most editors involved in talk page discussions on wikipedia are pretty intelligent and when an editor makes hyperbolic or false accusations, it only hurts their own credibility since others can see through the bluster.
• Steve and Exucmember, if you think Cirt has ownership issues with the article, please do raise the issue with supporting diffs and we can address that concern. As Durova has said, it's really impossible for outside editors to evaluate such claims without any supporting evidence, and in any case, it is not useful to muddy one issue with tu quoque or "he too" arguments.

I don't think we need to apply NPA or civility blocks at present, since I am hopeful that editors will take the feedback from this thread to heart anyways. Disclosure: I came to this thread following this message on my talk page, but I have not had any involvement with the article or even the related subject; nor have I had any editing or talkpage collaboration with Cirt (besides possible overlaps at AFDs, RFCs, RSN etc). Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Abecedare (talk · contribs), I agree with this assessment. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Following this post on my talk page I've come here a bit late, but perhaps I can say a few things which could help.

I've found that on en.Wikipedia, when one sees bristly claims of "false information," it's most often because some mistake has been made, which might be sloppy sourcing, a misreading or a wantonly PoV, feelings-driven take on an otherwise good faith edit. Hence, this kind of claim tends to show more bluster than good faith. As for "provoking annoyance," lots of good faith edits one sees here do that, it's a slice of the noise thrown off by the back and forth of "merciless" open editing, like the rustling of leaves in the wind. There is nothing untowards about it, the pith is how editors deal with being nettled by edits they don't like. A first step towards skirting misunderstandings like this is to keep in mind that at its core this project is not about truth (which, even if there is but one to be had, is sooner or later unknowable anyway), it's about verifiability. Keep the narrative voice of any article wholly neutral (this is easy to do). Let the sources speak for themselves (rather than relying on dodgy guidelines like WP:Fringe). Readers are often much smarter than some editors think. Weak sources, even when handled with wanton PoV, tend to play out as weak sources. Undue weight will drive readers off the text either way, as will most any narrowly polemic PoV.

Some of Exucmember's comments were rash, too eager for a fight, an outlook which never spins up helpfully here. Meanwhile, perhaps aside from helping children learn how to get along with others, only apologies unbidden have much worth and if they don't come, speak louder than, so there's no pith in asking someone to say they're sorry, it only stirs up more kerfluffle. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen Gale (talk · contribs), I can agree with this as well. :) Cirt (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue at Selena article

Can I request some assistance over at Selena? Newly registered user Alwaysshawn (talk · contribs) recently downgraded this featured article—a lot—and is using an IP to revert back to his version. I was about to make my way to bed when I saw it and would like others to look over the situation. Thanks in advance. — ξ^xplicit 07:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alwaysshawn advised to discuss the issue on article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alwaysshawn went on to revert your edit without discussion. — ξ^xplicit 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for 3RR using IP addresses. Reverted his last changes. Continue giving him the benefit of the doubt for a bit more, but unilaterally changing an FA against consensus and without providing sourcing is not collaboratively improving the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano

We could use some admin intervention. There is one user, Felix Natalo (talk · contribs), introducing attack web pages as sources and playing tit-for-tat of "You remove something I want, I'll remove something you want". I have no vested interest in this article, however it is becoming too dangerous for me now. --4twenty42o (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Before you say anything, I do monitor this page as well since it is included in my long watchlist and I've taken the liberty of informing Felix properly, for you. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Druid.raul IP sock?

This edit by 203.76.181.22 (talk · contribs) to Etihad Airways has reverted the fleet from a September 30 date to an August date. Druid.raul has edited the article in the past. I'm not comfortable with reverting the edit myself (involvement issue) but feel that it should at least be reviewed by others. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have said that this is a matter of FACT edit - what does the source say? There should be no issue with POV over how many aircraft an airline has. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not investigated that, but what disturbs me is that a referenced entry dated Sep 30 is being replaced by an August dated entry. The edit was reverted but another IP has reverted the reversion. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's him; user is definitely editing again - as an unregistered IP this time. Several recent changes to articles he used to edit point to my conclusion (see: here and here).

To top it off, I've just got an email that my Wikipedia password was reset because IP 203.76.185.83 asked for the reset. I'm dead sure it is Druid.raul/rhp26. Anyone else got such an email? Any suggestions on what can be done? Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• This user continues to edit as several IP socks. See: 203.115.93.155 and 203.115.93.206 and 203.115.93.222 and 203.115.93.227 and 203.115.93.241 and 203.115.93.83 and 203.76.181.12 and 203.76.181.124 and 203.76.181.15 and 203.76.181.18 and 203.76.181.21 and 203.76.181.22 and 203.76.181.4 and 203.76.181.59 and 203.76.181.77 and 203.76.185.101 and 203.76.185.83 and 203.76.185.96. Jasepl (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• There we go - he's just added a comment below! What can we do about him? Jasepl (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Etihad has 10 777-300ERs NOT 11, here is the proof - http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=777&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=777&ViewReportF=View+Report
Etihad's 2 A319-100s and 10 A320-200s are leased and the 20 new A320-200s are yet to be delivered, here is the proof - http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/backstage/documents/od/orders_deliveries_Sept09.xls
User talk:GS350 says Etihad has 11 777-300ERs and 23 A320-200s on Order, i have said to him a million times to provide a reference but he simply changes the details.(203.76.181.12 (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

Regardless if you are correct or not, User:Druid.raul, It does not change the fact that you are banned and using a proxy sock to get around it. --[[::User:Sb617|Sb617]] (talk · contribs) 10:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, i wont't be there on Wikipedia forever, someday i have to leave. I know i am banned , but atleast my edits regarding the Airline fleets are correct and always from reliable sources. i showed u both proofs. (203.76.181.12 (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

• Right or wrong, the point is that banned users should not be editing at all. Jasepl (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection asked for at WP:RFPP. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hi all~! Just thought you guys should know this... I did an IP trace of all the above and noted that is coming from a pool of dynamic IPs for use by Wi-Fi users of Broadband Pacenet Pvt. Ltd's services based in Mumbai, India. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. Not surprising - since that's where the user had said he lives. And, looking back, he's been editing using one of those IPs even before being banned for a second time. Jasepl (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a coincidence. Druid.raul hails from India too. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Duh~! *facepalm* --Dave1185 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked 203.76.181.12 (talk · contribs) for 3RR violations at Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways. Let me know if he returns on a different IP and I'll semi-protect the pages (else it's not required). That said, it would be good for someone to check the sources independently to make sure that the articles have correct and up-to-date information. Abecedare (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Back vandalising as 203.76.181.111. Jasepl (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare!

IP blocked. Pages semi'd. Outing oversighted. Let me know if/when he hits other pages. Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay use of WP:IAR?

Resolved

 – Not really the best use of IAR. Re-opened by SoWhy, no harm done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevx when it was relisted because there was a concensus to keep even though I participated in the AFD. Now some editor is complaining that there is only one review (which there is two reviews and an award) and that the discussion doesn't show that there is notability about the review (I don't know where the editor got that from). I counted the neutral comment as keep because the editor thinks that it passes WP:N. The only reason for the neutral comment is because the editor wants it to be expanded more. Joe Chill (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not really OK, in my opinion. You should never close a deletion discussion in which you participated; why would you ever need to, anyway? There will always be thousands of uninvolved users. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 11:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't like the idea of an article sitting in AFD for possibility a week longer when it doesn't need to. I'll undo the closure. Joe Chill (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)>

(edit conflict) No, it's incorrect. You should not close an AFD you have participated it, especially not when an admin decided to relist it. I have reverted the close. Regards SoWhy 11:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that WP:IAR shouldn't really exist. Joe Chill (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it should exist. However, what you did didn't help Wikipedia, it helped you assert your side of the AfD, and was thus not an appropriate reason to ignore the rule. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 11:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Joe Chill, you should have at least consulted admin User:JForget who relisted the AFD just an hour before you overrode his decision and closed it. That combined with your being a participant in the discussion, makes your closing a recipe for needless drama and meta-debate. Could you please undo the close and let an uninvolved user evaluate the AFD instead ? Abecedare (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are situations when IAR is useful, but this is not one of them since you do have a conflict of interest here from your participation in the discussion and also because it could lead to bigger dispute. IAR should be used only when it clearly helps to improve wikipedia. Thanks for notifying about this though. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to, but SoWhy already did. Even without this, there is still plenty of wiki-drama (like every section on ANI, mostly with no conclusion). Joe Chill (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There maybe a good argument that someone should close this anyway it since the nominator was blocked a few days ago as an abusive sock. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As per this:[41] Joe maybe should have brought that up in his first sentence here, as it would lend credence to his argument. However, any article is subject to review, even if it's from a bad-faith nomination. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for of this, but I think now it is a clear consensus now (I though of closing it before but just in case wanted a couple of more contributions there to be sure if the discussion wouldn't swing the other way as it happened in other AFDs in the past), so no need to wait another full week to close it as it is not required to wait that much after a relist, just until the consensus is clear. Also, the nominator appears to be blocked indefinitely as well for various disruption. So I'm closing the AFD as keep now.JForget 15:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NewYorkCity101

Resolved

 – NewYorkCity101 blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing. AdjustShift (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor has been tenuously making pagemoves that are disruptive and unnecessary for the last few weeks, especially regarding subjects involving Nickelodeon networks, The Simpsons, and PBS Kids, including changing Simpsons articles wholesale, changing long-established fair-use images without any discussion on the talk pages besides "I want to do this", waiting a couple of days, and doing it anyways despite users asking them not to. User has been warned multiple times and is now moving on to uploading unsourced images to articles which add nothing to articles. NewYorkCity101 is also on an odd campaign to bring up BenH all over again, who has long been blocked for over a year and has been under control since that point because their IP (which was blocked a month ago) was also used by BenH and they were attempting to pass the buck by blaming them for tenuous edits. The user has been warned multiple times by me and others, and that patience has worn thin. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

evidence

• Account labeled sockpuppert - User:NewYorkCity101 User_talk:NewYorkCity101#Sockpuppetry case
• user received several warnings, which he did not contest or provide any good defense to his disruptive editing style
• user warned against making unnecessary or disruptive page moves, even received a final warning, yet he has done it again on [42]

I propose he gets blocked, 72 hours minimum unless he can defend himself, or promise to cease his disruptive editing style. Ecoman24 (talk page) 18:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• After analyzing the edits of NewYorkCity101, my conclusion is that his edits are disruptive. He was warned multiple times by different editors, but he/she didn't listen. I've blocked NewYorkCity101 for 1 week for disruptive editing. AdjustShift (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the action. I took it here due to the case being too complicated for ANI, so I'm glad someone took a second look at these edits. Nate • (chatter) 19:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:GorfelMing

Resolved

 – Account indefinitely blocked by Blueboy96 (talk · contribs) –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reporting this user because he apperars to be the IP address that keep on vandalising a usertalk page, his first edit was vandalism--Coldplay Expert 20:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks for blocking him.--Coldplay Expert 20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding RFCs and dispute templates

Is it proper to unilaterally remove dispute templates and/or RFC templates from articles or talk pages if another editor placed them there?

Suppose that I find something I don't agree with, and after a discussion with another editor, I compromise by putting a dispute tag on the article while I do research. Barely 10 seconds after tagging the article as disputed, the other editor unilaterally removes the dispute tag. Ditto for an rfctag placed on the article's discussion page.

My current belief is that the existence of a dispute makes it proper to add such tags to an article, and inappropriate to remove them unilaterally.

At the moment this is a hypothetical question, and presently I don't know if any actual cases of the above would warrant specific attention here, which is why I have omitted any specifics.

I'm almost certain I'm correct but I did wish to check and see if I am mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Shentino (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify a bit more?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in a dispute with another editor at the moment over article X. It began when I corrected an apparent error. I was promptly confronted with the allegation that the source I followed was wrong, and my edits were reverted. I attempted to clarify with another interpretation, and was reverted again. At that point, I placed a dispute tag on the section in question, which was promptly deleted. I then attempted to start an rfc by placing the rfc tag on the discussion page...and the RFC request was promptly deleted with a "3 against one. Dispute ended." before the RFC even had a chance to be logged and created, which I found to be a bit uncivil considering it's abruptness and how it prevented other editors from potentially weighing in on the matter.

What I am sure of is that two different sources referenced in the article are either contradictory, or are being misinterpreted.

Update: I incorrectly questioned the relevance of one of his sources, which had wider scope than I believed at first. After reading the source again, I found I was incorrect and was more than happy to strikethrough my error. Unfortunately, in the meantime he had pointed out my error at the same time I noticed it myself, and then threatened to report me here for trolling.

My main concerns here are possible incivility, first by unilaterally removing the dispute and rfc templates, and now for accusing me of trolling and threatening to report me here. Shentino (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The debate Shentino is referring to is Talk:Pizzo (extortion). If the evidence is overwhelmingly against one editor, and the other editor provides additional sources, he can remove the RFC tag. - DonCalo (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

DonCalo is correct in identifying the editor and article in question. My current actions are doing research of my own, as I'm curious where the BBC got its information and if other sources are found that agree with the BBC, then the scales become more level. DonCalo: My apologies for not notifying you of this entry in ANI. I wasn't sure if a specific complaint would have been warranted, so I preserved your anonymity so as to avoid making an accusation against you specifically. Shentino (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I have found at least one source which sides with the BBC and doesn't on its face appear to use the BBC itself as a source of its own. The existence of apparently contradictory sources was in my opinion good cause for tagging the section as disputed. Shentino (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway to summarize...I was more than happy to work out the "battle of the sources" on the talk page of the article. The tersely summarized removal of the dispute tag and rfc tags, as well as a threat to report me a troll if I continued discussing the issue, alarmed me enough to bring it up here. (posted out of order due to edit conflict with Elen) Shentino (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don Calo is incorrect in saying that the other editor can remove an RfC tag. Placing an RfC tag on an article starts an entire process that runs for a set period. The other editor could however remove the dispute tag if they feel that the dispute has been settled, but not just because they do not agree there is a dispute to be had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I figured as much...but to avoid a battle I wished to confirm this by asking on ANI. Regarding the dispute tag, I have uncovered another source that likely invalidates wp:snow Shentino (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The dispute has been settled, the evidence is overwhelmingly against Shentino, six reliable sources against one, and I have not even started yet collecting sources. This guy is just trolling. - DonCalo (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don Calo, please assume good faith and remain civil. I can see no evidence of trolling. And DO NOT remove the RfC tag should the other editor add it again. That is an abuse of process and may see you blocked. As you two seem to be the only ones in the dispute, perhaps a third opinion may be a better option. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He now comes up with a German site on holiday houses (see User talk:Shentino). Please, Elen, you are being misused by a troll. - DonCalo (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop referring to other editors as trolls. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For now I'll leave the article alone so as to avoid drama, as well as to not exceed my 3 revert quota for today. My current plan of action is to do a "source audit" section of the talk page so that ALL sources, no matter who they support, can be evaluated for reliability. I don't consider "being outvoted" a reliable enough indication that a source is invalid, especially if the "vote" changes later due to a new discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Help again please-

No one took seriously my complaint about User: Hippo43 regarding his removal of information in articles I work on, specifically Administrative divisions of New York. He has now gone to Albany, New York and removed referenced material that I added claiming it is trivial. It is clearly stated the notability of why the information was added and plenty of articles on cities have sections regarding their library systems, especially the larger and more important metro cities including nearby Syracuse, New York of similar size and importance. I will be over time adding further information on the history of the public library (one of the oldest in the country) and of the current building of several new branches and renovation of existing ones. The library system is clearly relevant to the city, it is supported by city residents through a separate tax from the city property or school taxes and city residents elect a library board as well. I find this to be further proof of a vendetta and disruption posed by an Hippo43 who continues to have no history of ever improving any article covered under the wikiproject WP:CAPDIS but yet continues to go around to the articles to remove information without ever adding or finding references for unsourced material. This is disruptive and takes time out from wikiproject members who have better things to do. I'm sure he will respond here, again I will not respond directly to him, only to questions posed by administrators. Please, I beg anyone to do something to keep him out of articles regarding the Capital District. His claims are always of me claiming "ownership", which I have never done, I have collaborated immensely with several other editors of the wikiproject ports, wikiproject warning templates, wikiproject nrhp, wikiproject capital district, and wikiproject new york; I am the cofounder of the wikiproject Capital District, if I didnt want other people working on articles I work on I wouldnt have ever brought up the idea of that wp or continue to inform others of articles I start and ask for help from them. I simply dont want this disruptive editor on articles that I think have potential when all he does is remove information that in his opinion doesnt matter, he never brings concerns to the talk page nor does he listen to others. He often cites the matter at the Siena College article as me not listening to others, but he fails to mention that it was 8 against 2, in my favor, with two of the supporters on my side being administrators and a third later became an admin as well so I dont know who I was not listening to. Please help!Camelbinky (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You should have informed Hippo43 of this so I've done it for you. Jack forbes (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable - so Camelbinky again thinks I have to seek his approval for changes to 'his' articles. Can someone please explain to Camelbinky that removing trivia (which may have value in a more specific article) can also be a way to improve an article. --hippo43 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page first, which unless I'm mistaken hasn't happened yet. Equazcion (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about the content dispute, its about the long standing disruption that the user in question has continued to do. I'm not going to continue to have my contributions subject to hippo43's approval and removed if that one user objects to them. I have the right to edit as anyone else, but hippo seems to believe that my edits stay only if he agrees. I will not edit like this. I am requesting a topic ban on that user to keep him off these articles which he has clearly shown he has no relevant knowledge about to contribute to them. Bringing this to the article talk page will do no good, as shown in previous discussions where he was clearly outnumbered a consensus means nothing to Hippo43. I have shown the notability and relevance of my inclusion and that similar sections already exist in other articles. I am here requesting administrative and disciplinary action to be taken, I will not continue to be a member of Wikipedia if my edits are only allowed based on Hippo43's approval. This is the last time I will stand by while he reverts sourced material I have added, I've had enough. If something cant be done then there is no reason for me to continue to contribute at all to Wikipedia. I should not have to get clearance from another editor to add information. IAR means nothing if one editor can decide the "rules" on their own.Camelbinky (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Camelbinky, Hippo43 is right about the Albany information. If you care to produce an article on Albany library, or libraries in the district of NY, or whatever, then information about the change in how the books are stacked on the shelves would be hugely significant I'm sure. In an article on Albany, it's trivia, and that level of information on libraries in other areas is trivia. This is a content dispute, and does not belong at ANI Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you don't need my approval to add material, and I don't need yours to remove it. How many of your edits have I actually reverted or changed? In what way have I acted as if your edits are subject to my approval? I removed some tangential content from an article which is already tagged as 'too long'. You have no idea of what knowledge I do or don't have, and your patronising statements on the subject do you no favours.

The only consensus established in our Siena College dispute was the consensus among the reliable sources. They disagreed with your view - I suggest you move on. --hippo43 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this isn't an issue of the removal of WP:TRIVIA. The information might be trivial, but it doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition. The cataloging system could be seen as excessively specific for the article, but on the other hand if formatted the right way and perhaps cut down some, it could integrate well. Either way these are thigns to discuss on the article's talk page. Please give that a shot first. Equazcion (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[EC] I agree that this is not a situation requiring administrator intervention. It's a dispute over content, and I haven't seen evidence that the parties have tried to resolve it through discussion. Furthermore, I agree with Hippo43 and Elen of the Roads that the library's plan to abandon the Dewey Decimal System is too trivial for inclusion in the article about the city, particularly in view of the 84-kB length of the article. Have you thought about creating a separate article about the city's public libraries? I suppose there might be some merit in including information about Albany's abandonment of this system in Dewey Decimal Classification (but I'm not a library maven -- this would be a topic for discussion with Wikipedians interested in that topic) ... --Orlady (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ARGH. The matter at hand is not the specific incident of whether or not the specific information should be in the article, though I still say yes, other articles on cities have library sections, yes, right now all Albany has is the one paragraph I added but I was in the process of researching to put more on how it is one of the oldest in the nation and other relevant information. A library section is no more trivial than an education or transportation section. The length of the article is so long because it is still very much a work in progress. The history section will be cut down significantly once we are done with History of Albany, New York (and watch, now that I've mentioned that article Hippo down the road will visit and disrupt there too, as is his practice, but hopefully by calling him out that wont happen). Media in New York's Capital District will similarly allow a significant cut to be made to the media section in the Albany article as well once a rewrite is done to accurately reflect the change done by the switch to digital. Other sections as well need rewritten, that is why this is a work in progress needing to be done by those with knowledge and not by those willy-nilly taking out information they dont agree with. A library section is relevant. Allow work to be done on the article to improve it, removing information is not improving anything, this information is not vandalism. Hippo should have taken his concerns to the talk page first. I see all this talk about "it should have gone to the talk page", ok then address that to Hippo instead of to me, I havent reverted his move. This is not a stand-alone event that everyone is making it out to be and I am done with his propoganistic lies and half-truths he spouts everytime he posts a comment, the sources in Siena College never came to a consensus, and if they did it doesnt matter, consensus of editors is all that matter in Wikipedia and eight said he was wrong, but of course Hippo has to spout his lies to make himself look in the right, therefore I'm quiting Wikipedia. The articles relevant to the Wikiproject Capital District will be worse off without me than they wouldve been without Hippo43 around, but I guess if choice is between me or him the consensus seems to be to keep him. Removing information should be a last resort, not the default. I'm through with this crap. I'm sure we'll see a last word by Hippo making himself look good and me bad, he always has the last word and try to goad me into responding another time by spouting another lie that will rankle me, hoping I'll come back. I wont give in. This is ridiculous and I hope someone picks up articles I created and worked hard on to continue to make them better. This is not self-centeredness, there truly are articles only I have cared to work on, we all have articles like that. I wont stand by and let Hippo continue his rampage of finding them and hurting them. Check his archives on how many complaints there have been of articles he's done this to before. Nobody cares though. Have fun on this endeavor and hope you like it when he or someone similar gets to an article you care about.Camelbinky (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I think you may need to take a break. I looked back at Administrative Districts of New York, and saw that Hippo reverted you twice, and you reverted him twice. That's it. Not a rampage of destruction in sight. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ivankinsman systemic copyright vio

Resolved

 – user blocked for 24 hrs. Ecoman24 (talk page) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Originally posted on Copyright violations talk page. Posted here due to extent of problem.

I don't know where to report this but User:Ivankinsman is making systematic copyright violations, cutting and pasting text verbatim from sources online and off. A perusal of his contributions will show it going way back, more than I can handle trying to untangle. Even when the copyright material is deleted, he re-adds it to talk pages, he also deleted notices from his talk page. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He's also wikilawyering by claiming that the copyvio rules only cover posting material to the mainspace and that therefore he's free to add it to talk pages. See this for a typical argument. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given the extent of this problem I think I'll take this to ANI. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I ve notified Ivankinsman of this discussion. I am sure he will listen to the counsel, looking at his communication with others. He has done some good works though. may i encourage administrators and others to give him good advise. I hope to see his input. Ecoman24 (talk page) 22:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Copyright violation, I have blocked the account for 24 hours. The editor indicated no understanding that all pages are available on the licenses used by Wikipedia, and that Copyright issues are very important. Since guidance has failed in the past I considered that sanctions were the only option for this editor - if they were not prepared to AGF what they were told by other editors, then they are already failing to understand how WP works anyway. That said, if they wish to request unblock on the basis that they realise their error then the reviewing admin need not contact me for my agreement; they can be unblocked immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Offensive username HonestJew

Resolved

 – Indef blocked, the deleted page was telling, and all the edits are antisemitic trolling. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The username User:HonestJew is offensive due to the implied claim that Jews are generally dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.5.251 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice the user was blocked 72 hours for "reverting too much", and his user page was deleted as it was considered "vandalism". If someone can look at the deleted content, it might offer clues as to what this user intended with this username. I've also notified the user of this thread. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is question may or may not be a productive contributor (and if not will certainly be blocked), but I find the assertion that the username is automatically offensive to be ridiculous. The far more likely meaning of such a phrase in general is a user describing him/herself. Would "OldJew" imply most Jews are young? Of course not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I can't really agree with that logic. People like to poke fun with their version of oxymoronic titles. In this case, there would be no reason to describe oneself an an honest jew, unless the assumption is that jews are not normally honest. I'm not well-versed in username policy but I have a suspicion here regarding the intent. I could be wrong. Equazcion (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The username as such is borderline. It looked offensive to me first also, but Thaddeus makes a good point. Looking at his contributions would likely give a clue as to what his intent was. Which apparently someone did. Username issues can be taken to WP:UAA →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My point wasn't that this user in particular was describing himself (he wasn't), but that there shouldn't be a blanket ban on such descriptions. Certainly my first assumption based on the name alone would be someone who was proud of being 1) honest and 2) Jewish. Does the user name "HonestPerson" imply most people aren't honest, or does it simply describe the user who registered it? If a user named "HonestXYZ" is making disruptive edits they can be blocked for making disruptive edits - no need to rely on username policy for the block. If not, than there is no reason to try and read implied racism into their user name. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a blanket ban either. It was just a suspicion -- and a well-deserved one in the end, it would seem. Equazcion (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Baseball Bugs; the name may ring alarm bells, but we cannot judge further without looking at contribs- as we have done, and come to an apparently correct decision. End of. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue page - requesting assistance

Please see my talk page, as well as my recent contributions to the article. A certain host of individuals interferes with the revision process of the above mentioned page - something that has begun following the incident that took place on the page 2 days ago. I am in the process of making changes to it, when I get counter-inputs where all my edits are just reversed unappealingly. I am willing to compromise, as I've done thus far, but I do not appreciate my effort to be obliterated. Requesting intervention on the page. Thank you. Esoteriqa (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• • User:BADBOYS BLUE already blocked indefinately on October 8th. There is no further evidence of the user been active, see [43]. Please, feel free to removal any offending content from your talk page by User:BADBOYS BLUE. you may also achieve it. 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

They were indef blocked two days ago by Hunster. What are you on about? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no hang on a mo. Rees has pointed out on Talk:Bad Boys Blue that it's not correct just to revert all of the banned editor's edits, as some of them were correcting errors in the article. Is that what you mean?? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the resolved tag as this doesn't appear to have anything to do with User:BADBOYS BLUEs current editing status. Other editors have taken an interest after BADBOYS BLUE's legal threats brought the article to their attention and are trying to clean up the mess that is the current Bad Boys Blue article. Their efforts are being reverted by Esoteriqa. --Onorem♠Dil 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The banned user's edits were not entirely vandalism, and I did already incorporate a few of his inputs in the article. If he placed a valid point in it - there' s no reason why it shouldn't stay. All of my most recent edits show a transition of the article to the form that it will assume eventually, edit by edit, including incorporation BADBOYSBLUE's edits, as well as those of other contributors - all valid inputs will be incorporated, I only ask that the October 6 version is not used as a template for revisions and users who are keen on reverting to it are mindful of a simple fact - that the article was more or less in a balanced form prior to the above date... while other editors appear to overlook this notion. Please rest assured, the article will not stay in its present form, just allow some time for the process to take place, and it will be balanced again... as opposed to consuming futile energy and effort on edit war. Esoteriqa (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism on Phyllis Schlafly

Elstong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring to add "Jewish" labeling and general antisemitic content to the Phyllis Schlafly article; when I reverted his partial page blanking/sourced content removal and inappropriate content, he very oddly started calling me a vandal, accusing me of abusing him, and has made the allegation that I'm anti-Semitic on the article talk page and in edit summaries. He is, to put it bluntly, obsessed with Jews. I request someone take a look at this SPA and Schlafly fan and see what can be done. IMO he's here to whitewash her article, malign Jews who dare criticize her, and call anyone who attempts to prevent him from doing so names. Were I not arguably involved I would indef as a disruptive account. I could, of course, be in error. Contribs include the telling edit summaries (most recent at top, as in History):

1. 15:10, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Elstong ? (remove inappropriate abuse from KillerChihuahua|talk) - this is removing a warning I left him
2. 15:09, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (remove false jewish comment by KillerChihuahua|talk)
3. 02:45, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": removed anti-semitic accusation against Critchlow)
4. 23:56, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (the weasel words were written by the Jewish columnist about a Jewish issue; see the talk page if you want to change it)
5. 06:56, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": jewish columnist complained about ignoring jewish winking)
6. 23:41, 12 August 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": change jewish accusation to what NYT said)

Followed by [44] and [45]. thanks for your kind attention - I will be offline for a bit but please post questions here anyway if you have any and I will answer when I return. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for now, but if he comes back with the same crap I suggest indefinite next time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked him after further reflection. His edits are problematic, but a block is a bit premature at this point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy/guidelines on user page deletion?

Today I am forgetful. After speedy deleting a non-notable autobio (David A Provost) created by Drewprovost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (and earning myself a delightful riposte [46]), User:Drewprovost put the deleted text on two subpages of his user page, here and here. While trying to AGF, I seriously doubt this completely unreferenced autobio will be shaped into an acceptable basic article in the future. Somehow I can't remember what guidelines cover the preferred course of action in this kind of case. Could someone point me to them? I'm just a little thick tonight. Thanks, Pigman☿/talk 01:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an awful lot of information to be putting out there. I'm not sure why the user wants to write such a tell-all biography for all the world to see. Do we have the subjects permission (assuming the writer is "Drew" and David is the brother? I would lean towards deletion for privacy reasons here. –xeno^talk 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Way too much personal info, even though he's an adult. And one of the longer single-paragraphs I've seen here. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Harassment + and possible Ban avoidance via sockpuppet by User_talk:218.186.12.243 / User_talk:218.186.12.250

Resolved

 – Protections and blocks doled out. Wknight94 ^talk 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Previously my talk page was vandalized[47] by User_talk:218.186.12.250 who was subsequently blocked.

It has since been attacked [48] yet again by User_talk:218.186.12.243.

Other than the offense of harrasement and the similar way it is carried out (i.e. wordings used), I strongly suspect that these 2 accounts are related, as both also have the tendancy to sign off their posts with "http://twitter.com/phoenixreporter" as seen from [[49]] and [[50]].

I may have stepped on a few toes when I was reverting some unconstructive changes in a few articles, but that did not nessecitate these attacks. I hope this is the correct venue to address this attacks and hope someone can look into this. Thanks in advance! Zhanzhao (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly seems like the same person to me. Either way a block is in order, even based on the latest incident taken on its own. Equazcion (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected Zhanzhao's user and talk pages and blocked the range for a couple weeks. Wknight94 ^talk 01:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the attack was from IP:218.186.12.243 and 128.186.12.250, not the 224-247, was this a result of Checkuser? I don't want anyone innocent to get blocked because of this. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Pathoschild rebound

Yesterday's IPs keep on vandalizing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Drive By Editing - Willful Ignoring of Lengthy Discussion - 3RR Gaming

After lengthy and thorough discussion a category tag for the Roman Polanski article achieved a semblance of consensus as one of its more articulate opponents begrudgingly reported that a great deal of community discussion had gone into the appropriateness and general application of the child molester tag (several nation specific exist in addition to the generic tag). Now editors in opposition to the tag have taken to simple reverts, editors that have never chosen to engage in the talk page discussion and refuse to defend their reverts via discussion. The goal is clear - tag team 3RR.

Can anyone enforce the requirement to discuss, especially as a great deal of thorough debate has been devoted to this tag in the Polanski article[51] as well as in a number of other articles and areas of Wikipedia. Basic argument for cat was:

CAT is entirely consistent as to members of the class being convicted of sex crimes with minors of all types, true for country specific cat and general cat. There are reams of prior consensus on this as seen through the cats and their members.

Yes, the cat is real and yes he clearly fits in with it. None of our cats are legally defined, we have 50 states each one having literally dozens of various sex crimes on the books. As with our one member Debra Lafave, "pled guilty to statutory rape charges stemming from her having sex with a 14-year-old" another member of the cat for example, "...he was convicted of unlawful fornication ...".

The defining thread seems to be sex crimes with minors ~ what we colloquially refer to every day as "child molestation" no matter the specific act with which convicted. And what of Mel Hall, "aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child" Clearly a sex crime with a minor ... but not child molestation? Polanski was convicted of molesting a child, the specific type of molestation being the rape charge he pled guilty to. He fits with the members of the category to a T - LeFave and him are interchangeable.

The cat is proper, use this thought experiment to see why: What if a person had been above the age of consent in their country of citizenship, but below in their country of arrest? What if a person, and there are literally millions like this, was convicted in one country but was a citizen of another country - in which they had never lived? Look also at those members of the location neutral cat as child molesters. It's members also include one convicted [52] and , "sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for having sexual relationships with teenagers."

Thank you.99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding additional Info: User:Cenarium, an editor that quite literally engaged me for a week here[53] by seeking to ban me for edits that recorded Polanski in the encyclopedia as "convicted" and a "fugitive" as well as seeking to ban me for disruptive edit warring at Anjelica Huston for this text[54] has begun a new "case" against me here[55] related to this very subject.

Is this all just a WikiGame where Talk is for the suckers and rational discussion means nothing when trumped by a ban?99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from my contribs, I wasn't concerned with that article nor you for several days (and hoped it would remain that way). As it happens, I still have the page on my watchlist and noted the recent activity. It would be difficult to follow edits of someone changing of IP every now and then. Consensus was quite clearly against the inclusion of this category, as can be seen at Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories, yet you continued to edit-war to restore it, with more than 4 reverts in 24 hours. Cenarium (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC):::::Contrary to your protest above about not being concerned - you hit me up within moments of a technical reading of 3RR when I reverted arguably vandalistic removal of a well discussed consensus edit.

You also choose to remove the edit without even so much as a peep on the discussion page in the section that reached consensus on the subject.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC-OD) I looked at that section on the Talk page, and there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus for adding that category, especially to a BLP. Generally speaking, when you're reverted by multiple editors, that means consensus is against you. Dayewalker (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not one of those editors reverting offered so much as a word on the subject.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would they need to? Consensus is against your edit, and it's a controversial edit on a BLP. If you disagree, please continue to make your case on the talk page, that's where the discussion should take place. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I did and the voice in opposition begrudgingly conceded that consensus on the cat existed but suggested a second look at the cat name itself. I pointed out the consensus, "Second look or not, we do have ample precedent and community consensus for the use of the cat here - as admittedly disagreeable as it may be to some - our intellectual honesty can no longer deny its current applicability." There was no voice in opposition to the declaration of consensus then - or now. _ 99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)