Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive434

Personal attacks by User:Fclass

See also: WP:AN#Ban this user. seicer | talk | contribs 03:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks, Fclass (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a series of personal attacks. I first became aware of the problem on June 4 when Fclass responded to a couple of messages at Talk:African American by calling two editors "asshole bigots". I warned Fclass about personal attacks, and Fclass responded that she/he was "sick and tired of idiots, black and white, who have the racist and self-hating mindset" and she/he would continue to "go after them". I advised Fclass that further personal attacks may result in a block.

On June 8, Fclass wrote again at Talk:African American that other editors were "stupid" and "all racist". Again, I warned Fclass against making personal attacks.

On June 14, Fclass wrote to User:Mcelite that "you're stupid, ignorant, and you hate yourself". Mcelite responded coolly. I noticed Mcelite's message and wrote to Fclass that she/he had now been warned 3 times in 10 days against making personal attacks, and that the next incident would be brought here.

Today, Mcelite told me that Fclass has continued the personal attacks. Fclass wrote that Mcelite is "ignorant", "stupid", and suffers from "self-hatred"; then Fclass wrote that Mcelite should "go to hell".

Despite repeated warnings, Fclass hasn't stopped the personal attacks — if anything, they've become worse. Will somebody please step in and do something? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I warned him. Meanwhile, he asked for help with page archiving and after I left a link to the help page on his talk page, he left this message on mine. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

soeone should tell him to cutdown on his entitlement whining and learn to ask poltely when he needs help.`Smith Jones (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it (the begging for people to help him archive his talk page, I mean). Together with the racially-charged edits, I wonder if we are dealing with a troll here, i.e. he/she is pretending to be too dim to archive a talk page just to create disruption and see who can be strung along by the ploy. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a (move-generated) redirect at User talk:Fclass/Archive 1 pointing back to his talk page; I think this was confusing him (it certainly confused me on my way past). I helped him archive the page properly. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Fclass 24 hours for edit warring over ethnicity issues at LisaRaye McCoy, along with a lack of edit summaries, ongoing worries about civility and lack of discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mbisanz

Resolved

 – Mbisanz's recent TfDs were vetted by at least five different users and they were found to be 100% appropriate. Complaint has no merit whatsoever. Jaysweet (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mbisanz has been nominating lots of perfectly good templates for deletion at TfD. And hes an ADMIN! Please punish him for this! 74.63.84.101 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite some of these? Unless these are truly spurious nominations - and, knowing MBisanz, I have a good deal of difficulty believing that - we can just let the MFD discussions determine whether the templates are "perfectly good". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You can see some of the TfDs by MBisanz (talk · contribs) here, with discussions located here. I see nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing worth "punishing". — Scientizzle 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's trying to do some very helpful cleanup through community consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed, looks fine to me. feel free to participate in the TFDs. xenocidic (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I could do most of these tmeplates via CSD since they are old and unused, but ever now and then I've found one that has been used by some other user, so I've been TfDing them as I find them. Unless I'm lying about some aspect of my TfD rationales, I don't why I'm here, and I'm certainly not using any admin powers to do it. MBisanz ^talk 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't "punish" people except by giving the good ones even more work to do, which can be quite punishing indeed, over the long haul. MBisanz, thank you for going through these old templates and cleaning them out. I see nothing wrong with what you are doing. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I frequently frown while "interacting" with certain editors when they have briefly annoyed me - I don't tell them, of course, so as to leave them wondering if I am typing in a frowny way or not. I often consider that sufficient punishment for whatever it is that that punishment is implemented for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Qa Plar

I wonder what other people think about this userpage. It looks friendly, until you click on some of the links... --211.243.240.41 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I blanked the page (hopefully the vandalbot doesn't undo it). There was a BLP-violating reference in an image, examples of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc. It may be reasonable to actually delete it. Avruch^T * ^ER 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• • There is some kind of weird game being played between User:Qa Plar, User:Timmyv, and User:EMPY on their own, and each others’ user pages, including adding insults, offensive/derogatory language, etc. I assume they all know each other IRL, or are the same person, or something. The only pages they have edited this year are each other’s user pages.
    Please, someone talk me out of the following rash actions, which I am sure are unacceptable, but which I am sorely tempted to make:

1. Delete AND SALT their userpages, to be unsalted when some productive work is done on the encyclopedia.
2. Remind them that this is an encyclopedia, not myspace.
3. Final warnings to all three for insulting and derogatory user pages, and screwing around with other people’s user pages, friends or same person or not.
4. Indef block for anyone upon one more instance of gamesplaying.

--barneca (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would do all except for #1 -- although a strong case could be made to blank the user page. I don't think salting the userpages is appropriate at this time, because they have not yet been warned that it is inappropriate. (Which once again reminds me of that essay I've been meaning to write, WP:I think you got lost looking for MySpace...)

Final warnings to all three is absolutely appropriate though. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

I guess my thinking is that civilized people don't need a warning not to do that kind of thing, much the same way you and I don't need such a warning in real life. If I walked around calling people on the street "asshole", I wouldn't expect, or deserve, a "warning" before someone punched me in the face. We bend over backwards a little too much for vandals and trolls sometimes. ("we" is not directed at you, Jay, just directed at "us" in general.) If I really listened to my inner dictator, I'd just block all three and move on, JzG-style. If Qa Plar hadn't made some legitimate contributions last year (mixed in, even then, with intentionally unproductive edits like the redirect JEWS!), I probably would have blocked him, at least. --barneca (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC) errata: JEWS! was created recently, but unprductive behavior was going on last year too

Oh, I agree fully, as far as my personal opinion of how Wikipedia should be run :) When I said "I don't think salting the userpages is appropriate at this time," I meant "appropriate" only in the sense of what I believe the community consensus is regarding the interpretation of WP:AGF. If I Were King(TM), I'd block these fools, and berate them on the way out the door too! ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All three users warned, all three user pages (regretfully) unsalted, although two have been deleted. I'll break out the salt and banstick when your revolution is complete (All hail King Jaysweet!). --barneca (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New user accusing others of bullying

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

• WPIRFU (talk · contribs)

I've just recieved a message on my talkpage basically accusing people of bullying. This surrounds the possible deletion of WP:LOCE, see the MFD. Also, please see his userpage comment, as well as these two edits. I think this may be an alternative account of someone, whom, I don't really know. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Doctor Wikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), possibly Dereks1x. Thatcher 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Block looks to be in order. D.M.N. (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Blocked as a sock by East718 (talk · contribs) and checkuser confirmed by Jpgordon (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

EvilWendyMan again

Resolved

 – user blocked for 48 hours Toddst1 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The older discussion was already archived, but User:EvilWendyMan has once again begun to re-upload copyrighted pictures which have already been deleted at least twice. User also claimed he was under 13 years old, although that is debatable. User has been warned repeatedly but does not seem to show any signs of adhering to the warnings. Clueban was suggested previously. The359 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user for 48 hrs. Hopefully will pay attention to the warnings and blocking note. Toddst1 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Todd, are you going to go through and delete all of the copyvio images our young friend uploaded today? If not, I will CSD tag them. (I'd delete them myself, but you know... !admin...) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, somebody (LessHeardVanU?) got 'em. Thanks!! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hopefully all of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved incident

talk 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

 – Blechnic's block log has been annotated per consensus. Thanks Blechnic, thanks everybody. Bishonen

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

Pointing out unresolved bits from a subpage I marked resolved in part (ironically) because of this. User:Blechnic pointed out that the issues he raised had not been resolved. I also see, that while I was writing this, Ryulong and Blechnic are 'politely' discussing things on that subpage. Please see Not resolved and Not resolved #2. If others could step in and help out, that would be good. What I really want to see is Blechnic feeling able to edit on topics he (or she) wants to edit on (tropical plant diseases). Maybe Ryulong and MBisanz could make that clear? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've formally apologized to Blechnic on that subpage. Should Blechnic not see that as a resolution, then there is something wrong beyond the scope of this board.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't apologize for what you did. You apologized for "attempting to contact me during my block," when what you did was harangue me to provoke me when I was already extremely upset. --Blechnic (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What you see as haranguing and provocations, I saw as an attempt to contact you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity on this page, as well, these are the three "harangues" and "provokes": [1], [2], [3].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet when Kelly did the same to you, you used your administrative powers to get rid of her. Hmmm, if you do it, it's contacting, but if a newbie editor does it, they're harassing you? In other words, back to that policy supported by you and MiBaz and Gwen Gale: don't tag the regulars, because it's not anybody can edit. Exactly how many times was it you posted after I asked you to stop on my talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot your earlier reversions of my talk page, see, User: MBisanz claims I was blocked for edit warring, apparently edit warring with you, then you came to my user page to continue to edit war by reverting me?[4] Hardly what I'd call "an attempt to contact me," but rather what I called it, "an attempt to provoke me at all costs." --Blechnic (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly (who is not a newbie) repeatedly posted different "this image has X wrong" templates after I went to his talk page and say that I don't need to be contacted concerning the images and then I would go about to fix things as I saw fit. Because of the aspects of the script Kelly used to do so, I protected my talk page such that I could work instead of jumping around to all of the images that Kelly found I uploaded with minor issues with. My talk page was protected for less than half an hour, during which and after which, I went through all of my uploads and fixed them (and during which several images I fixed were tagged after the issue had been fixed). My seven (give or take) edits to your talk page which you continue to construe as harassment and provocation. Your edit warring was at shrew's fiddle, which it was clear you were doing. I've apologized for what I did and what you think I did. If you think that this issue is still unresolved, take it to the arbitration committee and see how they see the case. Because honestly, I've nothing else to say, because nothing will change your mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have enough forums now? Maybe some more administrators can jump in and pummel me, and some basic editors, too, as there was quite a frenzy going after me the first time. --Blechnic (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am trying to help here, but please, there is no-one "going after you". You need to be able to discuss things calmly, no matter how upset you might be. I'm going to go and calm down now, and I suggest you do the same. Please, point out inaccuracies in Wikipedia pages all you like, but please also talk to people and if apologies are offered, please accept them. Even if you are not satisfied with the apology or non-apology or whatever, just accept that your point has been made and please start pointing out what is wrong with our pages on tropical plant diseases. You won't get carte blanche to edit how you like (no-one does), but I can promise you that it is far less likely now that anyone will get in your way, as long as you explain the edits you make. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no apology for what Ryulong did because Ryulong is still saying he didn't harass me, even though he did to me, what Kelly did to him to get her blocked. I would absolutely accept an apology for what he did. And, my point hasn't been made, because the underlying issue is, I was given a single warning by MBisanz to not put tags on articles or I would be blocked, then I was blocked, then I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset, then my user page was protected against my edits, then my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator, then I was told I would be banned from Wikipedia if I continued. So, I was blocked for tagging an article I had an editorial concern about after one warning, then blocked for a week, and now have the permanent threat that if I continue my behavior (tagging articles), I will be banned from Wikipedia. Please, do tell me what the apology does for the issue at hand, the threat of a permanent block that arose from my tagging an article when I was editorially concerned about it, warned once, then blocked? And stop telling people who are upset to calm down, it just means you're not paying attention to what I'm saying and you want to take the focus to a personal level rather than do so. --Blechnic (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And PS I was discussing the edits on the article's talk page when I was blocked, so please don't tell me that discussing the edits is the way to go, because MBisanz is going to give me a single warning and block me for that. So, no, explaining the edits is no good, that just gets you blocked. With a single warning. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's take things step by step here. Some of these allegations are serious and deserve further investigation. Let's get diffs first: (1) "a single warning by MBisanz"; (2) "I was blocked"; (3) "I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset" (for the record, re-instating talk page warnings removed by the user in qusetion is something that should not be done, as removing them is indication that the user has read the warning - if Ryulong was re-instating talk page warnings you removed, he needs to be told in no uncertain terms not to do that); (4) "my user page was protected against my edits" - I think you mean your user talk page - again, this should only be done in extreme circumstances, whoever protected it would need to justify their protection; (5) "my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator" - this sounds concerning, but the other side of the story needs to be heard first - you may be misunderstanding why the block was escalated; (6) "I was told I would be banned from Wikipedia if I continued" - please provide a diff for this - or was it in an e-mail? I agree that the real concern is that you were trying to improve articles and didn't get enough warning or discussion first, but edit warring (we need diffs for that as well) does trigger short blocks regardless of whether you are right or not - that is how things work around here. I apologise for telling you to calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we jumped from thread to thread, my response is here [5]. MBisanz ^talk 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And my response was .... Ignored. But that's okay, I know the ultimate result is: I'll be banned from Wikipedia, just what was intended originally and threatened. Thanks for the post "One-warning then block" administrator MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, here are the diffs, the last two edits I made, the last to the article, and the last to the article's talk page before MBisanz blocked me:

My last edit to the article was at 8:47[6]

My last comment on the talk page,and last edit before the block, the edit that infuriated Mbisanz so much that it called for me being blocked with just a single warning was at 9:09: [7]

Mbisanz blocked me at 9:11 for an edit to a talk page discussing the article 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

--Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I was blocked for discussing the article on the article's talk page after a single warning about putting tags on articles by MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And as the block log shows, after discussing it with Sam Korn, I agreed 48 hours was too long for a first block and he reduced it to a 24 hour block. So that is another admin who agreed it was a good block, if a bit overlong. I'll also note for those following this saga, that during the shortened block, Blechnic was re-blocked for a week by Hersfold for harassment and abuse of email. So now that is at least 3 admins who agree the block was permissible. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, all this was when in relation to Ryulong's harassment of me? And, you're now stating here that it was proper to block me for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring? With a single warning on your part, and after I had stopped? So, the other administrator's agree that a single warning to an editor, who then stops what they are warned about, is sufficient for a block? That's your contention? --Blechnic (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Details

I suggest that the following be looked at more closely:

• Page history of Shrew's fiddle
• Talk:Shrew's fiddle
• Creation date of Blechnic's account (he was indeed a new editor as Sam Korn noted)
• Blechnic's block log entries
• Blechnic's talk page history, specifically the period around the block.
• Hersfold's warning about indefinite blocking (maybe this is what Blechnic was referring to?)

I will notify User:Sam Korn and User:Hersfold. Please, no comments about how this was over a month ago. Please just try and sort out what happened and what could have been done better. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is what you should really look at, my early article contributions: [8]

This is the ridiculous nature of Wikipedia: you don't know how to be an encyclopedia while being a community, because the community you built excludes the outsiders you need to create the encyclopedia that is your stated goal.

I already notified Sam Korn and Hersfold, even though the last time I was discussed on AN/I no one bothered to courtesy notify me. --Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. It takes a while to dig out diffs from a month ago. I can confirm that Ryulong did edit war on your talk page to re-instate what he (and an IP) had written there. See here, here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I didn't edit the page again at all after that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unable to resolve

User:Hersfold's user page says he is on vacation until August. This is unfortunate because his block extension of User:Blechnic seems to stem from this: "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked." Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to confirm what was said in the e-mail and no way to tell if the block extension was justified. What can be done? Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be glad to forward you or anybody the e-mail, along with my follow up e-mail. --Blechnic (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for ignoring that all this stemmed from MBisanz blocking me for edit warring after I stopped edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ignored it! :-) I'll get to that in a minute. As I said, please be patient. You could help out by providing details, as I think people had thought previously that it was Ryulong or MBisanz who had threatened you with an indefinite block, when in fact it was Hersfold. I don't know Hersfold at all, and I'm not at all sure how to handle things when he is not here to respond. Please do send me the e-mails if you want someone else to review them. Please understand, though, that a full resolution will have to wait until Hersfold gets back to give his side of the story. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be resolved, but the initial issue is easy: should I have been blocked after a single warning for edit warring after I had quit "edit warring?" Is this Wikipedia policy? Oh, wait, I don't have to have this one resolved, because, unlike MBisanz I read the policies and guidelines on these blocks, and, MBisanz didn't even bother to read the edits I made that he blocked me for. I'm not holding my breath. As far as I can tell it now amounts to I'll be banned if I stop edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the text of the e-mail that you believe caused you to be blocked available? SQL^{Query me!} 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)While I didn't say so in my comment, I'd intended to ask you too, Carcharoth, have you seen the e-mail in question that caused the week-long block? Additionally. please do not modify my signed comments. SQL^{Query me!} 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about tweaking the indentation of your comment, SQL. I haven't seen the e-mail yet, though I will check my e-mail and see. Blechnic, please use Special:EmailUser/Carcharoth if you want to send me an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also keeping an eye on the article in question. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Please don't aggravate the situation there. An opinion on the blocks or the talk page discussions might be more helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions and see what the main issues are. I also began to flesh the article of dead links and introduced some new sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, send me an e-mail, and I will reply with the e-mail that got me blocked for week AND the real prize, the follow up e-mail I sent after getting blocked for a week. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS That not only got me blocked for a week, but earned me a threat of being permanently banned from Wikipedia by user Hersford. Though, I'm sure Ryulong, MBisanz, and everyone will be duking it out for the honors. --Blechnic (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, you are conflating Hersfold's comments with those made by others. Please don't treat those three editors as if they all agree on this issue. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize I was just yelling at Ryulong earlier today for overreacting to User:Kelly's tagging? MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz just told me that they all do agree with each other. Who am I to argue with an administrator? Especially since I'll be permanently banned if I tag another article or if I ever stop edit warring again. --Blechnic (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of arguing and a few very upset people. I can sympathize with the anger, really, some of it looks justified, but there's one thing I think is missing from this conversation: direction. What are the specific goals of users in this thread? What, being as specific as possible, can be done to move this situation forward? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why I was blocked for edit warring, after I had stopped, after only one warning, and this warning by MBisanz for tagging an article. At this point, MBisanz's best excuse seems to be that he was multi-tasking human beings and a bot, and couldn't have been bothered to get correct my 48 hour first block after a single warning when I had stopped the behavior warned for. I'd like to know why administrators and others came to my talk page to attack and harass me because I had the nerve to disagree with content with established editors--and, established editors is a big thing and very important to this crew, because this is how and why Kelly got blocked, again, for editing against established editor Ryulong. Gwen Gale, who was involved in this Shrew's fiddle mess, was also involved in the Kelly mess, right now, asserting the privilege of established editors. I would like to know why "anybodies" aren't forewarned that as long as they are not established editors no courtesies will be applied to them? I would like to know why 1 warning is sufficient for a nobody and too much for an established editor. I would like MBisanz to read exactly the time-line, acknowledge what he did wrong, and annotate my block log to that effect. I would like Ryulong to stop trying to flame me. I would like everyone to stop telling me to calm down when in no way was I treated according to Wikipedia policy or guidelines.

I would really like to know why bots are more important than human editors on Wikipedia, because, the first incident I had on Wikipedia was being threatened with a block for reverting a bot, after getting warned by the bot's owner,[9] then getting a level two warning[10] for asking the bot's owner what the heck he was doing? To have MBisanz tell me he blocked me because he was busy with a bot is the ultimate insult and ending to this whole nasty after, especiall after my first hostile encounter on Wikipedia being with a bot owner, who reverts people simply because they are new editors (to hell with "anybody can edit"), who doesn't give a shit what he does to humans editing Wikipedia. The first time I got "warned" on Wikipedia was when I started copy and context editing a poorly written article to make it a good little start of an article, all because somebody programmed a bot to attack new accounts, and now, it seems, that MBisanz is in the same school: bots deserve attention, human editors can be victimized by careless actions, though. '

I'd like to know what the policy is: are editors commonly blocked for 48 hours for doing something they've stopped after one warning? I'd like MBisanz to know the policy, too. I'd like Ryulong to not use his administrative powers to stop someone from doing something he did to another person.

I'd like an honest, straightforward answer to all of these issues. I got told I'd be foolish to edit Wikipedia's plant pathogen articles because I would get hounded by the established editors because I'd show too much expertise and Wikipedia didn't want experts but community members. I'd like to show people who told me this that they were wrong, there is a place for expertise on Wikipedia to counter the really shitty articles about plant pathogens you have. That's what I'd really like. But I don't see this happening as long as I'm going to be blocked for tagging bad articles, tagging bad sources (and, no Gwen Gale's "if it says it in a couple of so-so places, it must be okay" referencing isn't going to cut it), and for discussing articles on their talk pages, and as long as administrators like Ryolong are allowed to, and supported in, harassing editors simply because they're not established editors--and as long as he disagrees with them, a gang bang on the non-established editor will occur.

I'd like official notification on my block log that I will be allowed to edit without being punitively blocked for having a content dispute with an established editor. Because your established plant pathogen editors don't write well and don't know their stuff: your articles are only suitable for red-inked laugh lines on bulletin boards.

Ultimately I'd like to edit the articles without having to protect myself from this hit squad--you should afford the same courtesy to others who come to edit subject, and who try to work within Wikipedia's policies (stopping the edit war when told to, and it wasn't really an edit war, just a couple of reverts, and discussing the article on the talk page). Because what now stands is: get warned, stop doing something, and get blocked for it, then get harassed by the editor whose content you disputed since he's an administrator and is allowed to harass other editors, but will be protected when others do the same to him.--Blechnic (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attepted to apologize to you. But each time you take offense to what I say. You can go about and edit articles as you have been for the past month. No one is going to ban you. I'm never going to even see you again, unless someone else mentions me and you come to make some sort of statement that lead to this extended thread, again. MBisanz may never contact you again. Hersfold may never contact you again. I would have thought that the month without incident would have shown that. I'm fine if you just go and write something about a mosaic virus attacking raflesia, or whatever it is you usually write about (I have no botanical teaching, so I don't know anything about what you really study). There is no hit squad after you. The blocks on you and Bidgee were both questionable. My protection of my talk page was wrong, and that is why I let Kylu remove it. Again, your block came about because of disruptive (although good faith) activities at an article that hadn't been edited since your block because the issues with it had been resolved. There are currently four new references, including those that support other references' statements.

For the tl;dr version; you're not going to be banned, no one is immune to rules, established editors don't get preferential treatment, administrators don't get preferential treatment, policies are not perfect, sourcing is not perfect. Is there something I did not cover?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that just about covers it on your part. I suggest Gwen Gale ought to be told the last part so she stops telling editors not to template the regulars, and the essay on not templating the regulars ought to be AfDed, and I don't buy it for one minute. However, I accept your apology. --Blechnic (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars says "When dealing with established users, it is generally more effective to write them a short personal message than to apply a standardized template." That doesn't mean "Don't give them any message that would have required a template."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Which is an essay and not a policy nor a guildline. Bidgee (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS And, please do look at what I came here to do.[11] It's hard to believe that my edit history said to MBisanz: block this bitch and block her hard and fast to get back to those very important bots. I'm betting if I read the administrator guidelines for blocks nothing justifying MBisanz's blocking me after I'd stop and blocking me for 48 hours would be found. --Blechnic (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Final note: and then, I'd like to just edit plant pathogen articles without hearing from or about any of you ever again. But, as long as I have the nasty assortment of blocks attached to my account that's not going to happen, so ultimately I won't be satisfied, because my interest is tropical agricultural pests, not being gang banged. So, just an explanation of what the policies are that should have been followed and an annotation on the first block. Then leave me alone. --Blechnic (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then do it. A block log is not a scarlet letter. Only one person is preventing you from writing about tropical plant pathogens and that is yourself (currently). I'm sure Wikipedia's coverage of such a topic would benefit from your research and studies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever quit while you're ahead? Let's pretend you didn't post this. I still have a threat of being permenently banned for tagging articles hanging over me. --Blechnic (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You do not have any threat of being banned for any reason whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do have a threat of being permanently banned from Wikipedia hanging over me. A final warning to that effect:[12] "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning. Are you saying this is officially retracted? It's a lie? It's invalid? It's not policy? It was merely a threat? What? --Blechnic (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That refers to this whole section. The assumptions of bad faith, accusations of harassment where others do not see it, and the continued requests for others to look into them. If that behavior continues, then maybe you would be blocked. However, that statement does not concern placing {{fact}} or {{disputed}} or other content templates that would improve articles, unless the behavior is seen as disrupting the project. I cannot speak for Hersfold, but I believe that is what was meant. That is also what Abd refers to in his message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it refers to the whole section of me trying to get you to stop harassing me? So, in other words, if someone harasses you, you can use your administrative tools to stop it, but if you harass me, and I ask you to stop, or take any other action, I will get banned from Wikipedia for doing so, because when I asked you to stop what got you mad at Kelly, I was assuming bad faith, but when Kelly did it to you, she was committing an actionable offense? In other words, I could be banned because I failed to bow down under your harassment? --Blechnic (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And the only reason I had ANY interaction with Hersford to begin with is for tagging a badly written article. --Blechnic (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You would be blocked due to the language you used, as explained below by Carcharoth. As Abd says, it is the tone you use and assumptions you make of others' statements that led to all of the blocks you have in your block log. Yes, my protection of my talk page was wrong (I stated that, and it is covered in the subpage). Being vitriolic and acerbic does not help anyone, and that would be the only source of a block based on editing outside of the article space. You are not going to be banned for tagging articles. You are not going to be blocked for tagging articles. All that's gonna happen is that someone will see the tags and fix the article. That is what has happened with shrew's fiddle, after everyhing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not the one threatening the ban, so you can't say. --Blechnic (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hersfold isn't here to clarify, so I'm just trying to determine what he meant. And, as Hoary says, blocked ≠ banned and indefinitely ≠ permanently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic seems multiply confused. "Indefinitely" isn't the same as "permanently", "blocked" isn't the same as "banned", and neither Ryulong nor anybody else (other than Hersfold) need take responsibility for what Hersfold wrote. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no confusion whatsoever about who is responsible for Hersfold's threat to block me infefinitely, and, no, I only speak English, and I'm not familiar enough with policies to be able to hit anyone over the head with them, so I have to go with what was said to me, and what that means in English. So, this means, what, "indefinitely" means? Are you going to block me for this now? For getting something wrong? It also appears I stopped the behavior Hersfold threatened me with indefinite blocking for, so, right up MBisanz's policy guidelines, I should be "indefinitely blocked." Don't worry, I'll go look them up so I better understand what I was hit over the head with. I'm betting single-admin "indefinite blocking" is just a way to get around the need for community input in a ban, though. --Blechnic (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Indefinite" means "no defined length." "Permanent" is a defined length. However, it can't be coded to "permanently" block someone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Going by the e-mails you (Blechnic) forwarded to me, I suspect Hersfold was talking about what you said in the e-mail. ie. If you carried on with that, he would indefinitely block you. In fact, he didn't block you indefinitely when you sent him the second e-mail, where you are, shall we say, a lot angrier. But regardless of that, I think it is safe to say that Hersfold too would not block you (indefinitely or otherwise) for tagging articles or disputing their accuracy. It is more the language and personal attacks. Tone the language down and drop the personal attacks (even if you think others are a hundred times worse), and you will be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So, this was, what, a lie? Administrators lie and threaten users? That's the policy? Tone what down? My response to being punitively blocked for a content dispute? My response to being blocked after I stopped edit warring as I was warned to? Tone what down, continuing to respond to the escalating attacks against me by Ryulong, MBisanz, and Hersfold ater I got blocked after I stopped edit warring? Maybe if I had continued edit warring, yes, maybe that was the correct action.

So, what, this was an empty threat? And that's standard for administrators on Wikipedia, empty threats to upset users who are being harassed after being wrongly blocked?

If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning.

Exactly how can a user get blocked for following a warning, then get told that another warning is just a lie? --Blechnic (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And, please, stop forgetting that I got blocked after I stopped edit warring, so exactly how am I supposed to take this? Now, I'm actually supposed to obey the warning? But when I obeyed the warning the first time, it got me blocked~ 0000:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"If you keep this up..." This being the tone in the e-mail and in your messages to me saying that I was harassing you, as well as the constant assumptions of bad faith, "...you will be indefinitely blocked." Indefinite blocks are not bans and both can be overturned. "This is your final warning." in regards to your tone and your assumptions of bad faith. This as well as your comments on the talk page likely resulted in your first block. Hersfold's block resulted from your comments on your talk page during the block (in which you accused me of harassing you) and in your e-mail to Hersfold. I haven't seen the e-mail. All I know is that your tone in every situation I've seen is that your tone really turns me away. They come off as being (as I've stated before) unnecessarily vitriolic and acerbic, and that you take many things way too personally. If this is fixed, then I don't see you being blocked, banned, driven away with your tail between your legs, etc. any time soon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MBisanz says he was too concerned with dealing with bots to really be clear why he blocked me, but if that's what you think got me blocked, putting a credibility tag on a blog, when Wikipedia guidelines for sources says blogs generally shouldn't be used, it seems I was improperly blocked for a content dispute. --Blechnic (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been one month. He can't remember the exact details and he's only going off of his contributions at the time. And "generally shouldn't be used" means that people look it over and determine whether or not it should be used. That occurred, as Gwen Gale, Bidgee, and myself saw the "blog" posting as a useful reference in regards to the subject matter. Sure, more people looking at it would be good. There has to be a noticeboard to cover that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant policy: "Anyone can create a website or ... then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. .... Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

He was a computer scientist writing about his trip with his wife and kids to a museum of torture--it's not his field (there's a Microsoft joke in here somewhere). I was blocked and threatened with a block for following Wikipedia guidelines on verifiable sources--Blechnic (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And I quoted this in the content dispute: "Here's more, just in case you want to debate the site because he is a professor:"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." from the policy. --Blechnic (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, would it really be worth it to lie about what one saw in a museum?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not why you don't use just any source, you don't use the source because the blog is not a place where you've researched and verified, or even where you attempt accurate scholarship. There are so many reasons for using verifiable, and reliable resources that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about this. The place to argue against those in not an aside to another discussion, but on those policy pages. You, Gwen Gale, and Bidgee didn't opt for this. What you opted for was getting me blocked so that I couldn't quote policy or argue against non-reliable sources, especially Gwen Gale and her creationists-delight: 1 plus 3 sorta sources = 1 reliable source. I suggest you promote the idea that it would not be valuable to lie in a blog about what one saw in a museum as a reason for including blogs, even blogs by professors on edu sites, as verifiable sources and just see how far it gets you. --Blechnic (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Some blocking guidelines I'm finding

"Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." So, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, MBisanz was not supposed to block me one I had adjuted my behaviour. This is policy, and Hoary wants me to know policy, so I'll be looking at it. And, I'm guessing that what policy is, is that MBisanz's behavior was way out of line. --Blechnic (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion.

If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe"

So,Hoary, here it is, if no one will lift the block, it's effectively a ban. Exactly what Hersfold was gearing for. And, since my unblock request was 100% ignored, I know damn well what was going down. --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Okey, so I get to do a timeline for the second time in a day.

• 6:43 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews as a Copyvio [13]
• 7:15 UTC He tags parts as unreliable [14]
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews for speedy deletion [15]
• 7:32 UTC Ryulong reverts speedy tag [16]
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic reverts Ryulong's removal [17]
• 7:33 UTC Ryulong removes tag [18] citing "I am an administrator. I do not think that this qualifies for the speedy deletion criteria, particularly because you think it is spam just because the references have stores."
• 7:37 UTC I warn [19] Blechnic that if he inserts unwarranted tags into the Shrews article, he will be blocked.
• 8:11 UTC Blechnic inserts another {{fact}} tag in the article [20]
• 8:12 UTC He inserts more fact tags [21]
• 8:34 UTC He inserts another fact tag [22]
• 8:35 UTC Bidgee reverts the insertion of the fact tag with the summary "Stop 'ing" [23]
• 8:37 UTC Blechnic inserts a verifiability tag [24]
• 8:39 UTC Blechnic inserts a credibility tag [25]
• 8:45 UTC Bidgee reverts the credibility tag [26] with the summary "I see nothing wrong with the source"
• 8:47 UTC Blechnic reverts Bidgee's removal [27] with the comment "Please don't revert without discussion on the talk page."
• 8:50 UTC Bidgee reverts Blechnic saying [28] "Sto edit warrning. You have been already warned for the 3RR"
• 9:11 UTC I block Blechnic [29]
• 9:33 UTC Realizing they were both edit warring, I block Bidgee [30]
• 9:48 UTC Sam Korn declines Blechnic's unblock request [31] with the reason "You were warned very explicitly that a continuation of your behaviour would result in a block. You continued your behaviour. The block was warranted and reasonable."

Now considering that there clearly was edit warring going on, and that I had warned him nearly an hour early to stop edit warring, I'm really not seeing the issue with a block on both Bidgee and Blechnic's sides for edit warring. MBisanz ^talk 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz claims I broke the 3RR. I've counted 3 reverts and how I understand it is if you go over 3 revert which I didn't, Quote from the 3RR template, (Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.)! MBisanz owes me an apology over the handling of this. Revert #1, Revert #2 and Revert #3 and the reason for the revert was talked about on Talk:Shrew's fiddle and also another talk page (could have been AN/I but unsure) which I would have to search for but what did Gwen Gale do? the very thing I removed with the revert. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit is to stop edit warring. Administrators can still block for edit warring, though in practice this is probably applied to people trying to game the system by doing three reverts over the course of many dyas or doing the fourth revert minutes after 24 hours after the first one). hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not an entitlement (and I never said it was), just stating I followed the guidelines. All this happened in one day and I didn't revert 4 times only 3. Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ain't that pretty. You ignored the fact that the last edit I made before you blocked me was me discussing the article on the talk page. That IS what you blocked me for. Really nice sumnation with omission. Is this how it is, first you bash the editors with policy, then you bash them with misrepresentation? --Blechnic (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened in those 21 minutes, by the way, between Bidgee telling me to stop edit warring and your blocking me? Nothing on my part? Then I had stopped for 21 minutes by your time line, so you blocked me for nothing. Or are you omitting something? --Blechnic (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about this lovely "discussion" Talk:Shrew's_fiddle#Professor.27s_personal_blog of you accusing others of personal attacks and lack of respect. And it was a month ago, but if I have to dig down deep in that old memory of mine, I was probably double checking that you had actually done stuff after my warning that warranted a block. Also, at 7:43 [32] I contributed to a discussion on a bot issue, so I probably spent a good portion of time after that reviewing the bot's edits, policy, etc, then at 8:50 I tagged a page for deletion [33] , spent some time fixing that tag [34] and then got around to checking back in on what had happened at the Shrew's article since my last warning. MBisanz ^talk 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, your excuse is you were too busy to do the block properly, so heads rolled and it didn't really matter what you did? I love that, you block me for edit warring after I stop edit warring simply because you were multi-tasking poorly? You didn't give a shit, in other words? --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS that is sure what it sounds like you are saying. --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I see a way to resolve the MBisanz-Blechnic part of this. I think MBisanz's warning was unnecessarily broad: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing." I realise that MBisanz probably meant this only to apply to the Shrew's fiddler article (it was, after all, in a section about edit warring on that article). A more precise warning would have been: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template to the Shrew's fiddle article, you will be blocked from editing.". More pedantically, the "attempt" bit of the warning is meaningless, unless MBisanz is psychic and can block at the moment of attempting to save an edit... :-) More relevantly, Blechnic is right that "unwarrented content template" is a subjective judgment and should be disucssed on the talk page. I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead. Might I suggest that MBisanz make crystal clear to Blechnic that the warnings only applied to the Shrew's fiddle article, and that Blechnic is free to raise objections on other articles . A large part of the problem here is that Blechnic feels unable to tag other articles, and that is bad. MBisanz, please tell Blechnic that you were warning for the behaviour, not the content, and only on this article, not on other articles, or some equivalent of that. That is more important than justifying your block. Also, please remember that Blechnic sees all three bits (Ryulong, you and Hersfold) as part of the same incident. In that sense, your timeline, which only looks at your part in this, doesn't tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey, since I wasn't clear enough at the subpage earlier today, my warning was for the behavior of edit warring over templates at the Shrew's article. Blechnic is free to tag any articles or edit any page in any manner he sees fit. Although I do find this clarity a bit repetitious after my comment earlier today; "This block was a month ago, Blechnic was edit warring, I blocked for a period of time, end of story. I can't find myself threatening a ban, and certainly there is no topic ban in place from my POV."[35]. Of course, as always, User:MBisanz/Recall is available if this is not enough. MBisanz ^talk 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the problem, "I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead," is exactly what I did: I stopped tagging the article and was discussing the issue on the talk page. It seemed, at the time, like the right thing to do. But, apparently it was the wrong thing to do. -Blechnic (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can people please stop advising that this wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been a complete idiot and instead did what I did? IS there some communication problem here that the evidence shows I was discussing the issue on the talk page, and I have to be told as if I'm an idiot, which is what it's beginning to feel like, that I should have been discussing the issue on the talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to post that nasty comment about recall to remind me that I am not, according to MBisanz, a worthy editor: "Editor in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." --Blechnic (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that MBisanz has no intention of doing anything but firmly establishing that he is an established editor and I'm not. There's no point in discussing this issue with MBisanz any longer. --Blechnic (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper method of resolving this is moving on, as what's done is done and cannot be undone. Your block cannot be changed.

It has been stated multiple times on this page that MBisanz's statement solely referred to actions performed at Shrew's fiddle, for which you were blocked temporarily. Events after this block lead to subsequent reblocks and extensions of the block.

No one is saying anyone is established, not established, good editor, bad editor, etc.

Any actions performed by Hersfold cannot be discussed as Hersfold is not currently active daily.

Any actions I have performed I have attempted to apologize for, but if it's not clear enough, I'm sorry for exacerbating any problems that have been construed as harassment, provocation, and haranguing.

Instead of wasting more time and energy on what will likely turn into another subpage, can this be resolved or are we out for blood now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice accusation, if I don't accept what was done to me, I'm out for blood? Can you apologize without a personal attack? If not, don't bother.

And, actually, the issue of established editor keeps arising. That's why Gwen Gale thought that Kelly shouldn't be tagging you, and she posted that here and elsewhere: you're an established editor. You threw that in my face also, during the content dispute: you're an administrator, so you know more. As long as people keep acting in such a tacky and useless manner towards me, I'm not satisfied. I was blocked for a content dispute after a single warning, blocked for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring. Now MBisanz's friends are on his talk page threatening me.

How much longer do you intent to antagonize me? --21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears your didn't read that far down on my user page, the only criteria for being a filer of a recall request is "Auto-confirmed user not under editing restrictions." the other points of edits and blocks apply to people who agree with the filer. And before we go calling User:Abd a friend of mine, about 4 months ago I supported a ban on a friend of his and just last week turned down a request of his via email, so I doubt he counts me a friend (although I have no hard feelings towards him). MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So your enemies are threatening me on your talk page? Thanks for leaving the threat up to make sure I got it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is an "unwarranted content template"

":The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing. MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

Especially since all of the sources I questioned were updated, except for where another administrator decided that if it says it on a couple of so-so source that equals one good source? Please, someone tell me, why I should have been blocked when I was genuinely concerned about technical issues with this article? Why I should have been blocked with one warning. Why I should have been blocked AFTER I stopped edit warring? Please, do go ahead and look at my time-line, too, that includes information that MBisanz omitted conveniently. --Blechnic (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, instead of threatening editors with blocks for content disputes, when the editor is concerned about the quality of the article, why not let them discuss the issue? Why, exactly, did I have to be blocked because of my concern for this plagiarized, poorly sourced article? What was so precious about its content that it required my being warned only once, then blocked after I stopped edit warring? Edit warring, by the way, that only earned me one warning. --Blechnic (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And I take it this means that no one knows what was unwarranted by my templates, so unwarranted that it obviously deserved a single warning then my being blocked? Note also MBisanz keeps getting it confused: I was warned for tags, but blocked for edit warring? Which is it? --Blechnic (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a tip - you're kind of making yourself look bad / unreasonable here by railing incessantly against your treatment over a month ago. I agree with you that this was handled badly, but I think all involved have gone much further than we normally see here in trying to reach a resolution on it (denials and false accusations, sadly, are usually more the norm here - I'm surprised at the good faith I've seen in this thread). It's been admitted by the people involved that various people involved did not act ideally. It's been stated multiple times that there will be no follow-on from this, that you are not topic banned or likely to be banned or anything else. I suggest dropping it at this point, moving on with just editing and improving the encyclopaedia, and if something else happens then we can deal with it here. At this point I'm not seeing anything more that can be done. Orderinchaos 09:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But Ryulong doesn't look bad now that he's decided to taunt me and harangue me after I accepted his apology (my bad, seems I should have seen that one coming, but I didn't), and stalk me.[36]

--Blechnic (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that his stalking you. He could have came across the image in the Featured picture delist nominations category. You may wish to see WP:Wikistalking. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course not, just like he wasn't harassing me when I was blocked. His interests do run to Golgi bodies and biology, though, as I can see from his contributions list, and he often edits in FP delisted--oh, my bad, not to both. But thanks for stepping in and bludgeoning me over the head with policy that I'm supposed to read and know, but Ryulong can ignore. Guaranteed, no one will be asking him to back off. --Blechnic (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just posted it incase you didn't know about the policy. Bidgee (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I believe that. I'll ignore your first comment. --Blechnic (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone looks bad (and like I said, I agree that this was handled badly). By continuing this fight for justice, however, you really can't achieve anything further and risk only making yourself look bad by beating a dead horse. Orderinchaos 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold's response (sorry, another subsection)

Hello, wonderful to know I am missed while on vacation. The block was extended in relation to the email I have included below. As Blechnic has stated he will freely forward it to anyone who asks, I see no problem in posting it; however anyone who feels otherwise is free to remove it.

Attacking other editors (namely Ryulong and the other involved administrators) through email is unacceptable behavior, as I'm sure everyone will agree, so therefore I extended the block and cut off his access to email for the duration. A quick review will show that I was attempting to assume good faith as much as possible (see my comment here). That received the following unhelpful and continually rude replies [37] [38], upon which I protected his talk page for the duration of his present block. I warned Blechnic to stop assuming bad faith in the protection notice [39]. Shortly thereafter, he sent the above email.

Blechnic, I would again offer the advice that you try to calm down and work past this. I've had issues with editors in the past as well, and sometimes the best remedy is to simply agree to disagree and avoid each other as much as possible. You will not be blocked or banned provided you continue to abide by policy; my warning which you have repeatedly copied above referred to your continual assumptions of bad faith and attacks. It's difficult to run a collaborative project when people scream at each other, I'm sure you can understand, and so such behavior is considered disruptive. Nobody is out to get you, and I assure you we admins have much better things to do than stalk people (especially considering we have very little time to devote to stalking in the first place). Taking a look at your talk page now, it looks as though you are more than capable of being a valuable contributor - keep that up, and there won't be any reason to worry about being blocked or banned or whatever.

I do apologize to all for not being very available at present - I am currently on vacation in Nova Scotia and will travel around to Utah by the start of August. During this time I will only be able to connect on occasion, and usually not for an extended period. People wishing to contact me may drop me a line on my talk page, as was done in this case, or send me an email if a matter is particularly urgent. I check emails before coming to my talk page. Of course, because of this, I may not be able to adequately respond to any one with questions about my above statement, so I hope I've explained everything fairly well. Sorry for the delay once more. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather condescending response:"calm down and work past this." I was in a content dispute with Ryulong when I got blocked by MBisanz. Ryolong posted 6 or 7 times on my talk page after I was blocked. I asked him to stop. I felt harassed by him and made it clear that I felt harassec by him. You stepped in and continued posting on his behalf after he stopped. Then you blocked me for being harassed by you and Ryulong. Not even Ryulong seems willing to continue defending his repeated posting on my talk page, while I was blocked for a content dipsute I was in with him. You're coming by to join the fray was guaranteed to have only one reponse: further inflammation of an already irritated user. And to have the nerve to demand that I stop accusing people of harassing me is really too much. I'm suprised how little Wikipedia administrators seem too know about simple techniques not to inflame situations on the web. Just keep telling people to "calm down," assuming they're hysterical, and you're calm.

So, please, don't condescend to tell me to "get over it," because I'm not over being blocked after I stopped edit warring, or for tagging an article that had improper content, and I'm not over being blocked by you for accusing Ryulong, rightly, of harassing and provoking me, which you continued to do on his behalf. That's exactly what he was doing. He even continued it here after I accepted his apology. And that's exactly why you came to my talk page in the first place: to defend Ryulong and continue his behavior.

Maybe administrators ought to get over provoking editors they're settling content disputes with by bullying and blocking.

I was editing just fine before I had the nerve to question a blatant copyright infringement on the main page. Oh, well, and before I pissed off a bot designed to attack irregulars. --Blechnic (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I stand by what I said in the e-mail 100%, Ryulong coming by to follow me to WP:FPD today, and egging me on after I'd accepted his apology, just goes to show the extent of it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A link to an outline on my talk page

With a few important details, thanks to all who urged me to calm down: Hersfold, who finally blocked me for a week, came to my talk page to continue Ryulong's harassment, and blocked me for calling Ryulong's harassment, exactly what it was, harassment and provocation. In other words, I got pissed while being provoked while I was blocked punitively and incorrectly by MBisanz, then I got blocked for getting provoked. Nice play, MBisanz, Ryulong, and Hersfold.

Here's a link to my outline.[40]

--Blechnic (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm really confused about what is going on here. Please just answer this one question, as succinctly as possible: What can the community do for you? We seem to be going in circles here, with no end in sight. —Kurykh 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one's going to apologize, but with it up here it's a nice chance for people not involved to get in a good kick while I'm down. --Blechnic (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, well, Blechnic ... since approximately 16 of the past 24 replies to this thread are from you, I am not sure very many other people are still listening. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are, it seems. But, I respect your right to speak for others. What a surprise though, the pissed off person is the most vocal. It kinda happens like that. Maybe if I'd been treated like a human being from square one I wouldn't be pissed off. --Blechnic (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Yes, this was handled badly, with a big dose of newbie-biting and a non-apology apology. People, did you click on Ryulong's posts to "get Blechnic's attention", that he has posted several times in this thread? I thought them quite hair-raising: "Perhaps it is best that you are not returning to Wikipedia, as your mindset would hinder the project"..."maybe you are not cut out for Wikipedia." Now, at this point, Blechnic does go on and on, making herself look bad (at least, bad in the context of the Wikipedia culture which she's obviously not aware of, and which says May was a century ago and she may under no circumstances refer to something that ancient or be still upset about it). Please remember, everybody, that newbies are touchy and experts are valuable.
If nobody objects, I'm going to post a one-second block to Blechnic's block log (errr...I mean, admin Bishzilla is going to), where I state that the blocks of May 4 were unjust and in violation of WP:BITE. And then, hopefully, we can close this thread, and I hope Blechnic will feel that the purity of her log has been restored, and feel better about the unfortunate episode altogether, and accept that admins are just human, and try their best. Is that all right? Ryulong? MBisanz? Blechnic? I don't want to start an edit war on Blechnic's log, so I'm going to leave this proposal up for 24 hours before I implement it. Please note below if you object. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC).

No objection from me, as always my actions are open for review and modification. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll still feel my block log is a stinking piece of ..... But you know what, I'm betting newbies act on wikipedia just like they're treated.

Anyway, I do accept this as a solution which will leave me feeling the issue is 100% resolved, as long as Ryulong also keeps his word to stay away. --Blechnic (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a fair resolution. We can't set things back to the way we were, as the software won't let us, but I think this is a reasonable alternative. Orderinchaos 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd like to thank Bishonen for proposing this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever ends this is awesome.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'm going to annotate the block log now. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

My comments

Seems that my comment have been ignored, I posted this in the Timeline section. This is what I said and the only reply I got.

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz claims I broke the 3RR. I've counted 3 reverts and how I understand it is if you go over 3 revert which I didn't, Quote from the 3RR template, (Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.)! MBisanz owes me an apology over the handling of this. Revert #1, Revert #2 and Revert #3 and the reason for the revert was talked about on Talk:Shrew's fiddle and also another talk page (could have been AN/I but unsure) which I would have to search for but what did Gwen Gale do? the very thing I removed with the revert. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit is to stop edit warring. Administrators can still block for edit warring, though in practice this is probably applied to people trying to game the system by doing three reverts over the course of many dyas or doing the fourth revert minutes after 24 hours after the first one). hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not an entitlement (and I never said it was), just stating I followed the guidelines. All this happened in one day and I didn't revert 4 times only 3. Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz blocked me for 48 hours (with no warning), I then asked for it (the block) to be removed, Sam Korn then reduces it to 24 hours however I've seen other users have there first time blocks removed. I think it's totally unfair to have different rules for one [user. No doubt this will be ignored (just like the reply I left on MBisanz's talk page). Bidgee (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Typical, like most posts I make here get ignored! Why should Blechnic have there ban log reversed and I don't for the same thing?. As Of now I'm no longer an editor of Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this. I've pointed Bishonen towards this thread. Bidgee, it took a while for the full details to emerge with Blechnic. Please be patient. Carcharoth (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, whether you breached 3RR or not depends on whether this edit is a revert or not. It doesn't look like it to me. On the other hand, MBisanz didn't block you for 3RR vio, but for "disruptive editing"[41]—though, a little strangely, MBisanz did put a "you have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule" template on your page. But the distinction hardly matters, since you were edit warring in any case. (Also, studying your talkpage history, I see you did get a 3RR warning, which you quickly removed and have perhaps forgotten by now. It was posted by Blechnic, not MBisanz, but that doesn't make any difference.) Anyway. It seems to me that 48 hours for what you did was a lot—I agree with Sam Korn (see block log) that they were good faith edits, and—checking out your contributions— that you are altogether a good faith, useful, editor. It's a great pity to see editors like you get so angry and upset—more, I suppose, for being ignored, than for the edit warring business. :-( If it had been me trying to keep order at Shrew's fiddle, I might perhaps have full-protected the article for a while (a short while, bearing in mind that it was on DYK), rather than block these people, who are in no sense "problem users", and who would surely have been persuadable. That said, there's certainly a difference between Blechnic and Bidgee: Blechnic is a newbie, Bidgee has been here since October 2005. Newbies get cut more slack. Anyway. I don't think it's for me to annotate Bidgee's block log. MBisanz might care to consider doing so. Bidgee's log was virgin before this business. Blocks hurt. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

Everthing about the Shrew's fiddle which I was editing was being talked about in 2 places (I think one place was here in the AN/I) and the other was Shrew's fiddle talk page. I'm not being ignored on AN/I since I now have a block log. I was NOT disruptive editing since this was being discussed with other editors including Blechnic. I've been made out the bad guy here with now a dirty block log. It's total unfair to cut slack for once user and not the other. If you're not going to annotate my log (It's not like I've been blocked in the past) then newbies shouldn't have theres done as well. MBisanz will not consider since I've left him a message on his talk page with no response! Also if you look at the 3RR template put on my talk page by Blechnic was right after I gave them the warning since they were not discussing the issue on the talk page which is why I was making the edits which was I feel supported by the other editors. And as I've said the block should have been removed. BANNING good faith editors is wrong and maybe Admin's should have there tools removed if so. Bidgee (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz blocks me [42] for breaking the three-revert rule but has disruptive editing in the block log (What is it? It can't be both), Sam Korn says both edit-warring and broke the three-revert rule [43] What is it? edit warning or three-revert rule. and then I'm classed as a "new user" [44]. I can't see how this case is any different to Blechnic's case! Also the lack of comments shows that I've been ignored by the Admin's. Bidgee (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also going by Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors I wasn't disruptive editing which means I have a false and misleading meaning in my block log! No wonder why Wikipedia gets negative media from the media outlets about this sort of thing! Bidgee (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Following a request from MBisanz, I annotated Bidgee's block log. This was to address the perceived injustice of Blechnic and Bidgee being treated differently. I don't want this to set a precedent though. Annotation of block logs should only be done very rarely. These two are done now, so let's all move on. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Spoon bending and psychic

Resolved

 – It's clear that the restrictions are supported and that using a tool to hide the name of the person making the previous edit does not provide an exemption to the restrictions. Objections to the restriction were the principal point of this thread. Some editors have recommended stricter conditions, such as 0RR, which are still being discussed. Vassyana (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Vassyana has tried to claim that I inappropriately edited psychic and spoon bending here: [45]. Both of these articles are on my watch list and I have edited Psychokinesis in the past with respect to spoon bending and I have edited [46]. My work on Wikipedia is to make sure that people do not violate WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. I am not stalking Martinphi, but this kind of absurd monitoring is unreasonable since I work in a variety of areas. Note also that Vassyana did not comment on the actual edits (as to whether they were justified by out content guidelines) but seems unusually obsessed with who was making the edits. This is unreasonable. I strenuously object and will continue to raise the issue until someone explains to me some justification for not making edits simply based on who has edited an article previously.

Thank you.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is regarding the issue noted above at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Martinphi_and_ScienceApologist. The restriction that ScienceApologist is being warned about is at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Closing. The restriction specifically notes: "Showing up to revert each other is disruptive, regardless of claims about protecting the wiki from each other." This specific situation and my actions taken are noted at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. I welcome the review and feedback of uninvolved administrators. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Vassyana should stop poking both MartinPhi and ScienceApologist with a sharp stick. At this point, I think Vassyana is the problem. QuackGuru 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was the one who first noticed you reverting Martinphi on spoon bending, and I was the one who asked Vassyana to look into it, as I was bogged down with non-Wikipedia stuff to do at the time. (I apologise to Vassyana for any abuse he/she might suffer as a result of wading into this morass.)

ScienceApologist, there are lots of people watching both psychic and spoon bending. This wasn't 'absurd monitoring'; this was me seeing you undoing Martinphi's edits and recognizing both your names from the ongoing back-and-forth here and on other noticeboards. Vassyana wasn't 'unusually obsessed' by who made the edits—there are few administrators left on Wikipedia who wouldn't raise an eybrow at seeing you undo one of Martinphi's edits (or vice versa).

The two of you have made abundantly clear that – for whatever reason – you can't resist poking at each other. Scarcely a day since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi was closed, and already you're undoing Martinphi's contributions. (I quote from that page: "Showing up to revert each other is disruptive, regardless of claims about protecting the wiki from each other. ") Enough is enough. If you 'continue to raise the issue', you will be subject to increasingly strict paroles and editing restrictions, and you may be subject to escalating blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, in my view, this helps no one. D.M.N. (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It helps me keep my blood pressure down. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to the fact that I no longer monitor who is making what particular diff, I have pointed out that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Note about technology this restriction is pretty much fatuous. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: ScienceApologist claims to be now using "an automated Wikipedia browser which no longer lists who the name of the account who made the change".[47] That really seems "off", to be polite. SA also left a note on my talk page erroneously referring to WP:DTTR and noting that further warnings would be ignored as they are "insulting".[48] Some outside input would be seriously appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, "claims" is a word to avoid. It would be nice if you assume some good faith and realize that your attempt to referee has simply not gone very well. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I am concerned that you're using a highly automated tool to revert content edits without discussion, and that you need to make such reverts so quickly that you can't be bothered to look at the article history. Your full edit summary for your revert on spoon bending was "Undid revision 219842664 by Martinphi (talk) deletion of content reverted." You didn't bother to explain why you felt that your judgement about that paragraph ought to supercede that of the previous editor's, and flatly undoing an edit with that sort of summary borders on being an accusation of vandalism.

I am quite curious about which automated tool it is that you are using. If you would share that information with us, I'm sure that there are experienced editors here who could suggest alternatives that don't have the limitations that you describe, or who could help you to configure your tool properly so that edits wouldn't appear to be anonyous. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm happy with my handle on my WikiBrowser technology, thank you very much. The "limitations" are actually a feature I turned on upon realizing how ridiculous this is going to get and I categorically refuse to turn it off as I have no desire to see who is actually making edits: I just want to see what the edits are (see User:ScienceApologist). That way, if Martin reforms right now and makes only fabulous edits from here on out you won't see me reverting a single one of them. I have designed the automated browser explicitly so that the edits are anonymous.

Let's consider the alternative: I monitor who is making poor edits and when I see it is Martin I buzz one of my "friends" (and believe me there are plenty of people willing to shill for me) to make an edit. That, to me, is unethical. I refuse to do it. I will stand by my commitment to anonymous checks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what your definition of a "poor edit" is? Removing unsourced material per WP:V and removing POV material per WP:NPOV is a good edit in my view. D.M.N. (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A poor edit is one which explicitly violates Wikipedia policy. For example, removing prose that properly characterizes the WP:WEIGHT of a subject is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I don't think you really know what you are talking about since you use the weird terminology "POV material". Anything that is not a fact is a POV. The question is, how does Wikipedia present POVs? We have policies and guidelines which explicitly spell out how to do this. If an edit fails to conform to these, it is a bad edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how does MartinPhi's edits violate this? Surely edits would be bad if POV material was being inserted, not the other way around? D.M.N. (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is "POV material" that you and Martin keep referring to? Have you really read WP:NPOV carefully? Do you realize that everything is ultimately POV? It is up to editors to weigh the POVs and determine which ones deserve the most prominent level of coverage. This edit removes material that does just that. The paragraph in question is cited to a high-quality source about the most famous instance of spoon bending known to humanity. The rationale? It makes Uri Geller look bad. We are under the obligation here at this mainstream encyclopedia to point out the fact that Uri Geller's spoon bending is not due to the psychic powers he claims to possess. If Geller's feelings get hurt by pointing out this, that's not a reason to remove material. Puh-leeze. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Science, it's you not AGF'ing. Why didn't you say that before to avoid all this drama? And it's "coincidental" you two edited the same article one after another. It doesn't hurt to stay away from each other. The more you undo; the more it escalates. Stop now before it heats up again. D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've raised this question on the subpage as well, but I'll repeat it here. ScienceApologist, would you object if Martinphi declared his intention to also use a browser tool that anonymized edits, and would we be back here on AN/I again tomorrow if he (purely coincidentally, of course) happened to revert some of your edits?

As far as I can see, since the remedy was announced yesterday, ScienceApologist has edited fewer than a dozen distinct articles. In that time, he managed to hit two different articles on which he reverted Martinphi. Editing 'blind' or not, it's a nasty coincidence, and it seems obvious that relying on chance to keep the two of them separated isn't going to work. Allowing ScienceApologist to use a 'tool' in this way creates a decidedly unbalanced situation, in which he is permitted to revert Martinphi, but not the other way around.

SA, you also didn't get around to responding to the first part of my comments. The edit summary for your revert seemed to be awfully curt, and might even imply that the previous edit was in bad faith or vandalism. It didn't respond to the previous editor's concern that the material you restored to the lede wasn't addressed in the rest of the article, and you didn't choose to make an edit to fix that problem. Is that a good way to treat editors whom you don't know and with whom you don't have an ongoing dispute? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that saying that Martin shouldn't revert my edits but he can revert other edits is ridiculous. I don't think singling a particular user out for specific editorial demands makes any sense. I don't care if Martin uses the tool. But if Martin continues to disrupt articles in violation of his arbcom restrictions he should be blocked and banned. No one, as yet, has the courage to do that. Why? I cannot say.

Further, your claim that the material in the lead was not addressed in the rest of the article. That's in part true. It is true because Martin removed the material from the rest of the article. Talk about disruption! ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it doesn't "hurt". But what was wrong with the edits I made? If someone other than Martin had made them, I bet we wouldn't be here, eh? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So, SA knows that he is restricted from reverting a certain editor's diffs, and then adopts a browser which prevents him knowing who made an edit, and then claims that this means he shouldn't have to abide by the restriction? Have I got that about right? DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Entirely correct. D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Not entirely correct. I'm not saying I shouldn't "have to abide by the restrictions". I'm saying that this makes it impossible for me to abide by the restrictions. That's all. If we live in an authoritarian society, this simple act of civil disobedience will get me banned or blocked for attempting to make a WP:POINT. Only, I'm suggesting that it is the boneheaded restriction itself which is making the point and the technologies we have surrounding Wikipedia make this sort of restriction nonsensical. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And, assuming the description is accurate, a reasonable request. Is the intent to keep SA from removing bad edits, or is the intent to keep him from purposely seeking out MartinPhi's edits and automatically classifying them as "bad"? I don't know why we would want the former restriction, and a tool that blinds him as to the source prevents him from doing the latter.
Kww (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Martins worst edit, the one here persists. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see much wrong with that edit. All he was doing was removing unsourced material, and POV. Per WP:V: Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. D.M.N. (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's "Martin's worst edit", could you please explain what's bad about it? As far as I can see he did the following:

• Corrected the definition of "retrocognition". If it was defined as "alleged" transfer of information, then everybody would agree that it exists, because clearly people do allege it happens. But it is "apparent" transfer of information, and the existence of retrocognition is not generally accepted.
• Removed an obviously silly statement claiming that all people who are said to have this ability can see into the past. When corrected to make sense, this statement would become completely redundant.
• Rephrased the statement about who coined the term, making it more encylopedic.
• Removed two claimed (without source) examples, one of which doesn't seem to have the (defining) temporal component in its definition. I am guessing that the other is rooted in a different community, so that it might not be an appropriate example in the lede.

Did I miss anything? Did I get anything wrong? What's so bad about this edit? Unless you think the word "alleged" must be preserved in a prominent place to make it clear that we disapprove of the topic, I can't think of anything. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone will ban Martin from article he disrupts without going through this stupid drama. Why did Martin change the word "alleged" to "apparent" here. Why did Martin remove statements about scientific acceptance of UFOlogy here? I get that most are unwilling to engage in this fight with the tenacious defenders of woo-woo, but come on, now- you've given Martin carte-blanche to go around disrupting new article after new article, and because no one but SA does anything to stop him, his first mover advantage is hurting the encyclopedia. Wait, I have a solution.... PouponOnToast (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit to Ufology looks fine to me. He removed an entirely unsourced paragraph as it's OR and POV. Nothing wrong with that in my view. D.M.N. (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think another editor has already addressed this point excellently, somewhat ironically in reply to Martinphi making the same objection.[49] Vassyana (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing like an argument "everybody hates it so it must be good". With that attitude, we might as well re-introduce smallpox to the populace. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you bother to read beyond the first sentence, you will see the bulk of the post directly addresses the same concern as raised by PouponOnToast. Vassyana (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet, one of the edits you used as "evidence" against me was itself not a revert, at least not one that would stand up in court. So I ask you, if administrators with the experience and breadth of contribution history like you cannot distinguish between a revert and an edit, how are others going to do be able to? THe fact is that what constitutes a revert is vague because some people consider simply editing the same place that the previous editor edited to be a revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize but I will be unable to respond to anything further until much later in the day. Without getting into great detail, a private communication has taken this to a very personal level and I will not be able to provide responses for a while. Please accept my apologies for any delay I may cause. Vassyana (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding also to the message left on my talk page [50], where Vassyana said I was being disrutive at Spoon bending and elsewhere. I also hope I'm not seen as butting in here. SA did start this thread, but I really think I'm involved, so that doesn't violate the restriction, at least I hope not. If it somehow does, please just warn me. I also want to put it here to get feedback on the particular edits said to be bad, which I did hope were good.

I'm not sure how I was across the line. Spoon bending is one of those POV articles which has really needed fixing. Geller should be mentioned, indeed, but as history, not, well, in the way he was. However, if I need to remove sourced information in the future, even highly insulting stuff about a living person based on a POV source as in this, I'll make sure to say something about it on the talk page. But, I don't think it was disruptive at all to remove that, as I think it comes under BLP where it says:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]

That's what I did. Just because this isn't his bio doesn't mean we treat him with complete disrepsect, does it?

I'm especially confused about this [51], because I did not remove any sourced material, I just moved it a little. The sourced material is

Retrocognition, like all forms of psychic functioning, is said by critics such as Robert Todd Carroll to be, in all probability, illusion or fraud.

And I kept it.

If anyone really wants to discuss particular edits, I'm happy to do so. I had reasons for all of them and feel they were NPOV or else removing unsourced stuff which seemed quite POV or unnecessary. On other edits, for example, the word "apparent" is not a WTA (as are words like "supposed, alleged, and purported"), and completely accurate, since it applies whether the thing is psychic or some magic trick. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

SA responds to MP

Here are the main problems with Martin's statement:

1. There is no such thing as a WP:POV article. There are articles which do not comply with WP:NPOV, but from what I see the edits that I reviewed at spoon bending categorically do not do that.
2. From what I can understand, BLP is being used as a smokescreen. Either Geller has amazing psychoflexive powers or he doesn't. Since the most prominent view is that he doesn't, giving that view the most weight is appropriate according to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.
3. WTA is likewise being used as a smokescreen in similar ways.
4. I'll also note that Martin seems to be in constant violation of WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution. Including Carroll's name is a way to make it seem like it is a singular opinion when, in fact, the Skpetic's Dictionary is one of the best general references we have for fringe ideas. What Martin seems to be advocating is similar to someone writing "Acceleration, like all physical quantities, is said by physicists like Richard Feynman to be, in all probability, observable and frame dependent." It's an absurd, clunky wording that is meant to marginalize the point-of-view that Wikipedia policies says is the point-of-view that should not be marginalized.

Since Martinphi is under restriction for disruptive editing, I ask, why is this kind of advocacy tolerated by the administrators?

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Refocus

This thread has really gone off-topic. There are a couple of simple questions that need to be addressed here:

1. Is the restriction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi unreasonable or an undue burden?
2. Is using a tool to hide the previous contributor a valid reason to discount the restriction?

Thoughts from uninvolved editors? Vassyana (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to reply based upon a generalised perspective, and not wholly related to any specifics. For the latter point, using a discounted tool that hides the previous contributor's name upon editing or revising is no excuse. It may be valid once or twice within reason, but to use the tool to edit war specifically with one individual is ... edit warring. Editors are held responsible for their own actions. Much like, if I randomly went through and CSD'ed a lot of pages using Twinkle after hitting the wrong button many times over, then I should be held responsible -- not Twinkle, for having radio buttons with no confirmation scripts.

Editors need to be more mindful of scripts and processes that may make editing Wikipedia more efficient. They make the task easier, but can lead to giant oversights -- such as the removal of the last editor's name. Do you blame McDonald's for hot coffee when it spills into your crotch after you grab onto it?

As for the former point, I think that a restrictive topic ban targeted towards both individuals may be needed, instead of a restrictive editor ban as currently in place. It's a shame that not a week goes by without having some new drama on AN/ANI/etc. that involves both of these editors. If it can't be enforced, then what good is this thread continuing? seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with seicer's first part. The tool is no excuse for violation of the restrictions. I disagree with the topic ban idea, they both have value to add to the areas they are interested in, when they let go of each other and work on the articles. The problem appears personal and not topic related. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, Rocksanddirt? And what is the last edit of value Martin added to the project? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No ban will work if people ignore or evade it. But I think the firsts supplemental stop might zero RR parole, (regardless of whether manual or automated--this should cut down on some of the interactions). And a request that they not complain about each other here orr elsewhere. Enough other editors are watching. DGG (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Enough other editors are watching." Not to be rude, but this assumes facts not in evidence. PouponOnToast (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly obvious fact to anyone looking at the situation. Off the top of my head and in no particular order, OrangeMarlin, Filll, Shoemaker's Holiday, Quack Guru, and Fylsee are people with views on the same end of the spectrum of ScienceApologist who have been active in the same broad area. This is a very well-populated area of the wiki, with lots of eyes and voices across the spectrum of views. Even the complete removal of a few editors would still leave plenty of voices for both supporting and critical views in the topic area. Vassyana (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I like how you volunteered other people who are constantly under barrage from both paid shills for cults and the crankiest of cranks to do more work, but aren't willing to take any of that burden from them. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was just a random selection of names in the area off the top of my head. It could just as easily be a random selection of people from the other side of the spectrum in response to those making the same complaint from the opposing viewpoint. The point was there's plenty of eyes and voices from across the spectrum in the area. Vassyana (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I like DGG's 0RR suggestion. I don't mind carving out an exception for blatant and obvious vandalism, where 'vandalism' is to be interpreted narrowly. (Casting a dispute over content inclusion as vandalism should be treated harshly.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The key problem with ScienceApologist's use of a tool that anonymizes edits by other editors is this—what do we do if Martinphi does the same thing? I've asked that question a couple of times now, and received no answer. My apologies for the WP:BEANS here, but permitting SA (or Martinphi) to use these tools in this way is an open invitation to continue to edit war, under cover of barely-plausible deniability. I suppose that the issue becomes moot if a 0RR parole is placed, but that still may leave us with the problem of pseudo-anonymous non-revert-based edit warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are really reaching aren't you? Okay, riddle me this. Under your new 0RR proposal would I be blocked for doing this? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten – again – to answer the question posed. Would it be permissible for Martinphi to use a wikibrowsing tool that anonymized edits in order for him to revert edits? And if you find the idea of a 0RR parole unpalatable, feel free to propose an alternative measure or measures which will prevent us from having to deal with you and Martinphi's incessant bickering. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have no ability to read my responses. I'll repeat it here: I have no problem with Martin using a WikiBrowsing tool at all. I think the entire concept of restrictions based on who makes an edit to be boneheaded. I made a suggestion below: topic ban Martinphi and give him a chance to edit articles in areas where he hasn't been sanctioned by arbcom for being disruptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So, the solution to the two of you edit warring is to ban him from editing. Interesting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban him from editing articles relating to the paranormal or pseudoscience. That's all. I welcome his contributions elsewhere. Remember, it is he, not I, who is under editing restrictions for disrupting article-space. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For Vassyana's first question, yes that restriction is reasonable. For his second question, SA using a tool that doesn't let him know if he is violating a restriction is no excuse - he could choose to stop using that tool if he really wanted to edit acceptably. I think a 0RR restriction on SA may well be a good idea. If he continues refusing to accept that his behavior is problematic, we'll just have to draw clearer lines for him, start actually enforcing the threatened sanctions, or show him the exit door permanently. Frankly, I think Wikipedia would be better off in the long run if we did this - we will eventually get more non-disruptive editors seeking NPOV on these topics if SA were removed from them. Yes, this does mean that I think SA is a worse problem than MartinPhi. I've been watching this for months, even blocked SA a couple times for clear violations of his ArbComm restrictions, and all the evidence I've seen has led me to this conclusion. MartinPhi tries to adapt to community norms; SA doesn't - this is a huge difference. GRBerry 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this. I have copy edited on Remote Viewing, for example, and recently commented there, and found that Martin was making strong efforts to work within the boundaries of Wikipedia policies/guidelines,and to maintain a civil collaborative environment.(olive (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

For the record, you are or were employed by individuals related to Transcendental Meditation, correct? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Martin an editor seeking NPOV? Is SA? Is Martin a non-disruptive editor? Is SA? Answers to these questions might help one refocus. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the restriction is supported and the use of a tool does not negate a requirement to abide by it. Editors have been discussing a potential 0RR restriction and the issue of altering "weight words". PouponOnToast is essentially correct about his questions immediately above, though I would differ in saying that intent does not really matter as much as the effective impact of the actions. Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note. ScienceApologist has continued to pursue Martinphi.[52] SA made edits related to his complaint.[53] ScienceApologist is banned from spoon bending and reminded of this restriction. He has been informed of this ban, that escalating topic bans will be used for further violations and warned that blocks will be used, if necessary, to prevent violations on user talk pages and noticeboards.[54] (Recorded at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi.) Vassyana (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea

Since Martinphi has yet to produce as a Wikipedia editor, just topic ban him for a month or so. Then, if he seems to be satisfactorily branching out, remove the restriction on a wait-and-see basis. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why topic ban him and not you? Unless I'm very drastically missing something, his edits that I've seen are perfectly fine. Have you read the other responses, or are you jumping straight to a "conclusion"? D.M.N. (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

His edits are not perfectly fine. They are disruptive. Vassyana says as much. Martinphi is under specific restrictions from arbcomm about being disruptive. He should be banned when he is disruptive. Me? I'm under civility restrictions. If you think I'm being uncivil, please feel free to block me. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea. This bit of disruption of perfectly reasonable edits by martinphi is simply Vassyana and ScienceApologist's disruption not martin's. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Martinphi has yet to produce as a Wikipedia editor" is voicing an individual, personal opinion, negates another's work on Wikipedia, and as such is an incivility.(olive (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

Vassyana's comment must be considered a warning rather than a statement of fact since the wording is specifically "may be considered disruptive rather than is disruptive. Please note Martin's follow up comment and Vassyna's reply.[55]. Information applied here must not be taken out of context.(olive (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

(ec) This is just a clarification, since the matter is being discussed. I noted to Martinphi that removing sourced information without using the talk page may be justifiably considered disruptive. It is the kind of edit that has been noted as disruptive by many editors, both in this specific situation and generally in other areas of conflict. Martin quickly accepted the warning and agreed to edit "in bounds" on this issue. Vassyana (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Rocksanddirt, Vassyana wasn't disruptive, I don't know what you are talking about. I have been editing in the last couple of days more as I normally would if not reverted constantly. It's not true that there are a lot of editors on both sides. Most of the active and experienced editors hold a very negative view of fringe topics (which I often share, but no details here). I do a lot of edits like this and this (and I put something on the talk page about that one) (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The removal of part of the lead was a stupid accident [56] ): ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Comment. Further he-said she-said, grandstanding, soapboxing, wild accusations, and so on by anyone involved will be immediately redacted and may result in blocks for personal attacks and disruption. Please direct comments and discussion to the talk page.[57]

Involved editors that shouldn't be here escalating the situation are myself, Shoemaker's Holiday, DGG, olive, Tom Butler, and to a far lesser extent Coppertwig, Scientizzle, MastCell, Carcharoth, Antelan, Fyslee, Shot info, ImpIn, Jaysweet, Supertheman, and EPadmirateur. Now I'll leave before I get blocked : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How did I get on that list? :-) I don't mind. Just puzzled. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just listed everyone who made a comment on that page. Note that I said "lesser extent" : ) The above reminder was because I saw some of the more active editors in the dispute further escalating the situation here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are being ironic, Neal, but I do not see it as escalating to suggest giving both a 0RR parole. I never suggested doing it for only one. Even on these topics, there's a lot to do besides reverting, and I see this as a milder alternative to a topic ban, which in turn is a milder alternative to a block. The reason I do not distinguish between the two is because the situation will not be resolved until they both of them back off. The need here is to keep the peace. the other editors in this area have enough to do without trying to deal with this particular interpersonal clash any longer. DGG (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons why many uninvolved users (and I count myself in that category) stay a mile from this stuff. If we actually managed to figure out what the hell was going on through all the slanging and accusations, we'd seriously want a higher power to return to us those hours of life we had squandered in the process. Orderinchaos 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on AfD

Resolved

 – The AFD is closed. — CharlotteWebb 16:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at edits by User:Moldopodo to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Romanian_crime_in_Europe, particularly the most recent which is a massive copypaste? It seems to me his intention is to drown out criticism by disruptive editing - he has a long history of this and has been blocked several times. I don't want to report it as vandalism because it's supposed to be a debate, but there are limits. Maybe a stern warning? andy (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that English should always be used in AfD discussions on enwiki... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Or at least translations should be posted inline/alongside. - Francis Tyers · 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that how you justify your copy-paste of comments from other Wikipedias? Well, then what's the big deal, to more than 130 copy-pasted comments in English, I have added only three in foreign languages: one in Italian and two in German --Moldopodo^talk 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the article seems headed for the dustbin. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And, further to Andy's report, may I point out this user's disruption here, here, here, here, here, here and here, just in the last couple of days? This goes beyond a mere content dispute. There are false accusations of incivility, disruptive moves, redirects and move requests, distorting of primary sources, dismissal of reputable secondary sources, a hostile attitude, and above all an effort to conflate Moldova with Moldavia. Given the user's growing block log and damage to numerous articles, it's possible the at wit's end point of the Digwuren case has been reached. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo readded that a couple of times. It includes various insulting phrases toward the Romanians like "todas las rumanas son putas y les gusta la polla". (All the Romanian women are...) bogdan (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• May I have a word here? Can somebody please explain me how you leave comments in my regard (and in regard of other users supporting "'keeping" the article) that are far beyond the decency, civility and simply good faith, how you leave the whole section of discussion of copy pasted comments from other Wikipedia projects? Don't you find there is a strange double standard here? Why then delete my copy paste? What's the criteria which is good and which is bad? The expression of opinions on the article Romanian crime in Europe does not allow for concluding that it is headed to the dustbin. Nope, so far no consensus to delete it is established, taking, moreover, in consideration that some users simply voted couple of times "delete" in a row (the same users), without any concrete applied to the article argumentation, without providing a diff where exactly something is not clear, etc, or even worse - blindly lying that there are no sources, or no data, or no verifiable sources, or saying it's original research, but not showing where exactly in the article and how. As for Romanain users User:Biruitorul and User:Bogdangiusca, I can certainly start counter-argumenting here, providing diffs, if required by the administrators and if they consider the scope of this discussion allows for this and if this is the proper forum. So far I do not do so, as I do not think it is the appropriate forum, nor does it conform the scope of the present discussion.--Moldopodo^talk 00:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Francis pasted a couple valid arguments from Spanish Wikipedia, from the equivalent AfD for the article you created there. You pasted more than 130 comments from random websites which say stuff like "All the Romanian women are whores". Can't you see the difference? bogdan (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, both comments relate to the very important subject of numerous crimes committed by Romanians, mostly illegal immigrants, but not only, in Europe, at a rate that is not comparable to any other nationality, and sometimes even outweighs the local country's nationality. Some of those comments were very interesting, as they raised new developments for the article. Some of the comments clearly defended Romanians as well, why not to mention those? Please, see the article where they arrested 2000 Romanians in a village of only 400 inhabitants in Spain.--Moldopodo^talk 12:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you have anything on "Romanain users User:Biruitorul and User:Bogdangiusca", feel free to bring it on. Meanwhile, Moldopodo continues his disruptiveness. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From the references provided, it is clear that neither User:Bogdangiusca, nor User:Biruitorul have ever contributed to the above mentioned articles Cinema of Moldavia, Moldavian-Belarussian relations. What esle is there to discuss, except that some unknown administrator deleted already existing redirect pages to make a new redirect, without any prior discussion on the talk page of these articles, I was editing in the same time. I recall you, that such move was done by User:Bonaparte (a banned socket-puppeter) and was further undone by the blocking admin. Now users User:Biruitorul and User:Bogdangiusca have always contributed and approved/folllowed edits made by User:Bonaparte, therefore I have serious doubts, whether all these three accounts are not related. I attract your attention, that on ro.wikipedia.org, w:ro:User:Bonaparte is not blocked. Furthermore, after moving teh artciles around, after receiving my comments that I am actually writing the article - no reaction followed from the two Romanian users. And in fact, the have not contributed/added any info to the article, nor discussed anything as proposed on the talk page. For Moldavia which I suggested to move to Principality of Moldavia (which is the case of other languages on Wikipedia), what excatly is disruptive from my side, can you provide the diffs, User:Bogdangiusca and User:Biruitorul? The article Moldavia was merged from Principality of Moldavia and a number of other articles, making it rather original research than an encyclopedia article on a particular subject. For the article on Moldavian language - what exactly is disruptive? When Romanian users User:Bogdangiusca, User:Gutza delete references to the major work of Dimitrie Cantemir Descriptio Moldaviae, where simply the word "Romanain" or "Romania" is not mentioned one single time, and blindly lie - "this goes to Romanian language, or it speaks of Romanian and not Moldavian". Is this considered as disruptive editing?--Moldopodo^talk 12:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That article was a toxic POV tabloid nonsense, containing such charming phrases as "Handicapped forced to mendacity, minors pushed to delinquency, young girls subject to prostitution" and "Also Romanians are mostly the ones who will rob a not so attentive pedestrian on the street". I have closed the AFD and deleted it. Moldopoldo is very, very close to an indefinite block for this persistent racist and nationalist POV pushing. If you read his block log ([58], he keeps getting unblocked by fooling admins into thinking he won't edit war again and this time he means it, then promptly starts edit-warring again. I am going to be watching his contributions closely from now on, and have given him a final warning, and I really mean my final warnings - one more bit of rubbish and he is indefinitely blocked. Neıl 龱 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk page, User:Neil - please take a deep breath, and start being civil. I would appreciate a hint of politeness in your tone. If you have any allegation to make - please provide a diff. I would also attract your attention that edit warring is characteristic feature of editing of Romanian users User:Bogdanciusca, User:Biruitorul and User:Gutza, which is a litteral provocation and lack of good faith, especially when someone is writing the article at the same time. There is always a talk page to discuss important changes or disagreements. Please, prove the contrary if you can (enough to check the editing history of the articles these very same users cited here). Also, I have a very important question: why do Romanian users keep messing up articles on Moldavia, its nation, language, culture, without making any contribution to the article itself? And why there is no Moldavian user editing articles on Romania? (except me with the article Romanian crime in Europe --Moldopodo^talk 12:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Briefly. Nothing I have said has not been civil. There are a number of Moldovan users on en.Wikipedia. The diffs you have asked for are on your talk page. Note I didn't even raise the cross-Wiki spamming you carried out a few weeks ago. Neıl 龱 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, none of the references you provided for your "final warning" justify whatsoever. Please remain civil, as per Digwuren general restriction, there is no nationalistic editing from my side. User:Neil, when I see you calling my editing nationalistic, this reminds me some strange hypocritical reasoning of antoeher administrator. The diffs you provided (good that I have spoke of these problems relating to these diffs above, I wonder which diffs would you have provided hadn't I mentioned disrutpive editing of above mentioned Romanian users) do not explain anything, you simply take a phrase, like "nationalistic editing" - and put a diff next to it. But there is no connection between the qualification you give and my editing. Also, I would like to notice your remarkable capacity to turn things the other way around, with no justification whatsoever. I have spoken you of these problems, and you address these against me now, without any explanation how? How can you reason like this, what is the mysterious logic behind it, please explain? Also, there was no answer given on the simple clear question relating to the copy-paste of comments: Can somebody please explain me how you leave comments in my regard (and in regard of other users supporting "'keeping" the article) that are far beyond the decency, civility and simply good faith, how you leave the whole section of discussion of copy pasted comments from other Wikipedia projects? Don't you find there is a strange double standard here? Why then delete my copy paste? What's the criteria which is good and which is bad? Also, you have not explained how you came to the conclusion that the article was to be deleted, how many votes expressed, justification taken in consideration. Please, answer my questions. Also, I was blocked per Digwuren for using the word "wicked" describing edits of Romanian users. If you want, I can provide you enough diffs with any random Romanian user, say for example user who is also administrator on Wikipedia User:Gutza who went much farther in his descriptions and personal addresses to me. I would also like to warn you to refrain from qualifying my edits as nationalistic, as under Digwuren restriction, this qualifies you to be blocked. Thank you.--Moldopodo^talk 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. You are now in the position of being a Romanian Umpirer. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think it's fair to make a blanket condemnation of Romanians in any case. I'm thinking back to that memorable day late in 1989, when they gave a nice Christmas gift to the Ceauşescus. Clearly they can do some things right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no blanket condemnation of all Romanians. First of all the article spoke of legal and illegal Romanian immigrants who committed different individual and organised crimes in Europe. Secondly I have suggested a list of improvements, and that's really the point of Wikipedia - an article is never perfect enough and the possibility for everybody to edit - is in fact the main reason why the articles are improved. Otehrwise, why not to delete all "badly"written articles in one's view?--Moldopodo^talk 12:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

how to resolve problems?

Resolved

When I have seen complainers get blocked, it's been because they were being disruptive. Oftentimes the complainers are banned editors who have come back, to stir up some old grudge they had. I don't see anything here that requires admin attention tho- if you just want to talk about Wikipedia's various problems in the abstract, this isn't quite the place for it. If there's a specific thing you think went wrong, this might well be the place for it, but you'd need to provide specific details. Friday (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC) PS. There's no way one admin can make guarantees about what another admin will or won't do, so your condition is not something that can be accommodated.

UMMMMM.... That's... odd... Not to play into the exact behavior the new account purports to be complaining about, but someone may want to run a checkuser anyway... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's wikilawyering...I don't like your complaint so instead of addressing it, I seek to have you banned.Pachette (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, then, are you adding "This user is a sockpuppet of..." templates to your user page? The359 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I mention it in the abstract because I don't seek the other person's unblock, just how to solve the problem. I see from the 2 responses that it won't be solved. Jaysweet has even attacked me by hinting to a checkuser that I should be blocked as a banned user. This is terrible. Pachette (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive, socking or edit warring users tend to get blocked when they try to skirt talk page discussions by posting at ANI. This happens so often, admins tend to look at the contribs of the poster straight off. Meanwhile I'm also befuddled as to why you're slapping sockpuppet templates on your own userpage. Without diffs, this all seems WP:Pointy to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet already has issued vague threats so I make it easy for him and put the labels on. No diffs because I am trying to solve a system problem and not come to the aid of the specific person or example that I saw. Pachette (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

>>>WP:Village Pump>>> is that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That userpage is misleading and places it in several suspected sockpuppet categories, which is not good. Enigma ^message 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the sock templates. As far as I know, no user has expressed any suspicions about the users named. Now, if I were forced to hazard a bad-faith guess, I'd go with the next evolution of Dereks1x (since reverse-psychology requests for checkuser seem to be the order of the day there). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it's clearly someone's alternate account. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a sockmaster account with the (part) name of Sterling anywhere? Bit of a longshot, but... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC) - nix that, different spelling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Resolved

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous is being trashed by multiple IPs just now - page blanking & spamming. Some admin help is requested - swift edit protection is indicated. View the history. Some of the IPs are:

• 195.238.0.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 125.141.217.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 81.201.96.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 125.141.217.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 203.172.214.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 211.144.125.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Page is now protected. Slightly worrying to see so many IPs involved ... what's that about? Spoofing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's not THAT many. In the couple I blocked, I invented a new block reason- spamdalism. Pretty sure they're just not-very-clever advertisers. Friday (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This particular spamdaliser uses open proxies (e.g. 81. and 203. are on opposite sides of the world, and the one I checked was indeed a proxy). He's been around before. Revert, block, protect. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected indef for now, but won't be around for long. Unless they move elsewhere, feel free. --Rodhullandemu 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And now they're doing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. - or, at least, 211.144.125.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who would like to be blocked, is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chris Long (American football)

Resolved

 – The incident that caused the report has been resolved. The lingering content dispute can be taken to RfC Jaysweet (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chrisjnelson

Wow. I guess eveyone was right. Maybe if I were a registered user I could have more ability to defend myself. Well, it seems that those who oppose good-faith efforts got their way. Obviously I have no way of proving anything, but I suspect, suspect---mind you, that I am being beat up because I stood up for myself in the chrisjnelson affair. As a nonregistered user I don't have a lot of the gravitas others may have, but as far as what I post in articles I think my work proves I have the bona fides that improve, rather than detract, from NFL articles. Today, it was just out of control. I did defend myself and may have said something that were not 100% nice. I will admit to that. Still, I felt attacked all day and in a final swoop a user, IntheBiz1 came in and just took a meat-ax (in my opinion) to my edits. I dunno, sometimes one can just feel things but I think there is something odd about it. Why would everyone adopt a similar agenda in the days surrounding the banning of a user? I guess now I will be told I am a nut, a paranoid, whatever . . . but to quote comedian Jake Johanson, "When people are out to get you, paranois is just 'good thinking'". Forgive me if this is below the standards of a normal incident, but taken as a whole and in a pattern of things, I think it warrants something. Also, so the first thing that is thrown at me is not, "You should register" I will do that. I don't think it is necessary because my IP address is always the same . . . I will do it if so many think it is needed. I call for some sort of real consensus building on the Chris Long article. I suggest we follow the rules to a "T" so there are no hard feelings. That way, we can all speak our thoughts without the article being savaged over and over. Thank you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I stand by my copy-edit 110%. The article, as it existed before my edit, had an extreme amount of "fat" in it, including extensive information about the subject's early life (high school and pre-high school days, etc) that was irrelevant. I removed it for that reason. The article was also excessively long for a player that has yet to play a single down in the NFL, which is another reason why I made my copy-edit. I do not have any prior interactions with any of the other parties involved, so this IP user's accusations of bullying (see the talk page in question) are completely without merit and I resent them. Respectfully submitted, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you'd be willing to revert to how it was until matters are resolved? That way I'd not feel so attacked and it would be a show of good faith. I, too, stand by my edits, which are mostly gone now. Most of what is left I didn't put in, although at Pats1 insistence I put in references for. I think what is excessively long to you may not be, given certain circumstances. Perhaps, just perhaps, what you thought may be "fat" may be meat. Is that possible? Still, you were quick to revert (as was I) when I noted that there was a discussion going. Earlier today I was fairly criticized for that. It seems you came in after a pretty intense day and just exerted your will. Well, let's say your edits are 100% right. Was that the best way to go, given the circumstances? I can work with you, or anyone who does not attack me or bully me. If there is a way to find a middle ground I say let's do it. However, now that all my work (almost is gone) do to piece-meal edits, I think it is fair for me to think this was not trimming but an axing of good-faith edits. I don't know what the resolution is and if you didn't know anyone, then fine. I accept that. However, it is fair to note that during a tacit cooling down period you kind of (even though unintentionally) put gas on a smoldering fire. Therefore, would you revert the edits as a show of good faith until matters are resolved?72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Absolutely not. My edit of the article was perfectly within policy guidelines. If an administrator sees fit to revert, I'll accept that decision. But to ask me to revert legitimate edits is unacceptable. This player has not yet reached the level of notability in the NFL to warrant an article of this length, even as the article currently stands after my copy-edit. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What if I think my edits are perfectly within policy guidelines? I am just trying to understand why your opinion is of greater value than mine. I have defended those edits for a long time and no one has proven there is anything wrong or against the rules. At best there is a difference of opinion. I can accept that you and I differ in opinion. But I don't get why your view trumps mine. Hence, my wondering about bullying. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this player is a modern-day version of Clint Hartung. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Since the IP is attempting to implicate me in a vast conspiracy/cabal to "get him" because he "stood up for himself", I feel compelled to mention something. I've had exactly three encounters (aside from minor incidental contact) with Chrisjnelson in the past. One was where he threatened me over a dispute on Bobby Petrino. The second was to inform him about an incorrect reversion. The third was to disagree with him about Brett Favre's retirement and how we should handle it. Enigma ^message 00:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

COuld I ask a question? Why did you get involved with InDaBiz1's edits? If it did not concern you, then why do it? You knew that there had been an all day issue, why act to inflame it? What was in it for you? Anything? These are just questions I'd like to know the answer to. 00:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.36.36 (talk)

What was in it for me? What's in it for any of us? His edits improved the article and your reversion (and subsequent vow to continue edit-warring tomorrow) was inappropriate and added content which was not in the best interests of the article. I selfishly hope to get the article to GA status. Enigma ^message 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To sum it up, Chris Nelson does not concern me. Chris Long does. Enigma ^message 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What would you say characterizes the comment by InDaBiz1 that he has a copy of the article as is and if it would be a waste of time for me to edit further?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would ask that you not continue to target him, because he's clearly very frustrated right now. What he said is certainly no worse than your vow to continue edit-warring as soon as the 24 hours are up. Enigma ^message 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I, too am frustrated. Maybe you can stop targeting me?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm done with Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. The absolute crap that this whole situation has turned into, on top of major changes forthcoming in my RL, has driven me away from being an active editor. When an editor can make a very legitimate copy-edit and get crucified for it, it's time to step aside and let things go. After all, it's only the Internet. Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that our newest player to this game has just gone all-in on a 7-2 offsuit. Again, I've been following this for several days now, and I've thought it was ridiculous since then.. but for this whole situation to chase an editor off the site for good.. there comes a point where things have gone on for long enough. Call me crazy (YOU'RE CRAZY!!!) but I think that point has come. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, this thing became the "last straw," if you will. There have been other things that have come up recently that have soured my thoughts on the project, but this - plus the upcoming RL change for me - has really made me put things in perspective. (InDeBiz1) --207.67.94.238 (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You see, we both feel the same way. I feel like I made very, very legitimate edits and they (and me) have been under attack for it. You and I are really in the same boat. If you choose to retire, that is your choice, but I'd encourage you to stay. I am not going to quit. I don't know what has happened in the past, but I get this treatment every once in a while, but if you stick to your principles and stick to the rules, usually the right thing will happen. Nonethess, I am sorry I was the straw that broke the camel's back. I just wanted my edits to be considered as importants as the next guy's.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"If you choose to retire, that is your choice, but I'd encourage you to stay.." not that this is a bad thing, but this seems very similar to somebody saying to a burglar "hey, don't leave my house just yet.. I've still got all this stuff for you to steal! I've got some jewelry.. about $1,000 cash.. here are the keys to my car.. hell, take my wife if you want!" Crazy stuff here.. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You should know that I get paid a large quantity of dollars every month, for my work on this virtual encyclopedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's the same game with a couple new players. Here's a suggestion: how about we just delete the article altogether?

I hope nobody took me literally.. although that seems to be the best solution we've had all day; it would finally get rid of all the content disputes because there would be no content. Assuming that's not a likely path, I think everybody should look at the case this way: y'all are making a big deal about the article of an NFL player who, need I remind you, has NEVER played an NFL game.. he hasn't even begun training camp yet. Is there any need for it right now? There's only so much that could be said about him right now, I've been following this situation for a couple days, and I still find it hard to believe that there's a massive content dispute for the article of an NFL player who hasn't ever been in an NFL training camp. I think everybody should just take a break from the article, leave it as it is now (I'm not saying that as a preference for the current version, because I don't even know what it looks like now) and let cooler heads prevail. This situation is completely ridiculous, and completely unnecessary.. at least wait and make a big fuss about it after he plays an NFL game.

And Baseball Bugs, how much do you get paid for this? Can I talk with your agent? :D Ksy92003 (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

TO whoever: Maybe if it was reverted and then locked until training camp. If you locked it as is, you would be rewarding the behavior. I happen to agree that there is no reason for a big dispute. Sadly, the only way for it to go aay is for me to be disenfranchised from equal treatment. Sure, If you lock it as is, those who have vowed to get their way will be happy and one little ole' IP would get run over. It is that principle I think is not fair or equitable. So, revert it and then lock it. None of those who wish to censor my edits would agree. (Remember this is not about putting something inappropriate IN, it is about taking things out which have been up since April).72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My agent is named Ajax. Between him and me, we clean up. How much do I get? Millions. Oh, and I forget to mention that I get paid in virtual dollars. A virtual dollar is kind of a high-tech version of a Razzbucknik. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we delete Wikipedia to get get rid of all content disputes, then. :D Pats1 ^T/C 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thus converting Wikipedia to a Razzbucknik. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the IP address now appears to be engaged in taunting ChrisJNelson. [59] It's Nelson that was blocked, not the IP address, but I expect there are admins who would be willing to accommodate the IP address as well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, dang. Someone put that tag and some posts in my area so to be fair I posted that same notice with them, Pats1, and chrisjnelson. It seemed like the right thing to do. I think Pats1 and chrisjnelson are a part of this, but since his banning I have said nothing in terms of taunting or gloating or anything. I truly hope he can come back and be civil. I think it will help him, not hurt him. While some think his bahvior was okay and that it should be tolerated I was hurt by it. I have no desire for it to continue. So, while I respect your right to opine as you did, but it is not accurate.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the taunting is towards Chris specifically, as the IP left that same post on a couple other talk pages.. unless the IP is trying to piss off everybody on the World Wide Web, which after today's developments I'm not ready to rule out as a possibility. In the words of Kevin Garnett after Game 6 last night (which I never thought that I'd be quoting a Boston figure; although, as a Lakers fan, I extend my congratulations to Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Doc Rivers for their championship last night): "ANYTHING'S POSSIB- *(sixteen seconds later) -LEEEEEE!!!!!!

That reaffirms my point, that he wasn't blocked but is acting like he wants to be. Go figure. I was happy for Garnett, et al, who have paid their dues. Bryant's time will come again. The Lakers know what they need to work on in the off-season. Unfortunately, I don't think the T-wolves have any superstars left to trade. They'll have to look elsewhere. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My last non-related post: I've had a lot of respect for Garnett and Allen for a long time. I've always thought that they have been some of the most consistent players for their teams and deserved a shot at the finals. I used to have the same respect for Pierce, but his Emmy Award-winning performance in Game 1 took that respect away from me. As a lifelong hockey fan, this reminds me of Ray Bourque who played his whole career in Boston, 1518 games over 20 seasons, but didn't get the chance. In an extremely classy move by the Bruins, they traded him to Colorado so he could have that chance. He won the Stanley Cup in what was ultimately his final game ever. I have the most respect you can have for a guy for those players who have great careers and so much class and sportsmanship but aren't able to accomplish their goal, and that made me pull for guys like Garnett and Allen in these finals. I would've preferred the Lakers won, but I can't say, even as a Laker fan that I'm disappointed that I saw Garnett, Allen, and Rivers celebrate on that court last night. They fought their whole careers for this and truly deserved it, and my hat goes off to them. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, like sometime during Game 1, Pierce was running down the court when he came up with the novel idea that he'd position his foot just right so Perkins landed on his heel on a rebound, and that he'd have his teammates carry him off the court, and then he'd make sure to drag over the ESPN camera to show him in the wheelchair, then he'd set his stopwatch for a few minutes, decide when the time was right (not too soon though, because Doc had to read from his pre-scripted adversity speech), and then come back out to a rousing ovation, and hit two key threes. I'm sure that's exactly what happened. Pats1 ^T/C 02:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It just seemed suspicious that he went down so hard, had to be carried off the court, wheeled on a wheelchair back to the locker room, and for him to come back about three minutes later seemed too remarkable. I don't buy that he was ever hurt, but the fact that they won by 39 points in the final game of the series shows that they didn't need him, anyway. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no motive. He wasn't trying to draw a foul. It very easily could have been a torn knee or achilles, but it was only a sprain. Pats1 ^T/C 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, Chris is asking for another second chance and is asking for his block to be shortened.. and to that, I've got no comment. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisJNelson, I assume, not ChrisHLong. Well, after two days on ice, he's showing a hint of contrition, but still insists on leveling insults. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

TOO MANY CHRIS'!! As for Chrisjnelson, it quite surprises me that after receiving a two-week block, and seemingly alright with it, that he would ask for it to be shortened not two days later. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what he said about "go ahead and block me" and something about a girlfriend, but I took that with a grain of salt. He has too much invested in Wikipedia to actually want to be blocked. Enigma ^message 01:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From experience, I know that there is every opportunity to be useful while dealing with a short-term block. He could work on edits he plans to add to an article, and he could make note of vandalisms on items on his watch list. Then when his two weeks are up, he'll have a long list of tasks to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If everybody who was blocked for two weeks knew they could be unblocked less than two days in because their girlfriend is seeing a movie and they're alone at home with nothing good on television.. sorry, but I don't buy that as a valid reason why he should be unblocked. There's a reason the block was that long, and it doesn't seem fair for the block to be shortened that drastically for such irrational reasons. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He has also not actually filled out an unblock request, so it's hard to tell if he's really serious about being unblocked, or if he's just testing to see if someone will do it without him having to go through the "formal" process. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected

While this discussion is going on Pats1 has deleted large blocks (the last remaining ones) of my edits. Why is it that none of my work is worthy of staying in the article? Why does he get to go in and edit when there is an issue here? Given Pats1 connection with a certain banned user why is this conflict of interest ignored. He calls it a consipracy theory. Okay, fine. Maybe it is. But how is it on the day a user is banned he Pats1 happens to show up a gut an article and cut it to the bone. Why today? Okay, maybe those are unfair questions, but maybe they are not. There is no doubt that Pats1 dislikes me. There is not doubt there is a conenction between he and a banned user. There is no doubt that Pat1 had shown little (if any) interest in editing Chis Long until today. Pats1 one was advised, as was I, to steer clear of one another. Why does he not steer clear of me this day?

Anyway, this fact exists: The article in quesiton contains none of the quotes I put in. None of them are worthy? I simply ask why Past1 one, which at least, the very least an appearance of a conflict of interest able to delete large sections of a good-faith edit. He has not made any case that the edits are in violation of any rule. They meet wiki standards, they are verifiable, they are accurate and they make wiki better. They are bold as well. I understand Pats1 disagrees but why is his opinion the one who makes to final decision?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Why does he get to go in and edit when there is an issue here?" Just because you brought this to AN/I doesn't mean no one is allowed to edit the article. Just as your making good faith edits doesn't mean that no one may remove them. Enigma ^message 05:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Why does he not steer clear of me this day?" Because his ship and yours were destined for the same port. Enigma ^message 05:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, right. okay.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just User:Pats1. Three editors have reverted your addition. Looking at what you propose to put in, I agree with their actions. PR quotes do not belong in an encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

PR quotes? Define that one. Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. Wiki is bold. What Pats1 did was gut something and he has the cover of being an admin. I realize that. However, that does not make him right. Or you. Or me. However, what was done was a travesty. If you disagree, fine. But if 100 editors disagree there should be a real reason as per the rules, not jusyt some one saying "DO NOT BELONG". You see, that is not a real reason. That is an opinion. Now if the quotes were unverifiable, then, okay, THAT is a real reason. WP:IDONTLIKE it is not a reason, Neal. His status as an admind does not, as far as i cantell give him the right to WP:OWN the article and take it back to how it was in February. The travesty is he has taken it over. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not owning the article. Four editors disagree with your edits - WP:CONSENSUS might be worth taking a look at. This is also a content dispute which may belong on WP:RFC, not here. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, can't you see? Pats1 made the changes during a hot dispute. Rather than refer it to dispute resolution Pats1 just did what he wanted. That's the point of why I think I was pushed around. As I said, 100 editors may be the ones who were wrong. As far as consensus, there is a process for that and it was not followed. Those editors, like you now, are simply saying "amjority rules". Wiki is not a democracy. Right? Or is it when you are in the majority? Do we get to pick and chose when we want a democracy and when we want boldness? Wiki is not a dictatorship either and one admin should not be the final say especially when there is an appearance--at the minimum of a conflict of interest.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, Pats1 was not acting in an admin capacity - I think you should drop that argument right now. His edits were those of a regular user. Other editors have told you why they think your edits do not belong on the talk page. It is now up to you to change consensus by engaging in discussion on the talk page and/or asking for wider community participation (WP:RFC). Lastly, I would point you to WP:NOTSTUPID. Just because there isn't a specific rule against your edit, doesn't mean it should stay in. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a beleiver in bold edits, etc. I ask for rules to be followed so that leaders cannot just "lay down the law". Essentially you are saying that WP is a democracy. You are confirming what I have thought. However, why is it you ignore what Pats1 has done and you are focusing on me? Other editors have told me they don't like it. No one has given a real reason. They have said WP:CRYSTAL. I have refuted that handily. They will (and have) pulled out a ton of tricks to get their way but I am saying that does not make them right. In this case, even you must admit, there is something personal going on. Have you looked into that? If not, then I respecfully ask, why not? I have read the rules, Neil. On balance and overall the position of the Admins of wiki should rest in my camp. I realize there is a difference of opinion, but if someone slashes something that is in keeping with the rules then the onus is on them. They have failed to make a case using rules, fairness, logic, and guidlines as to WHY the quotes do not pass muster. I ahve proven using rules, fairness, logic and guideline that the quotes are acceptable, are bold, improves wiki (by making this article different from cookie-cutter NFL articles), interesting and verifiable. Bottom line is they have failed to make a case for their position. So, in the absence of a case they have a mob-rule democracy, which wiki is not. They didn't even take time to build a consensus. They didn't tone it down, they didn't go through the steps. I ahve just now asked that it go through dispute resolution. Neil, this is personal for an editor or maybe more. That is what you should look into.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This will be my last post to this content dispute unless and until you pursue more appropriate channels. What you've posted above is your opinion. I've read the discussion on the talk page and agree with the editors who say a quote-farm should not be present in the article. I don't agree they improve the article and I don't agree it's "personal". Bottom line: Head to WP:RFC and see what other editors think. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I happen to think it is not a quote farm. You are the first one to bring that up. It was the CONTENT of the quotes not the number of them. It was said that that's irrelevant, it's fluff, it's too much detail, and on and on. No one talked about how many there were until now. I am sorry you cannot see that this is personal against me, but we simply differ on that. Bottom line is I like your proposal that can be the first step in resolution. I suspect others will not agree because it is not really the quotes that is the issue, it is that they don't like what the quotes are saying and they will uses power to get theri way, that is how the article began as one thing and ended up gutted at the end of the day.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Question, can I go in and edit what Pats1 has done? Will I be blocked if I do?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends. If you re-add the quotes I would say that you'd be breaking WP:3RR and run the risk of being blocked. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I ask, why are the quotes now off limits? Why does the deletion of them stand. Shouldn't the one who is deleting them bear the burden as to why he is doing it? Remember, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. So, essentially I was steamrolled right? There was no effort for real consensus bulding, right? No straw poll? No dispute resolution, right? I was out maneuvered and therefore I have nothing to show for my efforts. Nothing. Not one quote passes muster. Is that reasonable? Is that fair? If I put them in, I will be blocked . . . great.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a proposal here: [60] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposal. I posted full thoughts where you put it, but if others will sign on I will too. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The other editors' complaints probably are that there's too much hype and fluff for this guy, too much detail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply think they are complaints without merit and that this is personal, not professional. Can I prove it? No. If it were true would it be admitted? No. Ask Pats1 what he thinks of me. Then ask if he is capable of being fair and unbiased under those circumstances. If he were a judge would he have to recuse himself for example? I think probably yes. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why you are so singularly focused on this one article? What's special to you about this one player? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I maintain this is about more than this player. He is not special to me in anyway, other than I am a Rams fan and the Rams drafted him. However, I believe in powerful people keeping a check on their power. I feel bullied and I am not one to take that lying down. I have firm principles. I have answered your question 100% honestly. Will you ask pertinant ones to others invloved in this dispute? I only ask for fairness.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I request dispute resolution for this article. I have grave concerns about the fairness and bias I think has occured. I enjoyed editing this article and there were some disputes a while back. They calmed down until the last few days. Now, none of my good-faith edits have been determined to pass muster. My understanding is that wiki is not a dmocracy, but encourages consensus building. That did not occur here. For some reason and Admin, Pats1 came in an butchered things I care about and worked jhard to contribute. Now, because of being, essentially, outnumbered, I cannot edit again for 24 hours. However, I don't want to do that. I want this to go through the dispute resolution process. Iask for help from Admins to show me where I can do to do that. I ask for help in getting it done. I will attempt to do it, but I want it on the record that I maintain that I was run over and that I am asking for dispute resolution now, in case someone says I didn't request it. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR WP:RFC Enigma ^message 06:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem with all those quotes, aside from being way too much detail and "fluff", is that they add up to a POV-push that this player is somehow the greatest thing since sliced bread. They just don't seem appropriate in an encyclopedia article, especially for a guy who has not even played an NFL game yet. The article should be factual, not a personal promotion for this guy. Maybe in a few years, if he's established himself as an NFL great, it will be a different story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the deal. What "seems" encyclopedia to me is not good enough. The article did not and was not intended to establish anything about sliced bread. The things that were deleted were factual. They were verifiable. They meet wiki standards. However, they were deleted wholesale. Also, the article did not take a position as to the quotes, it stated that those wereviews, opionion, etc. Also, "way too much detail and "fluff"" is a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree. I think there are articles that DO have those characteristics but I don't go in and just GUT them as happend here. I would tweak it, help it along, give my good-faith edits and try to improve it. When there was acrimony in April I was 100% careful to make sure the article itself had a NPOV. I made sure the quotes were verifiable. I made sure they were "qualified". Still, it was NOT good enough for those who have gutted this thing. That is the issue. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For some random guidance, I checked the articles for Joe Montana and Brett Favre, two of the most celebrated NFLers of all time. I counted about 5 quotes in the Montana article and about 7 in the Favre article. So far, Chris Long has done nothing in the NFL except to get drafted. So things need to be kept in perspective. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what is in perspetive? This is not a dictatorship. This is not a democracy. So, who decides? What if, and I say what if, the decision-making edits are done by someone who dislikes you. Are those allowed to stand? Does motive not count for anything? Please answer that if you would.72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you already know this, but WP:CONSENSUS decides. Baseball Bugs has made a strong argument that the quotes in the Chris Long article are excessive. It will tend to convince a lot of other people. If your sole argument is, "Wikipedia is not a dictatorship!", I don't think you are likely to swing consensus over to your side.

Speaking of which, is there anybody who agrees with the IP, who could help him/her back up these arguments?? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So, if there was a resolution process (although not formal) in progress in an effort to build a consensus. Pinkkeith and I were exchanging ideas. He put several tags on the article and I made headings for each on the talk page. During that process a lock was proposed and denied. At that point an editor came in and slashed the article by nearly 60%. It is my contention that it was not a good-faith edit. So, if I tried to build a consensus and as that process (I was standing firm but the process was working) was going along and someone swoops in an just forces his will on the situation I ask, is that right?72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Example

This is one paragraph that was deleted (without explanation) that contained no quotes. So, if the issue was quotes why was this deleted. I respectfully ask those who keep asking me quesitons to consider, just consider, whether what I am saying is true: This is not about quotes, it is about content. Yes, the editors SAY it is the quotes but I think it is not. In my view it is legiimate to put in an article that a player was sought after by two other teams and that that was reported in the news. (It is as least as important as Jason Taylor's Dancing with the stars week-by-week scores, right?)

---

Prior to the draft, according to press reports, at least two teams were interested in securing the services of Chris Long. Before the Miami Dolphins signed University of Michigan tackle Jake Long one of Chris Long's representatives said Dolphins executive Bill Parcells called Long's agent to express interest in drafting Long as No. 1 overall. Long's agent, Marvin Demoff, was receptive, but with the caveat that Miami would negotiate exclusively with Chris Long beginning on Tuesday, April, 22, 2008. Before that deadline arrived, the Dolphins had already signed Jake Long who they had been negotiating with for several days. ESPN’s Chris Mortensen also reported the Dolphins would have targeted Chris Long if negotiations broke down with Jake Long.

---

So, if there is no quote in this paragraph and "quotes are the issue" (which is whay those asking me questions have latched onto) then why the deletion? Why the copy-edits that deleted nearly 60% of the article? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Example 2

---

Additionally, Gary Myers of the New York Post reported that the New York Jets pick Vernon Gholston was not their first choice. Myers wrote that Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum and coach Eric Mangini wanted Long and prior to the drafting of Long, the Jets called St. Louis to attempt to trade up but the price the Rams were asking was so exorbitant, the Jets basically said, "(S)ee you later". The Baltimore Ravens were also interested in trading up to the Rams No. 2 spot to get quarterback Matt Ryan, but like the Jets, found the price too high. Peter King of SI reported that the Ravens offered the Rams multiple picks to move up in the draft and that the Rams were "tempted". However, King also reported that such a trade would likely cause the to "lose out on Long", something the Rams did not want to risk. "It was a really hard decision," said one of the Ram executives. "But it was more about our belief in Chris Long and the fact that we thought he was the perfect pick for us . . . Anybody else but Chris Long, and we'd probably have done it".

---

There is one full quote, but this paragraph was written as to incorporate the quotes in the text. Again, it was deleted in its entirety. No trimming, just a pure deletion. Other than the fact that Pats1 doesn't like it WP:IDONTLIKEIT and others don't like it they think that is a basis to delete it. Not to edit it, fix it. They deleted it. That is not part of dispute resolution or part of the discussion that was going on when he came in a deleted it.72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of excruciating detail there. Is this standard procedure for every NFL draftee? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I repsect your view, but "excruciating" is not what this is. However, you miss the point: All along you've taken the postion that the quotes were excessive. Example 1 here has no quotes. It was deleted anyway. So, is this about CONTENT of QUOTES? That is why I posted that. It is not relevant who agrees and who does not. What occured here was an incident. An incident of people saying there was a problem with too many quotes when the agenda was really to censor content they didn't like. So, whatever is standard procedure is a valid point in another discussion. This is about the thuthfulness of the charge that my good-faith edits had too many quotes.

In a way this reminds me of a scene in the film "Amadeus". Mozart presented a piece to the King (who loved music) and the King commented that it had "too many notes". Mozart objected saying it has just the amount of notes required to make the piece, no more and no less. The King then asked the court composer (Salieri) if it wasn't true that the human ear can only hear so many notes ina given time. Salieri, not wanting to dispute the King, agreed, saying, "On the whole, yes". Mozart replied, "This is absurd". Thus, too many notes or too many quotes is just a straw man to say, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.72.0.36.36 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to stifle Mozart. But I have to ask again, since you didn't answer, what is the need for such minute detail about why thus-and-so did or didn't decide to draft so-and-so for such-and-such reason? Is that normal for an encyclopedic article, especially about a guy who could blow out his knee in training camp and ending up selling shoes for a living without ever playing a down in the NFL? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes it could be. As I posted on the Chris Long talk page (not to say I am better than anyone, I am not) I have been a contributer (a credited one) to two paper encyclopedias, the Official NFL Enclyclopedia and the ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia. So, I am sorry I didn't answer your question but yes. The answer is yes. Certainly there can be differing views but for details to be included is encyclopiedic.72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a content dispute, not an "incident". Please take it up on the talk page, and if you can't come to a consensus there, please file a Request for Comment and/or use other methods of dispute resolution. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree. The only incident was the "blowing up" of the good-faith process that was occuring. That is what was reported. You are right. COntent should be discussed there. The actions of a couple of editors who took the law into their own hands is what should be discussed here, not every jot and tittle of content.72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's partly content, and partly the IP address' complaints about the behavior of other users, especially the currently-blocked ChrisJNelson. Probably RFC would be the way to go on this one, although I would be surprised if anything changes, as the IP address is basically out-voted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there has been no vote. The process of informal dispute resolution was savaged by Pats1's edits. That circumvented the process that was happening at the talk page. There was a (now retired) editor as well who came in with no knowledge of what was going on and also subverted the consensus building that was going on. Pats1 then gutted the remainer of things in an arbitrary way. Now there is a new consensus building process taking place and all are welcome. There is due process, there is comprimise and hopefully there will not be what I call "mob rule" this time. I think cooler heads can prevail this time. But the coming in and dominating the situation is and incident and it is why I posted it here. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You agree though that the incident is resolved (even though the content dispute continues)? I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to keep the noticeboard focused and on task (or at least as focused and on task as it usually is, which is to say not very much :D ) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The incident was reported and noted. I accept that there is no real answer at this point, I mean one editor has retired and Pats1 can contribute to the talkpage if he desires. It was important for me to get this on the record and it is. So, I would agree that this is not the place for the content dispute and unless there is another incident I'd consider this resolved. I will work through the process there and any who desire can participate. I would reserve the right if there is severe editing with seemingly little justification again however, fair enough? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Connected with this... isn't there a rule against blocked users using their talk pages for continual personal attacks, such as Nelson is doing currently? [61] I thought blocked users were only supposed to use their talk page for requesting unblocks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am allowed to comment or not.72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugs is quite right that Chrisjnelson shoudln't be doing that. To the IP: You are "allowed" to comment, I suppose, but I would strongly suggest that you don't. I will start a new report at the bottom and get the talk page protected for the duration of the block, which will prevent him from making further attacks.

Also, I am changing the Resolved tag at the top of this discussion to reflect the fact that there was an incident that has now been resolved. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I just wanted someone to explain what the rule is. I don't have any specific issues with Nelson. We don't generally edit the same pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors blanket reverting based upon nothing more than personal prejudice

Resolved

 – This was taken at Wikiquette alerts; no need to forum shop. seicer | talk | contribs 13:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors OddNature and Orangemarlin have reverted several editors good faith, consensus-backed edits on the American Family Association article for no other reason than personal prejudice against me. Here are the two edits:

• OddNature's with the edit summary of "Reverting to last version prior to 67.135.49.116/Jinxchue got to it."
• Orangemarlin's

These reversions were made with no discussion and no attempt to edit exactly what they had a problem with. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I might point out that this is cross-posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but this article has been brought up many times in the past on the noticeboards: [62] (including by me: Wikipedia:POVN#American_Family_Association), such as here where it was indeed agreed that this article was a hatchet job (to the point of being libelous) completely running afoul of the concepts stated on WP:CRITICISM, however bad AFA might be. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, users insisting on re-posting that stuff about Hurricane Katrina need to actually read the article, as I discussed on the AFA talk page in early June. The claim that the AFA's article called Katrina the wrath of God, or whatever, is totally without merit and unsupported by the content of the article itself. Including that mis-information in the wikipedia AFA article is inexcusable, and gives credence to the theory that the wiki article about the AFA is indeed a hatchet job. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for blocking:User:WhiBot

Resolved

It's unapproved bot. This bot began running since April. Block please. and i will comment his Kowikipedia talk page. Best regards.--Kwj2772 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just an interwiki bot, no need for an block. _→AzaToth 12:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Its not really doing anything destructive, and its somewhat of an unwritten exception to the bot policy that interwikinator bots are generally aloud to continue as long as interwikination is all they do. Since this IS all it appears to do, there is no reason to block. Given the massive numbers of Wikipedias out there, and the even larger numbers of interwikinator bots doing this work, it would be both impractical and largely unneccessary to go through formal approval for each and every one of these bots. If the bot goes rogue and starts deleting articles or something crazy, let us know, but otherwise this bot task is usually given blanket approval. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this is odd?

Resolved

 – My paranoia was soothed. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[63]

Anything that should/can be done? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you elucidate? As far as I can see, it's a screenshot of Wikipedia (which doesn't include the non-GFDL licensed logo). xenocidic (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what I meant was, I took a screenshot of the Recent Changes feed because I could not find out how to do the &offset= thing. Is it unusual for 7 accounts to be created that fast? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, I see what you mean. I dunno, could just be an anomaly. (Have they designed a bot to beat the captcha yet?) May be a good idea to keep an eye on those accounts though. xenocidic (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be just a coincidence, or more likely someone typed in all the captchas in a tabbed browser and then hit all the submits one after the other. _{1 != 2} 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked a couple of them, and they've made no edits. It always seems odd to me when a new user account doesn't make edits. But I don't see particular cause for alarm. These sleeper accounts are never as valuable as vandals seem to think they are. If they "wake up" and start causing trouble, they'll be blocked quick and easy. Friday (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was seven accounts, then it was probably at least partly a coincidence because the account creation limit kicks in when the same IP creates six accounts in a 24 hour period. So if there were seven accounts created and they were created by IPs and not an admin, then it means they weren't all created at the same IP address. Sarah 15:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

71.56.107.151

Resolved

 – Stale vandalism by IP; please re-report if they start again Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This IP has made several disruptive revisions over the past several days, and all have been reverted by editors. Several warnings have already been issued. Please block as appropriate. Jkraybill (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP hasn't vandalized in for about a day. We typically don't hand down blocks to IPs unless they are actively vandalizing, because there's no reason to believe the same person will have that IP address. If they start vandalizing again, give them a final warning and then report to WP:AIV if it continues. Otherwise, we'll assume they got bored and went away. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That said, it looks like a static IP based on the fact that the user is consistent with the content of their vandalism (perhaps a member of the anti-sushi movement?!) over the course of several days. Like I say, we kinda just don't block IP addresses that aren't active, but if they start again at all, a report and block is in order. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple-personal attack page

Resolved

 – Page deleted (to be reopened if creation of attack pages continues --Jaysweet (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Thisisbenantar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) recently created Ben Antar as a personal attack page to himself and others. I've {{welcomevandal}}ed him, but any additional input is greatly appreciated. Thanks. G2.0 USA ^{contributions} 20:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a G1, with slight overtones of G10. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. G2.0 USA ^{contributions} 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Blogsd

Resolved

 – blogsd blocked

Blogsd (talk · contribs)

Found out about this user via a Wikiquette alert. Multiple instances of gross incivility towards another user (see below), and when he was warned about it, he threatened to use sockpuppets if blocked. He hasn't done anything grossly incivil since then, but he made a pair of edits to my talk page that kinda annoy the hell out of me.

• Gross incivility: [64] [65] [66]
• User warned against personal attacks: [67]
• User threatens to use sockpuppets to evade block: [68]
• Disruptive edits to my talk page: [69] [70]

Perhaps a short clueblock is in order? --Jaysweet (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And crap, I lost track of time and need to go meet my wife somewhere, like now. Anyway, whether the user is blocked or not, further comments from him on my talk page are not welcome. Block or not, I leave it to the admins :) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it still count as incivility if it's gibberish? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This was straightforward enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's also very funny, as the guy seems incapable of spelling an English word properly. I've seldom seen the famous four-letter "F-word" spelled with five letters, for example. His rants are too silly to take offense to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

Resolved. Blocked for two weeks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am reporting another incident and rather than engage and defend myself I am reporting this incident. I think nipping things in the bud are the way to go with this user.

[[71]]

ChrisJNelson has diplayed a didain for the rules and no matter what kind of wrist-slap he displays the same type of behavior over and over and over. I am asking that the system work to curb his displays of uncivil behavior.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC) [[72]]

User_talk:72.0.36.36#Chrisjnelson_Arbitration Please read. Durova^Charge! 08:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need three links to the same page in the same report? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

More important for someone with the tools to examine how arrogant and blatant the incivility is. This is somebody with a block log so long it requires scrolling to read and who was very nearly sitebanned at arbitration for edit warring and incivility. Basically the only reason he received a second chance was because of an unusual development during arbitration that turned up a banned editor and a sneaky vandal who were simultaneously trolling him: it wasn't known how he'd behave absent those unusual stresses. Well those unusual factors are gone now and he's taunting regular people, and rather proud of mostly getting away with it. He openly regards 24-48 hour blocks as an acceptable price to pay for dumping on other people. Suggest a this-isn't-Usenet reminder in the form of a longer timeout. Durova^Charge! 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that the user apparently also has valuable facts to contribute, which I assume is the reason wikipedia is still messing with him and hasn't issued a permanent block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, the editor not currently editing and the history/good contributions mentioned above, I have issued a Level4im vandal (there wasn't anything more apt) warning, and comment that repeated violations of WP:CIVIL in the manner of interactions with some editors will result in an indef block, on the editors talkpage. I know, it is yet another final warning but I shall watch the page and request anyone who notes any such future similar behaviour to let me know - and I shall issue the block. As far as I am concerned, this is the very last and final chance for this editor to change some of their undesirable habits on WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a civility warning be more appropriate? I don't see how a vandalism warning makes sense in this context. Chrisjnelson is not a vandal. Enigma ^message 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, I think he deserved everything I said. :-D ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins please note. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, is a return trip to ArbCom an option? Because of the absurd volume of productive edits (30,000+), I think a community ban would be difficult to effect and a de facto no-admin-will-unblock ban is unlikely as well. (Hell, I'd eventually unblock him myself if he asked after a reasonable time). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a middle ground between 48 hours and reopening the arbitration case. If it were my call I'd give him a two week timeout. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I might even go a bit longer. But, in all honesty, LessHeard vanU's vandalism warning and threat to indefblock seemed like a bit much. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I benched him for 1 week in the past, 2 looks reasonable here. That leaves room to increase the duration in the future if needed. I'd rather keep him on board than jettison, but remain categorically opposed to the notion that X many productive edits generate a license to be rude. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because somebody has 30,000 many edits shouldn't mean that the user's incivility is looked in a different light compared to somebody with 500 edits; hell, I'd probably make 50,000 contributions if I knew that I could be incredibly rude and get away with it. The user's past block log should be, though. I'll be honest, I picked an awful day to end my three week-long hiatus. I end up returning on the day of what's beginning to be a monthly occurence, it seems.

I think this comment here should be the last straw. These two were 'separated' for some time until Chris climbed back into the ring with that comment. Not only was that comment unnecessary, in my opinion, but I fail to see how that comment could've in any way helped Chris' "incivility issues".

We've pretty much tried every method we have at Wikipedia to try to resolve this monthly conflicts, but to no avail. I don't think anybody can deny that Chris has been involved in numerous conflicts in the past X months, and personally I can't believe that something hasn't been done to end these conflicts once and for all, whether that's a punishment or not. We've gone through ANI, Arbitration (including Arbitration enforcement), Mediation, and Request for Comment, and while there have been some minor actions taken, nothing has been resolved.

If this is still going on today, which it is based on this, then I see no reason why a lengthy block shouldn't be handed down. There was no contact between 72.0.36.36 and Chris for a fair amount of time, but Chris just came in and made this unnecessary remark, which is what provoked this ANI post. Just looking at it, I don't see anything civil about that sentence, from "irrelevant piece of crap" to "Keep up the good work".

If my math is right, I count a total of 11 blocks (taking into account the times where he has blocked and later unblocked for whatever reason). The longest block he has ever received was one week, which he received a total of three times. Of those three week-long blocks, only once has the block actually lasted that long; he was unblocked early the other two times. If you look at Chris' block log, you can see that it really isn't that pretty to look at. I know that I'm not an admin, but based on Chris' past civility issues, a two-week block seems very reasonable to me. The fact that he's already received three week-long blocks and that hasn't resolved any of the issues signals to me that harsher action is necessary. Ksy92003 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I do thing he's turning the Long article into a piece of shit. He has packed it full of irrelevant bullshit and quotes, tons of stuff that won't matter in a month, a year or ten years. So much of what he's added, while true and sourced, is just fluff. It makes the article way too long in relation to the the career he's had thus far, and that makes it what I consider a piece of shit. So I told him so.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No one's suggesting you shouldn't say what you think. You just need to find a polite way of saying so. If you can't, you are harming Wikipedia's editing atmosphere, which is supposed to be civil and collegial. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue in a nutshell:

• Chrisjnelson: "Your contributions are shit!"
• The community: "Calling someone's contributions 'shit' is unacceptable. Try to have phrase your comments in a more constructive manner."
• Chrisjnelson: "But it is shit! <various constructive comments> See? Total shit! Shit shit shit shit shit!"
• Chrisjnelson: (aside to other editor) "Dude, I just called you a shit and the admins aren't going to do anything about it."

If there was ever a case of someone not getting the point, this is it. Endorse 2-week block, with the understanding that it will be longer next time if this user doesn't shape up. He has explicitly stated that the message the community has communicated so far is that he can behave in an incivil manner with impunity. We don't have to guess at this; he said so. It's time for the community to communicate a different message, don't you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we've got disappointing little Stern-like gems: If you had any idea the action I'm getting this summer, you'd know how little I'd care about a block. I had to do a double-take on that one - and verify that his userpage says he's an adult. Endorse 2-week block. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what the hell. This jackass needs to be taught a lesson. Endorse 2-week block.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This disruption needs to be prevented. Non-admin Endorse SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin endorse. Anytime I think I'm being too much of a smart-aleck, I look at guys like this one and realize how little I've accomplished in that area. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well any time I see someone say "smart-aleck", it makes me glad I'm not the kind of guy that says "smart-aleck."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And I am equally glad that I'm not the kind of guy that says the kind of stuff you say. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jealousy.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an immaturity issue here that makes this editor fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. We expect people to be able to behave like reasonable adults. Anyone unwilling or unable to do so needs to be shown the door. Friday (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. I'm capable of working and collaborating with others. I'm just in an "I don't give a shit" mood right now, so this is all just funny to me.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• ...and this isn't vandalism....? As regards my determination of vandalism, perhaps a quote from WP:Vandalism might be helpful;

  Userspace vandalism | Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks).

  Anyhow, WP:CIVIL warning templates don't come with a Level 4im option - and the beauty of an indefinite block is that it lasts just as long as it needs to and no more; why block for two weeks and risk further incivility in fifteen days, when ten days of looking into a future that does not include editing Wikipedia might be sufficient to change the miscreants attitude. Well, folks, sort it out amongst yourselves, if it had been up to me the pillock would be indef'd by now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[[73]] I just want to say that being told my edits "suck" and I "deserve being talked down to" and that my edits are "crap" are not as bad as a death threat (like is mention above) however, I dunno, maybe chrisjnelson cannot help it. I am just at my wit's end. I like discussions about content, I just don't like being insulted. I have the reaction to want to defend myself, but if I do I an counter-productive . . . I long for the good ole' days where people could disagree without being ugly. I will say that chris has not used out-and-out profanity, but being called someone who is not "an intelligent human being" is also a problem I think.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am now blocking Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) for two weeks. He is continuing unabated in his latest campaign of personal attacks[74] and shock jockery[75] and is clearly willing to drive people away from Wikipedia forever to get his way. He's making a mockery of the whole episode[76], is completely unrepentant[77] and is even asking to be blocked[78]. Two weeks is a minimum length mentioned in the discussion above. There are people above quite willing to hand down much longer blocks and I expect that will happen next time. This may be a last chance. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that not a bit over the top? First off, as an administrator, I highly disagree with other administrators essentially making themselves a "caseworker" of a certain user. There has been a few administrators (you, and formerly, Durova) who have blocked or disciplined Chris on more than one occasion. At some point, the administrator simply gets too personally involved when he or she is following around a user for almost a year, and the administrator's ability to make objective and rational decisions can become compromised. Secondly, I see little, if anything, that is a blockable offense in what you presented. Four of the quotes you presented were jokes. If you believe that they are an example of "making a mockery of the whole episode," then I think it is time for a cool-down. I feel it's absolutely ludicrous to block someone based off comments they made on their talk page about their user page and personal life. Chris was carrying on a conversation with other users completely unrelated to Wikipedia. He wouldn't make those comments on an article or on an article talk page. You can't go around policing someone's talk page and handing out blocks because they were joking around with other users with "Howard Stern-like" material. You can't. Even I carry on casual, joking conservations with other users on my talk page. Meanwhile, as far as the "Isn't it awesome how I didn't get in trouble at all?" goes, please tell me which Wikipedia rule that breaks. It's not incivility - not on your life! Wikipedia does NOT need to start handing out two-week blocks based off their perceived "immaturity" of a user. Too many administrators and users are FAR too emotionally involved in this case, and do not appear to be detached enough to make reasonable blocks. Chris can ask for a block, Chris can carry on an "immature" conversation on his talk page, Chris can mock the fact that a number of users have had arguments with him over the past year and want to see him be blocked, but that does NOT constitute a blockable offense. I'm sorry, but this block is absolutely out of line. Pats1 ^T/C 14:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of line? He's not acting like the kind of contributor we want here. So, we don't want him here. Since he's not going away by himself, we help him go away. Where's the problem? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Friday (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You can "not like him" or "not want him here" all you want, but that doesn't give you license to hand out an extended block like that. There's plenty of contributors I haven't wanted here, but I've never blocked any of them. You block users because of violations of Wikipedia rules (and make sure the punishment fits the crime). You don't hold a "tribal council" (with the highest number of "endorse 2 week blocks" being declared the winning party) and vote the least-liked person "off the island." And by the way, there are users who appreciate having Chris around on Wikipedia. Pats1 ^T/C 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about like or dislike. It's about Wikipedia having a code of conduct. You sound like you want people to quote chapter and verse from some book explaining which rule he's violating. You also sound like you feel he somehow deserves more lenience because he's been blocked so many times. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Friday (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What "code of conduct?" It's up to the whim of each individual user. And like I said, most of the people who commented in this discussion have been involved with Chris for almost a year now, some of them blocking him on multiple prior occasions. All objectivity has been lost. Some people don't want Chris around, and they are willing to stretch their "code of conduct" to include "immature comments" made on a user talk page conversation. If you don't follow some semblance of a Wikipedia rulebook, then all order on Wikipedia is lost. Sure, there are community bans, but you don't go blocking somebody based off the consensus of a straw poll held on an ANI. He doesn't deserve "more" lenience because he's been blocked before (I don't know where you got that idea), but he deserves something more than a personally-involved administrator handing out of a block based off an ANI straw poll with little supporting evidence, essentially rendering the whole ordeal a witch hunt. Pats1 ^T/C 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Little supporting evidence?" There's plenty of evidence through this thread that supports a two-week block. Just take a look at his block log; how he was able to get 11 blocks for pretty much the same thing and the maximum not rising above one week is beyond me. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about this particular block. Chris may have deserved blocks in the past (although the whole jmfangio episode unfairly predisposed Chris to some of this), but his "shock jock" comments or mocking of the users who tried to get him block is hardly evidence to support a two-week block. Pats1 ^T/C 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth.. I never heard of this guy til this thread, and the block seems reasonable to me. As Wknight pointed out, I imagine the next one will be longer. He can act like a reasonable adult, or he can be shown the door. So far his choice seems to be the latter. Friday (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And as such, you've missed the fact that the same group of users have pretty much made the same comments every time something like this has come up with Chris. Believe me, I wasn't surprised to read what I did from the consenting parties, because I've read it all before. Pardon the Patriots analogy (although I've used on an AfD) before, but it's like Spygate. When Belichick violated the NFL Game Operations manual, people were calling for the NFL to give him an extended suspension or even ban him from the NFL. Most of these people, though, had hated Belichick and the Patriots long before Spygate even began. They had tried to slander or get the Patriots disciplined before, and so it was no surprise they tried to again when Spygate came out. They simply had no objectivity, and since 90% of the country disliked the Pats, it was pretty much mob rule. Again, blocking people because of "immaturity" is absurd. You block someone for specific violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not because he's joking around or mocking people trying to get him blocked. Pats1 ^T/C 15:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the party, Pats1. Why didn't you voice a dissenting opinion yesterday? The accusation that I'm too involved or engaging in "following around" in this situation is unfounded. I hadn't a single correspondence with anyone involved since I took WT:NFL off my watchlist more than three months ago. And Chrisjnelson should be thankful that I blocked for only two weeks since I was outnumbered by two admins here who were gunning for an indefblock. If it weren't for your so-called "caseworkers", he might be gone for good. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw LessHeard's "vandalism" warning on Chris' talk page yesterday, but didn't have any idea about this part until I saw the block on my watchlist. As far as those "other admins" go, I would love to know who they are and what exactly they have for evidence to support an indef block against Chris. And c'mon, Wknight, I think we both know the histories Durova, ksy, and the others have with Chris. Seeing the endorsements of the blocks was no surprise, but it's no reason to favor a block yourself. Chris may have literally asked for one (although he was mocking the others who were "endorsing" a block), but neither that, nor any pressure to appease other admins or other consenting users should have made you hand out a two-week block for the comments you posted. There may be a time when a two-week block for Chris is necessary, but this certainly wasn't one of them. Pats1 ^T/C 15:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1, it's quite understandable why you're defending Chris to the degree that you are, considering that you two always work together on several NFL-related projects (no, that's not a bad thing). And you say that the judgment of people like Wknight94 and Durova have been compromised because they've been too personally involved with this user in the past. For one thing, if anything, that's a good thing because they know about the situation better than anybody else would and are familiar first-hand with the kind of actions this user has taken. And secondly, you've been as personally involved with this user defending him as they (and the rest of us have) against him. I would probably guess that if you weren't so close with Chris (and I'm not accusing anybody of meatpuppetry, before you get that idea) you would also hand down the same block as the two-weeks he was recently given, or at least understand why he received it.

Pats1, I honestly think that your friendship with Chris is compromising your judgment in this case. As an admin yourself, I trust that you know that one of the biggest things we try to do here (aside from creating an online encyclopedia) is create a good working environment for everybody here. Chris' behavior is a detriment to that. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Chris was unfairly treated in this particular case and was the victim of a mob mentality created by a good number of people who have had arguments with Chris in the past and don't want to see him here. As you know, ksy, Chris and I used to really not like each once (about four years ago). But if you can grow to understand Chris' personality and joke with him, he's not a "detriment" to anything or anyone. Working with him as closely as I have, I've grown to appreciate the work he does and I've learned more about him than anyone else commenting here. I would disagree with any user receiving a block for "immaturity," especially on a user talk page. Pats1 ^T/C 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The other eight users in this thread would tend to disagree that Chris' behavior isn't a detriment. You're the only one I've seen defending him. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So? A two-week block is a serious issue. Not a straw poll. Pats1 ^T/C 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have been the target of rudeness by Chris in the past, along with AllStarEcho, but this block wasn't warranted by the current situation, in my opinion. The IP is way out of line and intentionally aggravating Chris. Enigma ^message 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How much incivility and vulgarity are wikipedians supposed to put up with? I got suspended for 5 days once for calling people idiots. This guy's approach is exponentially worse than that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to earlier comments by various users saying that 2 weeks was too harsh. It's a cumulative process. Sure, another user who hasn't been blocked before wouldn't have received a 2 week suspension for this. But Chris should be (rightly) on a shorter leash, given his history. As far as Chris having a "lynch mob" out to get him, I don't think that's true. But doesn't the fact that he's clearly aggorovated so many other parties kind of give everyone a pitcture of his working style? Sorry, but "I'm always right, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot" doesn't fly on a community project like Wikipedia. Bjewiki (Talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the IP intentionally aggravating Chris? If anything, 72.0.36.36 is responding calmly to Chris' verbal assaults. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just remembered I was involved with this IP before. This IP has done a lot of NFL editing over the past year plus, but has also drawn the ire of some of us (Quadzilla, me, Chris, Yankees10 - just check out the talk page). This IP (now everything is starting to come back), is quick to jump the gun and request arbitration or ANI. In fact, after I had warned the IP to removing the trivia tag from Ted Ginn, Jr., the IP immediately went to ANI and claimed I had abused my admin tools - of course, I had never used my admin tools, but the IP demanded "third-party arbitration or dispute resolution" and repeatedly claimed admin abuse of power on my talk page until apparently losing interest at some point. Pretty similar to what the IP did to Chris on Sunday, too. The IP, I remember, was incredibly frustrating to deal with (quite frankly, annoying the crap out of me), because there was simply no way you could get him or her to understand how the entire process worked and where their claims of "power abuse" were out of line. Pats1 ^T/C 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The IP tries to create as much disruption as possible by placing poorly-written material into articles and then making a big fuss about it. In fact, it even started a second thread on the same exact subject that I had to merge back into this one. Enigma ^message 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you should issue a block against the IP address also. But the "look what you made me do" argument doesn't hold water. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think the stuff that the IP is putting into the articles is poorly-written, that's your opinion. I don't know much about what he or she's putting in there, but I highly doubt that the IP would be purposely putting in "crap" as Chris would say just to annoy the living hell out of him or to cause disruption. That's why the IP has been able to discuss the content civilly on talk pages, unlike Chris. Ksy92003 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would question whether the IP's discussion could be considered "civil." Pats1 ^T/C 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And another point being that if you think he's uncivil, you can file a complaint against him, but his being uncivil doesn't give anyone else the right to be uncivil. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The point being that Nelson blaming another user for his own behavior doesn't cut it. If there's a problem with another user, that needs to be pursued through normal channels. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. And Chris has a long history of "wrongs".

But as Bugs says, if Chris thinks that 72.0.36.36 is being uncivil, being uncivil right back at him/her doesn't help the situation. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fine. My argument is the IP is also responsible and is not being held culpable for what's going on. His behavior is not appropriate and he refuses to read or understand Wikipedia policies. Enigma ^message 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)