Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712

User talk:Andrea Bargnani again

See [1] and Special:Contributions/Andrea_Bargnani. I suggest this user's talk page access be revoked. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

They look like very poor translations (using BabelFish?) of articles ... are we sure we're not actually interefering with real attempts to help the project? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much we can do, trying to figure out why a non-english speaker is using enwiki to post machine-translated sports news to their user page...blissfully plowing right by the indef block notice along the way. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be an attempt (a very poor one) to improve the project but it looks more like a copyright violation. Very odd. It looks to me like someone is trying to copy their blog or the blog of someone else onto WP. OlYeller^Talktome 15:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Category move help

I've just closed Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move as a move. As part of this move, Category:Association football in Australia needs to be renamed to Category:Soccer in Australia. I've finished all the manual bits with the exception of shifting the actual pages, but the documentation is rather sparse after that. Anyone want to lend a hand? I assume we've still got bots for this sort of thing? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Polish cuisine

Resolved

 – Nothing more to see here, carry on. CycloneGU (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

In an unheated discussion on Talk:Polish cuisine, an editor recently made this edit [[2]] in which he threatened to get me banned and to sue Wikipedia. I do not wish to escalate and inflame the situation, and, since I am aware that WP is very sensitive about threats of this nature, even if they are apparently blustering, I am reporting it here.

Because I am not sure of what to do, and because I do not want to invite retaliation, I have NOT yet informed the editor of this report, but am waiting for advice from an admistrator, with which I will comply. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see another editor has placed a warning on the editor's talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor is liable to be immediately blocked for the legal threat. I have informed of the thread and indicated he will need to retract the legal threat or face being blocked from Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" - I have done so for you. GiantSnowman 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User appears to be blocked now. GiantSnowman, we both posted the same thing, I removed yours as it was posted second (and besides, I added more info on mine). CycloneGU (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, noticed that, no problems - we must have posted at pretty much the same time, you were just slightly earlier! Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In my block notice, I was actually removing Snowman's notification, as it was second to Cyclone's. Indef'd pending retraction. I hate to pick words but "unheated...Polish cuisine" drew my attention :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DRN stage 2

The dispute resolution noticeboard has been undergoing a one month trial to see how it works, and has had some success. As part of the original proposal, I suggested another one-month trial after that, closing WP:WQA and WP:CNB, and redirecting posts to DRN to see if the new board can handle these posts more effectively. The proposal is located here. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Having spent copious amounts of time at WQA, I found the DRN a step backwards...too formal, longwinded (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to reduce reports such as "This person undid my (spammy) edits and I don't like it, block them" which are too common at WQA. Having some sort of structure might make it easier to resolve legitimate conduct issues, too. Being too informal is bad too, it gives more freedom for unfounded reports about users people have a beef with. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Will it be any more useful than Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, which is largely ignored? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have more eyes on it than the content noticeboard. I see no real harm in giving this a trial and seeing how it goes. If it works, great, if not, then at least we've tried. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My 2p worth: I like the concept of a somewhat more formalized means of laying out and resolving content disputes. I'm not sure, however, that this could successfully replace WP:WQA, because of the nature of disputes and conflicts that wind up there. But as you say, it's worth a go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is a serious problem that we have so many splintered noticeboards, each with a narrowly defined scope. This creates a bureaucratic nightmare for users unfamiliar with our bureaucracy who don't know how to get help with their disputes. We get content disputes reported to WP:AIV all the time, for example. Therefore, anything to consolidate these dispute resolution boards is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. If DRN is currently inadequate to handle what WQA has been handling, then it would be a good idea to discuss how DRN could be reformed to suit it to a wider purpose. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Takabeg

User abused the rule Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

1. against User:Kavas with this message. 2. agianst User:Takabeg with this message.

Furthermore user frequently shouts and accuses others with "vandalism" instead of using talk pages, instead of using reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I am not sure that these are personal attacks. Turkish nationalism is covered by WP:ARBAA2. Mathsci (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment' Takabeg is not Turkish nationalist, however, Kermanshahi does not only call Takabeg "nationalist", but also accuses him of racism. See my comment at buttom. Kavas (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And I report Takabeg for vandalism against articles by removing Kurdish names.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User still continues personal attacks instead of using talk pages. I suspect that user haven't read talk pages. Takabeg (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just doing my best to protect Kurdish articles from these constant attacks.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is looking more like a feud at this point...if there is a consensus (in general) for something to be the way it is, you must yourself gain consensus for it to be the other way. Kermanshahi, without picking through 500 changes to 250 different articles (numbers not guaranteed to be accurate), I have chosen one at random: Diyarbakır Province. You keep changing the name in the prose to "Diyarbakır", which is not proper. The name of the article is Diyarbakır Province; thus, it should be referred to in the prose as "Diyarbakır Province". You are quite close to 3RR there (as are you Takabeg), so I recommend restoring it to "Diyarbakır Province" and going to the talk page, Kermanshahi, if you have any further problem with this assessment. Similar rules apply to all nine or ten in that group that I saw one after another in the edit history for one of you. CycloneGU (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not weather we add the word province after the word Diyarbakir, but weather we represent the Kurdish name: Amed, which was the original name until Turks renamed it "Diyerbakir" because Kemalism doesn't recognise the existance of Kurds or the Kurdish language - alongside the Turkish name. Kermanshahi (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Attempts to get the other party blocked in order to "win" a debate is not an acceptable means of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I suggest that y'all withdraw from this before some administrator gets annoyed and blocks everyone involved (which I've seen happen more often then it probably should).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I apologize if I am misinterpreting the debate. However, I have since corrected the prose in those that did not already use the word "Province" as in the article name. They are now all consistent at least in that regard. CycloneGU (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the Kurdish name (or the Kurdish language) have official status in the province? If so, then it merits placement in the lead. Quigley (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The existance of the Kurdish language and even of the Kurdish people is officially denied by the Turkish constitution (although sicne 2002 the speaking of Kurdish in public is not a criminal offense anymore), that's where this whole dispute is about, that's why they changed the names of these cities in the first place and that's why so many Turkish editors have felt the need to remove these names.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, just to clarify, I didn't try to get him banned to "win" this debate, it was the otherway round, I just came to the noticeboard to prevent myself from getting banned but I will take your warning serioudly, User:Ohms law and withdraw from this discussion.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He would be right to revert, but this edit summary shows he is not abstaining from personal attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hakkâri_Province&diff=prev&oldid=440150381 Since the debate was focused on the recent edit-war but not on the personal attacks of this editor, I have to add this personal attack for starting the debate again. I think calling Takabeg racist is a personal attack. Kavas (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Woodgastrains

A new user, User:Woodgastrains has come to the John A. Macdonald article, a FA, and has started to edit it. Very badly, as almost any of his contributions will show. I can't accuse him of vandalism, he is just editing badly. I've tried to engage him on his talk page. He has finally actually posted to the article talk page, but that has not stopped his poor editing, [3], for example. Concern has been expressed on article talk page, and not by me, both as to copyright violations by Woodgastrains and also this article, which is fairly high profile as Macdonald was first Prime Minister of Canada, is taking a hit. I'm uncertain that Woodgastrains is doing anything against the rules, in so many words, we cannot legislate skill and ability. I cannot act as an admin in this matter as I wrote probably 95% of the article. I'm at my wit's end. Does anyone have ideas as to how to deal with this situation? Editor notified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe we have an editor that is learning about John A. Macdonald from the internet as he/she goes about editing. The copy and pasting of copyrighted material must stop without question. We also have a problem that the date to which we celebrate his birth date has been reverted back and forth many times now. All we need is for the editor to engage us in a conversation were he/she acknowledges our concerns rather then speculating on his drinking. The editor is guessing about things as seen with this edit summary his law diploma is an archive document, unsure how the law school existed in1836, as law school started in 1889. Moxy (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

When day was John A MacDonald born on? And what day are you putting into the article as the day he was born on? The Encyclopedia establisd standard for saying when a person's born is the birth certificate is it not? For support here is http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0004867 it uses the Jan 10 date. 17:49, 19 July 2011 Bzuk (talk | contribs) (76,210 bytes) (moving back some of the contentious edits) (undo) (He changed it also to jan 10 too. I have only changed it twice to jan 10. We have good reasons for this needed change.) --Woodgastrains (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Specific changes are not the issue. The problem is, you are not respecting consensus, are blithely making major changes to a FA, something with by custom is only done with discussion, and are not listening, unhappily to your fellow editors. Three editors at the Macdonald page are denigrating your changes. Don't you see that is a problem?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Cain

Resolved

 – I'm marking this as resolved; there's no reason for admin. intervention on this page that cannot be handled at WP:RfPP. If it's declined there, then that's also considered resolved pending further vandalism. CycloneGU (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone keep an eye on Timothy Cain? He supposedly recently recently outed himself on Facebook, and since then people have been adding this to his page.[4] [5] [6] I have yet to see a WP:RS, so I want to make sure there is no WP:BLP violation going on. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on this one, I recommend semi-protection. CycloneGU (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, posted a request at WP:RfPP. CycloneGU (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

IP Threats

Resolved

 – IP blocked. causa sui (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

New IP at 82.165.144.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) handing out threats [7] [8], just thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Dayewalker (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we need to drive in some runs here Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 48 hours. causa sui (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a threat of violence. Is this worthy of firing off e-mails to the emergency Wikipedia e-mail in the notice accompanying this page? CycloneGU (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it is a "serious threat of violence", so yes, emailing the emergencywikimedia.org would be prudent. causa sui (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done CycloneGU (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Allen County, Indiana

What do you all think of this edit? What do we advise this user to do? Email OTRS? Drmies (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like something either OTRS or the foundation needs to handle. Issues of legitimate claims of privacy and harassment (even if minor) should be handled with decorum and tact; this person does not appear to have done anything to deserve people coming to his house to bother him. OTOH, the NRHP is a public record, and he should probably be advised to write that organization and ask to have his house delisted. Wikipedia didn't invent the listing. Either way, this needs to be handled with wisdom, care, and tact and not just a "ZOMG some vandal is issuing legal threats and needs a block". Lets do this the right way for once... --Jayron32 20:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering his house was listed in the NYT for allowing overnight stays, I'm not sure what he wants us to do about it... http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/travel/02cultured.html?pagewanted=2 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur that this needs to go up the line. Nothing for an admin to do, unless that admin is also a Foundation or OTRS member. As a sidenote, I'm not sure that a structure can be removed from the NRHP, short of its destruction by natural or man-made catastrophe. But that's a question for someone with a law degree. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, I wasn't proposing doing anything (you'll note that I didn't revert). The next editor to come by the listing will think hey, here's a blank spot--let's fill it in. Sarek, it's a bit odd, since yes, that NYT listing is in the article. That the editor wants the address removed certainly suggests that they're not really interested in promoting the house, contrary to what the COI tag might imply. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing your handling of this, Drmies, I was presupposing the legions of comments that usually come which come down hard on people like this. You did nothing wrong here. --Jayron32 20:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Alles klar, Jayron. A fair amount of criticism is already being leveled. The balance is tricky, which is why I brought it here--because the privacy issue is important and partly countered by the "for rent" listing. Just as important, if we can help it, is to prevent future edit-warring over this matter. Removing the address but keeping the coordinates would be my choice. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would feel more sympathy if the complaining party hadn't had a significant hand in writing the article which mentions that the place in one of the few Wright houses that accommodates overnight guests (almost an invitation to the public attention of which s/he now complains). Wikipedia is not censored; if other Wright houses in private hands have addresses, this ought too. If not, then for consistency's sake we can do without. No doubt, anyone can find out the address from sources external to Wikipedia. I think that if it's open to guests, then knowing where it is shouldn't intrude on privacy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) There are many other online sources of NRHP info besides wikipedia, all derived from the National Register's publication of info in the Federal Register and in its public domain NRIS database. IMO, wikipedia NRHP editors (of which i am one) should and probably will cooperate in removing the information that a person perceives as hurting their privacy. I recall one other reader objecting to a photo of their NRHP-listed house in Maryland, which I then supported deletion of, and which was deleted. I think we should go far to address anyone's concern like this. --doncram 20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look at it some more, I agree with Doncram -- the listing is address-restricted, so we shouldn't publicize it. I'm not sure about removing the coordinates outright, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

While I still think that the address should not be included, I think it's important to note that the home owner rents the home out via their official website. It seems a little hypocritical to advertise the home then ask that it be kept private. I think it's explain though by the fact that the homeowner lives there when it's not rented out (I assume). OlYeller^Talktome 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing hypocritical about wanting to provide your residential address only to people who call you for reservations, rather than to the entire world via Wikipedia. Given that the address is nowhere to be found on the homeowner's website, the accusation of hypocrisy here is way out of line. 28bytes (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The owner might want to change his username, though, so it's associated with him, rather than the house. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's not a policy that lets private individuals opt out of having their residential address displayed on Wikipedia, there certainly should be. Even if it's already listed in the NRHP, the New York Times, their own website, or anywhere else. 28bytes (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the need to respect privacy but why on earth should Wikipedia be required to keep public information private? If it's acceptable for the New York Times or the federal government to publish certain information I'm not sure why it would be unethical for Wikipedia to do so (although if those organizations do have an opt-out policy in this case it would be reasonable to grant the request). 146.151.66.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

I understand not agreeing that it's a little hypocritical but to call it "way" out of line seems a little harsh. I'm sorry you find my opinion so outlandish. Take it our leave it. OlYeller^Talktome 21:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If my home address were put on Wikipedia and I was called a hypocrite for wanting it removed, my response would be a lot harsher than that. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean after you advertise your home as a public attraction and invite people to pay to stay there? Our side conversation won't go anywhere. It's not conducive to this conversation and we basically agree that the address should be removed at the home owner's discretion. If you still feel that my opinion is so terrible, again, feel free to leave it. OlYeller^Talktome 14:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that if it comes to removing things, we should remove that for rent notice implicitly contained. Whether or not it's open for rent seems less germane when we don't want any one to know where it is....I have this out-of-the-way place I don't want you to know about but please rent it... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the Star Wars Kid debate all over again. Even if there is personal information that's easily available to the public, we should still try to respect the privacy of a non-public figure. -- Atama頭 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree there. The Star Wars Kid had no intention of people finding that video -- the owner of the house seems to have gone out of his way to publicize it as a rental destination. It's just the exact location of the destination he's trying to keep quiet. But still, as the NRHP has it listed as "Address restricted", I think we should follow their lead. After all, the owner didn't create the article himself, and he doesn't seem to have publicized the address at any point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, SoV, that is what I was thinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sure y'all are familiar with the phrase "AfD is not for improvement"--well, neither is ANI! Funny how an ANI report can improve an article; thanks for those edits. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is starting to look a lot like a directory. I actually think that we should repeal NOTDIR and allow full address information, but singling out one obscure list of private homes may not be the best place to start. For example, it looks like after several years the address 39 Stillman Street remains censored from Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps that would be a better place to begin with the glasnost. The most important thing for the article to do is not to organize a walking tour of local historic buildings, but to make it clear to the reader how to get his own information from the reliable sources and arrange that walking tour himself. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wnt are you criticizing about the NRHP list-article National Register of Historic Places listings in Allen County, Indiana? So far that page is indeed just a list, and it would be improved by someone taking an interest to develop descriptions for each item. Relatively few county/city NRHP list-articles have been developed that way so far, but the trend is good.

FWIW, i think the Usonian house situation is resolved well by SarekOfVulcan's edits edits which restored the item including a photo, but which noted the location is "Address Restricted" and which omitted coordinates. SarekOfVulcan is correct that the site's address is not released by the National Register, and I observed that mirror sites like NRHP.COM's page on Allen County display "Address Restricted" too. Address restriction rarely applies for anything but archeological sites, but here it evidently was a condition of the NRHP listing, and I do prefer to stick to that, especially given the owner's request. --doncram 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of an inappropriate image requested

Resolved

 – That was easy CycloneGU (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today, User:Djt002 uploaded an unlicensed, apparently copyrighted image of journalist Liz Brunner as [[File:Brunner.jpg]], overriding an existing free image of philosopher Constantin Brunner in use in that article. (I've left a message on his talk page; he appears to be a new user and I'm not asking for any action regarding him.) Perhaps acting hastily, I retrieved the free image and reuploaded it, removing the image link from the Liz Brunner article. Now the Liz Brunner image is sitting in the file history, not displaying in any article, but carrying the licensing tag for the free image. This is messy. Could somebody either delete that image (which is way to large an image file anyway) or, if it's not subject to summary deletion, extract it from its current location and rename it appropriately? What's the best way to handle cases like this if I come across another one> It doesn't fall into any standard problem I'm familiar with, and there's got to be a better approach than my quick-and-dirty one? Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done postdlf (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The history of File:Brunner.jpg is still confusing. Who is the man with the hat in the oldest versions? Jonathunder (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Another good case for rename and salt. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've renamed the file to File:Constantin Brunner.jpg to clear up the confusion; Brunner.jpg can be salted now. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

New user (with probable COI issues) could use a GFDL primer.

Hi all. There's probably a more specific noticeboard for this, but owing to the fact that I'm out the door in five minutes, I figured this would be the quickest way to get a few eyes where they're needed. User:HerzanLLC has recently created a page (Acoustic Isolation) that's basically a straight-up copy-paste of his website on the subject. I haven't really had time to sit down and see if the article itself would pass an AfD if the copyright concerns weren't an issue, but if one of our more GFDL-fluent contributors could pop on over to his talk page and explain the OTRS system and the intricacies of CC-BY-SA vs. a mere "©" on the bottom of a webpage, I think everybody involved would benefit. Thanks, and apologies for something that probably belongs elsewhere! Badger Drink (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The username is probably also an issue, since it seems to represent a corporation rather than an individual. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

DORD blocked him for this issue right as I posted. Kevin (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Range block request

Resolved

 – IP range blocked for 2 wks. --Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• 98.85.0.22 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.11.45 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.4.137 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.6.22 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

The above IPs (these are just the ones I know about) are all part of a Bell South range. They all make similar edits to film articles, usually intentionally altering runtimes and grosses. They get blocked, but they keep coming back. The most recent block was for 11.145, imposed by Edgar181. Edgar's rationale made it clear that he understood there are multiple IPs involved. The damage these IPs do to the encyclopedia is considerable, and it would be useful to find a more efficient way of blocking them. However, I realize that a range block is a significant intrusion on any IPs in the range that might want to edit constructively. Thus, my request is a tentative one, to see if there are any options that are palatable and yet more effective than the current single blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A range block is not an unreasonable request. Anyone who wants to edit within the range can register an account and thus avoid being a part of the block. Also, I see 98.85.11.45 is currently blocked. I've looked at some diffs. as well and they are mostly vandalism. One or two might be legit., but it's so little and with all the vandalism who knows what is actually true without references. CycloneGU (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the edits are actually removing references. Pretty much all the edits coming from that range for the last month are unsourced changes or outright vandalism. I am gonna range block 98.85.0.0/20 for two weeks and we'll see if that's long enough for them to tire of the game. --Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a place where range blocks are listed?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A list of all rangblocks can be found at Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks, which is updated once per week. This particular rangeblock can be seen here. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't you think it would be helpful if WP:RANGE had a link to the list of blocks?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Link added. --Diannaa (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! One hopefully last question. I'm not sure I understand the range of the block. As I read it, it's blocking 98.85.0.0 through 98.85.0.19 or 98.85.0.20 (not sure which). Maybe I'm reading the notation in the block ("0/20") incorrectly? The size column also says 20, which I interpret as 20 addresses. Anyway, if my understanding is correct, then it wouldn't block any of the four IP addresses listed at the beginning of this request, let alone additional ones in the Bell South range. Am I misinterpreting the block or misunderstanding how this works?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Calculating rangeblocks goes into some fairly detailed maths, and this noticeboard gets crowded enough without a lengthy explanation with examples. Suffice to say that the CIDR notation of 98.85.0.0/20 covers the IP range from 98.85.0.1 to 98.85.15.254, so all four addresses listed are within the block. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can figure it out on my own or ask somewhere else - not that a long technical explanation wouldn't be refreshing here compared to some of the long contentious discussions. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The slash notation is explained here. It's a slightly obscure geeky subject, sorry. A lower number covers a larger range, stepping by a factor of two (so "/24" covers 256 IP addresses, "/23" covers 512 IP addresses, and so on). This explanation is, alas, a simplification but there's plenty more detail in the articles. bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin conduct review requested

Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'm requesting a review of Fæ's recent poor conduct, and request that steps be taken to prevent more of the same or further escalation. Hopefully that means just a cautionary word from someone uninvolved; I'm not out for blood, just a less hostile editing environment. The poor behavior falls into three categories:

• constant personal attacks and comments about editors;
• disruptive editing;
• inappropriate templating and warning of editors;

Full disclosure: we're presently in a content dispute on a controversial BLP article, and the rhetoric and tempers have risen a bit on all sides, but never to this level; review of my own actions is welcome, especially with regard to Fæ's many unsubstantiated mischaracterizations of my motivations.

• Onslaught of unwarranted personal attacks and mischaracterizations:

"...you seem to be on a mission to disrupt ... You have made no positive steps ... Your polemic is tiresome ... your blanking of sourced material without clear explanation ... Your question appears so trivial ... nitpicking here to stop any progress ... look like trolling to me ... forget how to use Google? ... your opinion is starting to look rather irrelevant ... you do realize that nobody put you in charge here don't you? ... repeatedly saying the equivalent of "I don't like it" to everyone else's suggestions ... Nobody died and put you in charge ... Your problem with ownership of this article has been blatantly apparent ... after it was tampered with by Xenophrenic by being misleadingly indented ... your recent contribution to this article appears to introduce nothing but promotional bias to this article and is disruptive ... You appear to be keen to edit war ... your question appears trollish ... it is apparent that you have a problem with ownership of the article ... your continued off-putting and trivial challenges to other potential contributors ... it would help if rather than trolling other editors, you could positively propose text ... you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations ... persistently introducing bias to Wikipedia articles or disrupting a consensus building process ... worryingly stalker-ish and rather threatening.

• Disruptive editing:

After declaring "...I'm not terribly interested in proposing new content...", and, "I have no intention of wasting my time proposing detailed alternative text for this article if it is likely to be endlessly nitpicked over", s/he threatened to correct a perceived "imbalance" in the article through massive deletions. S/he then carried out that threat, making 16 edits over a 30 minute period starting with this one, that deleted considerable content and tagged even more content with various citation-needed tags. S/he then went to related articles and stuck 'PROD' tags on them (here); requested deletion of image files from the article (here). Deleting and tagging is not a problem in itself, when justified, but most of these edits were not justified -- sources were already cited in the article; articles about best selling books don't need to be deleted, etc. Not a single addition of new content, so it all seemed to me to be more pointy than productive. When I asked for an explanation of some of the edits, I was told I wasn't getting an explanation here.

• Inappropriate templating/warning of experienced editors for:

Removing templates (here); Tampering with comments (here); Violating 3RR (here); and then when I delete the warning templates, referring to them as "possible harassment", I get yet another admonition to use a "recognized process" rather than edit summaries (here), referring me to the Help Desk(!). Looking for a bit of help to put the brakes on this mess before it becomes serious. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you for a well-formatted post with links to the issues you're concerned about. It's a refreshing change from the all-too-frequent vauge and hand-wavy complaints. (Here comes the but.) But... What admininistrative action are you looking for? If "a good talking to" is it, then this board might be a good place for it. Beyond that, it's the other dispute channels, I think. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He is "requesting a review of Fæ's recent poor conduct, and request that steps be taken to prevent more of the same or further escalation". Sounds like a review of the administrator in question involving discussion here. But I agree that other channels could be involved for specifics. CycloneGU (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the user was notified, so I went ahead and notified Fæ of this discussion. - SudoGhost™ 03:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The user was notified with this template, but your additional notification certainly won't hurt! Thank you for the assist. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I missed it, being tagged to the end of the edit war section. - SudoGhost™ 04:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaron, I was certain the inevitable "but..." was going to be a comment about the length, as it is a bit "wall-of-text"-y. The reason I'm requesting admin action is because I've already tried resolving it myself, and any further attempts from me will likely be viewed as "harassment", "badgering" or "trolling" -- all claims recently used against me. As far as dispute resolution regarding the article, we already have an RfC active, a request at the RS-Noticeboard, and are considering mediation. The specific concern I bring here, however, is what I see as unwarranted and inappropriately hostile interaction. I'm hopeful that "a good talking to" is all that is required to have things dialed back. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making that more clear, best to set expectations early. I've looked at the talk page in question, and, yeah, Xeno's concerns about the manner in which F has handled this appear to me to be well supported. Having looked a bit more, though... it's my but again. I do not believe that F would stand the slightest chance of gaining administrator status if that page was highlighted early in an RfA. There's be a probable landslide of "civility, oppose" !votes. But once you have the bit, just acting generally douche has no sting. Unless we get community deadminning up, there's very little actionable here. Even in the "good talking to" department, as I don't see enough of a middle ground here for productive discussion to get started. Unsatisfying. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh, best to expand on that: I haven't looked at the rest of F's contributions, and I'm not suggesting anything about those edits that I haven't looked at. We all have bad days, perhaps this is F's. The above is a commentary on how RfA actually works, not how it should work. -

(nudent) Ok, I've now looked beyond that talk page and I'm mostly seeing mechanichal admin actions (not that that's a bad thing) but my cursory examination hasn't shown that this person is like this all the time. I've left a message on their talk suggesting that they reconsider the way they are approaching this. (I'm terrible at knowing how my messages are perceived, by the way, so if anyone else feels it unhelpful, blank with my permission.) I'm going to do a small amount more looking, but unless there is more to be found, it's unlikely that any further action will arise from this, with the possible exception of more eyes on the matter. *shrug* It's also worth noting that Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fæ wasn't that long ago. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this exchange seems quite out of character. But I think this is probably as "resolved" as it's going to be, unless any thinks otherwise? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you taking the time to look into the matter, and for your input. After reading Fæ's response to you, I guess we don't need to guess "how your message was perceived". You didn't deserve the response you got, and now I've been further accused of threatening Fæ off-wiki? Forgive me if I suggest that this matter is far from resolved. By the way, not once have I mentioned or questioned Fæ's use of "sysop privileges". Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. This whole affair, including how they've responded to me, seems to be out of character when apposed to the earlier interactions that I saw. Self-deprecation aside, people normally take a lot longer than that to get sick of me. The sourcing discussion is simply appalling, though. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• "This would torpedo an RfA, but now that he's an admin there's nothing we can do" is not the attitude that should be taken. Call me naive, but I happen to be of the opinion that being trusted to enforce the rules means being held to a higher standard than most users. If Fae has acted inappropriately, he needs to either apologise or step back. Ironholds (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Knowing Ironholds personally, I feel obliged to say something at this point. There is general agreement that this is not the right forum for Xenophrenic's perceived civility issue and Aaron Brenneman's attempted intervention appeared inflammatory to me (terms such as "troll meat" can hardly be expected to be helpful when thrown into an already heated discussion). If anyone wants me to respond to specific points I would be happy to do so but ANI is not the forum for this and as nothing here involves sysop privileges then the title of this notice is itself misleading. It should be noted that there are more than two parties involved in the discussion. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you explain what "Knowing Ironholds personally, I feel obliged to say something at this point" means? And reading up, Fae, you will see that an entire one user thinks this forum is not appropriate; another two think it is/that it is perfectly fine, but that other channels might be good to discuss specifics. Would you mind addressing the substance of the issue now, if you're done with sophistry? Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
      • To reiterate more clearly, this noticeboard is for incidents that require the intervention of administrators and notices should be raised after there has been an attempt to discuss issues with the user in question. There is nothing here that requires administrator action and a number of points were put forward that have not previously been correctly raised with me for discussion, this is also in the context of other related points that were previously raised by me on Xenophrenic's user talk page were blanked by them with edit comments claiming harassment rather than welcoming further discussion. Ironholds, I am unclear what about my statement you would define as "clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving" (using the OED definition of sophistry). At this point you appear to be accusing me of intentionally deceiving, I think this conversation should end, as I feel my words will be continually misread and I have no intention of entering into a wikilawyerish debate about every word. Thanks for your interest. Fæ (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Fæ, I think it would be more helpful to engage the concerns directly rather than arguing over the venue. I too was disappointed in your response to Aaron. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
          • FWIW, I think concerns about venue ought to be taken seriously. User conduct disputes need to be handled in an orderly and civil way, and we have a procedure for that at WP:RFC/U that ensures that all voices are heard equally. That's not to say that this ANI is out of control, or that it's inappropriate to raise these kinds of issues here at all, but users who have found themselves accused of inappropriate behavior have the right to be worried about their conduct being reviewed on a forum where editors have found themselves subjected to severe sanctions in spite of its being uncontrolled discussion. --causa sui (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Yes, if Fæ is unwilling to engage here, I suppose WP:RFC/U would be the next step. I think it would be to everyone's benefit if that could be avoided, though. 28bytes (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've posted this request here to have "conduct", a broad term, reviewed by administrators. Oh sure, I could complain about the many incivilities at WP:WQA — then I could stop by WP:AN3 and complain about the disruptive, pointy edit-warring — then I could swing by WP:ANI and drop a note about the more serious accusations of stalking and threats. I instead posted the whole combined mess here, and hoped that with a little neutral input from Fæ's Admin-peers we might achieve a low-drama meeting of the minds. What was I thinking?

Specifically addressing Fæ's points: 1) There has been attempts to address the issues, on your talk page, but you challenged me to "report me to a notice board, please knock yourself out" instead of discuss them. 2) Your claim that you raised points on my talk page that were deleted as harassment rather than discussed is misleading; you repeatedly templated my personal talk page while we were holding discussions on the article talk page. That is not "raising a point for discussion". Now with many of my unaddressed concerns listed above, you would prefer that "this conversation should end"? That doesn't sound encouraging. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Truth be told, ANI is a genuinely lousy venue for civility infringements, whether the alleged perp is an admin or not. That said, Fae's casual dismissal based on the choice of venue speaks for itself to an extent. If you want to take it to WQA for the sake of getting input there then go ahead, but at least this will remain in the archives for future reference should the same problem happen again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late in the discussion here, but I must add that I was not happy at all when Fae called my CSD tagging "disruptive editing" and threatened me with a block. I admit that not all of my CSD tags were the correct tag, but the user did not AGF at all. I have since not made many CSD tags at all. --BigDwiki (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

at least 10 other admins besides her have left notes indicating problems with your speedy tagging, & Fae was not the only one who warned you that you might be blocked if you continued. As for her tone, I think what she said was commendably patient, especially considering your replies. The long discussion with her is visible at [9], By that point she declined at least two of your speedies, and so had several other editors. You continued the same pattern for another 2 days after her warning, and only stopped deletion tagging after I had a long discussion with you as well, with my comment endorsed by other editors. I'm glad you came here about this, and expressed above your willingness to stop, because otherwise your editing would likely have been brought here, if only to get confirmation of a block.. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, Fae's a chap - he not she ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why we should be cautious about using gendered pronouns around here; we can't be sure that we're using the right one, and getting it wrong is likely to make the subject unhappy. It's not hard to use a neutral pronoun, or just rearrange your sentences to avoid the issue completely. bobrayner (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

New User:Furkaocean

Resolved

 – If there is any new issue, go ahead and start a new thread. CycloneGU (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I need some help with a brand new user who is adding unproductive, misleading, and repetitive links to seemingly every article that begins with the letter "A". I think (s)he may be using some sort of automating tool to do this. I tried to write a message earlier, but the user seems to have ignored my addition to their talk page. I need some administrative help with this person, as I do not know how to use any tools that would enable me to efficiently review all of this user's edits. Let me be clear: I do not believe this user is malicious. I believe (s)he is trying to be helpful, but just plain doesn't really understand that you don't put links to every term found in an article. Please help! VI_WS ^talk 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So you believe that it's possible to be educated too much? =)

Taking a quick scan myself and will comment on the talk page if needed. I can't do anything other than a warning, however. CycloneGU (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just looking to try to get his/her attention here. That's it. I'm literally checking their contributions, and some of them seem genuinely helpful, but a large number are obfuscating, confusing, redundant, or just downright weird, and I find myself reviewing every one of his/her edits to see what each edit qualifies as. I really don't want to bite the newbie, just let them know what is appropriate and what's not. VI_WS ^talk 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to make contact with the newbie, so to speak. Hopefully we get a response. CycloneGU (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to block them until they read their talk page? ;) VI_WS ^talk 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there is. A 1 hour block perhaps? User has not edited for the last 24 minutes, however. Must be taking a break. CycloneGU (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We got a response! Yay! Thanks everyone. Now that we've got a dialogue, I think this can be safely put to rest. Muchas gracias. どうも ありがとう! VI_WS ^talk 18:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there's a previous account, Furkhaocean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - anybody inclined to check past contribs for unproductive edits might want to look at Furkhaocean's edits too. bobrayner (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Vinny Faherty

Hello. I wonder if someone might have a look at the editing of footballer Vinny Faherty. The article was the subject of an ANI report in November 2010, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#Disruptive editing-ownership-edit warring issues at Vinny Faherty, because of persistent replacement of sourced information/stats with info more favourable to the subject. That report resulted in Thesaint03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being blocked for what the blocking admin called "as clear a case of edit-warring and disruption against consensus as I've seen" and for pursuing the disruption while editing logged-out.

A few weeks ago, Josekb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started the same editing pattern, and ignored requests to discuss the matter at the article's talk page: see User talk:Josekb. They then removed mention of the player's new club [10]. Then an anon changed the stats as usual,[11], and a few minutes later Josekb added more unsourced info, including stats that turned out to be different from those on the club's governing body website. Which he then reinstated and removed the reference.[12] At that point (yesterday) I again asked Josekb to stop it, or to go to the talk page and justify their edits, and warned that if they did not, I'd report the matter.[13] Last night another anon restored Josekb's version.[14]. Josekb is being notified of this report. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Unexplained content changes, edit warring, ignoring warnings, zero communication, obsession with stats and the infobox, logged-out editing... this all sounds rather familiar. I've indefblocked Josekb and blocked the main account, Thesaint03, for another month. I don't particularly feel like playing whack-a-mole with the IPs so I've semi-protected the article for a month instead. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 09:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (again). Struway2 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, your post just happened to catch my eye because I vaguely remembered the article name from last time :) EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Dodgechris

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

Although I have !voted here, I'm closing this while I think about it. The discussion has gone on for 2 days now and there is absolutely clear consensus to unblock Chris with an express limit to one account. As I said; I have !voted, but I think this decision is not very controversial and waiting around for the sake of process is pointless. I intended to unblock Chris based on discussions on the 17/18th July and only stayed my hand because this discussion cropped up, I think it has vindicated my gut feeling and so I am unblocking him. Happy to take his subsequent activity on my own head :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

In 2008 I was indefinately blocked for abuse of multiple accounts/sockpuppetry. My talk page was protected indefinately as well to prevent me from abusing unblock requests. I understand that my actions were wrong and I have changed and grown up a lot in the 3 years that have passed. If I am unblocked I will never behave in that way again or repeat my actions. I will accept any restrictions and/or mentoring that are required if I am to be unblocked. Recently, I created this account (User:Wuzzupbob), not to evade my block, but to apologise to the users that I caused harassment to and to look for a way forward. Wuzzupbob (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you stated on Demiurge1000's talk page that you still have access to the User:Dodgechris account, I will unprotect that page to allow you to make a proper unblock appeal there from that account, unless another admin objects within the next hour or so. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Once bitten, twice shy. In this edit, you stated that some of the accounts proven to belong to you weren't yours - lying in the face of evidence isn't a quality that just disappears overnight. I'm willing to assume good faith, but you'll have to give us good reason to believe you in your unblock request. Best of luck, m.o.p 21:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've unprotected User talk:Dodgechris so that you can make a proper unblock request from the User:Dodgechris account. I'm blocking the User:Wuzzupbob account, as you'll need to edit from only the User:Dodgechris account going forward. I will leave it to other admins to consider whether and under what circumstances you should be unblocked. 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

...and declined by TNXMan due to yet another sock account active as we speak. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock Actually, it seems that the "active sock account" had been previously disclosed to another editor via email, and all that Dodgechris had done with it recently was to blank the user & talk pages and remove it from Wikiproject participant lists in preparation for not using the account again. (see: User_talk:Dodgechris#SpideyFan09_and_Wuzzupbob). Three years is quite a long time, the editor seems to be demonstrating considerable patience and civility in his current unblock requests, and I think we should give the editor another chance to help build an encyclopedia. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - yes, I'm aware of comments and the sock issue. Dodgechris should be unblocked, but should this should be on condition on being restricted to one, and only one, account. Further socking will lead to an indef being reimposed. As he says, 3 years is time of someone to mature greatly. Let's give him the chance to prove that he can be a net asset to the project. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not familiar with the history of this editor, but barring major redflags I'm inclined to think that an unblock with some conditions may be a good way to go here; alternatively, the editor should be directed to contact WP:BASC. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Good luck to you, Dodgechris, and please keep the faith rather than betray it. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. This editor seems to have been a considerable troublemaker three years ago, and still has some issues with patience and with actually paying attention to the letter of what the rules say. I can well understand there being considerable scepticism about his behaviour. However, the big difference between the issues three years ago, and the issues now, is that the editor is approaching things with honesty now (in fact, some might say too much honesty). I don't think we want to encourage the idea that if a blocked sockmaster creates a new account then quietly edits away uncontroversially he can get away with it, but if he's honest enough to apologise for his past misdeeds years later then he's back to an indef block with no way forward. Despite the slightly haphazard approach, there does indeed seem to be a big change, and I think we can be hopeful of no further disruption. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock; three years is enough time to change and deserve a fresh start. I see no major red flags in the recent activity - except perhaps a little eagerness (meh) and a slight lack of understanding of process. This guy did email an unblock request (after the apology account, sure) and appears to be working in good faith to return to editing. Thumbs up. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apologies for declining the unblock request; I was not aware of a discussion here. I'm obviously missing something here; the editor was re-blocked after blowing a second chance for sockpuppeting and was operating a block evading account during the entire intervening three years. It would have been an excellent idea to have include the "SpideyFan09" sock in his recent request for unblock, but it took a checkuser sweep to reveal it; I'm disappointed that this advice was not offered to him when it would have been useful. When you're trying to win back the trust of people you've burned in the past, the very last thing you want to do is deceive them. If he would show some understanding of why it was inappropriate to edit mainspace with both known recent socks and agree to limit himself to a single account, it would go a long way. Kuru (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I should have advised him to discuss the Spideyfan account as well, and that's my mistake - unfortunately in the mess of emails back and forth (there are thirty-nine emails to and from Dodgechris in my email account, including apologies from him for emailing me so much) and the relatively short time period involved, it didn't occur to me. The two unblock declines were entirely reasonable, however it's not true that he continued to create socks for years; the SpideyFan account was created in 2008 as well. It's true that he has edited from a pre-existing sock intermittently in some of the intervening time, but my understanding is that he genuinely plans to put that behind him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Dodgechris edited from his sock yesterday. While this user may be genuinely committed to participating within the project's policies, his actions show an inability to do so. Tiderolls 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I comment respecting the opinions offered by all participants here. "Socking:Don't do it." is neither draconian, ambiguous nor bureaucratic in design or foundation. Tiderolls 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock as per WP:OFFER with the condition (proposed my Mjroots) that Dodgechris agrees to edit using one, and only one, account. WP:AGF and the fact that the account "SpideyFan09" was disclosed to Demiurge1000 and Demiurge1000 comments above has to lead me to the concision that the edits yesterday were not an attempt to evade any block and were a misunderstanding, edits before that are of concern but we should give him a chance to show he is a reformed editor. Mtking ^(edits) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock on the "one account" condition. Three years is a long time, and he sounds genuine enough to be given another chance - and this isn't the Spanish Inquisition -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose One of the key concepts around being unblocked is understanding why you were blocked in the first place. This guy most certainly does not - creating a new sock account in order to request unblock? Using a previous unblocked account to remove that account from some projects while his master account was blocked? Serious lack of understanding, just like when he was blocked the very first time and argued "if I was not blocked, I would not have had to break the rules". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock We don't play Catch 22 with editors. From what I can tell, the user has reformed and has matured in their understanding. If someone who isn't a WikiBureracy navigation pro tried looking for instructions on how to come back from an indefinite block with talk page access revoked could be very difficult. With respect to Bwilkins, the admission of the new account being one registered to apologize appeal the indef demonstrates a good faith attempt to use our system. They appear to have fallen afoul of the "You didn't check box 32, DENY" mentality Hasteur (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions above re:single account. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Hasteur. --causa sui (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Some people appear to need to familiarize themselves with our actual policy. Sockpuppet accounts are only problematic when they are used to disrupt. The fact that this person created an additional account and edited for a couple of years is such obvious evidence that they've "reformed" that I don't know what to say... it's tempting to create a case about administrator misconduct around this issue. Blocks are supposed to be preventative folks. Show some proof that the person behind this account is actually causing disruption somehow, and then we'll talk. Support unblock with a finger waving at the administrators who have denied the unblock requests so far.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, for much the same reason as Hasteur. Looks more like a good-faith attempt to rejoin the editing community, rather than ongoing disruption or timewasting. bobrayner (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2011 (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.

Just in case anyone raises a stink, I wasn't involved at all in the above but I endorse Errant's closure, there was clearly a consensus to allow the unblock. -- Atama頭 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats by 74.142.195.13

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see this message at the Help Desk. A clear legal threat IMHO. IP user informed. – ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, OrangeMike beat me to it. – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

82.18.152.186

82.18.152.186 (talk) is an editor who appears to make random changes of numbers in articles, all unsourced. He/she has been (intermittently) doing this for months. Is there any point in warning, or should we simply avoid wasting time and block? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically a user should be warned first, but vandalism of this nature...I've sure instant blocks have been made for less, so maybe it might be necessary right away. CycloneGU (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, no. It takes three seconds to Twinkle this away and issue a warning: blocking over minor vandalism like this without any warnings would be OTT. Eight edits in two months is not exactly long-term abuse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, there's the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce. They might have more experience with this kind of thing. causa sui (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Accidental Negative Reviews of Articles

Resolved

Although a long-time Wikipedia editor, I misunderstood the new article review function now at the bottom of each page and accidentally left negative (one-star) reviews for four articles for which I meant to leave postive (five-star) reviews.

Is there a way to undo or negate these accidental negative reviews that I myself left for these entries?

The entries are:

John Avery McIlhenny Edward Avery McIlhenny Edmund McIlhenny Tabasco sauce

Sincerely,

--Skb8721 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admininstrator but AFAIK, you can always re-rate them, just click the blue stars and re-submit the ratings. I don't think an admin can change how you voted, though. Rymatz (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Skb8721, you could try asking here. EyeSerene^talk 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You just re-rate, and it replaces your old one with your new one. (If you think about it, this is necessary, since articles change over time. Also, ratings expire after a certain about of change in an article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you all very much! --Skb8721 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike

Vote (X) for Change - again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Not much to see here. CycloneGU (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC) This afternoon an editor filed an SPI against me, claiming that he had protected the page so that I would not be able to file a defence. His conscience must have pricked him, because a few minutes later he filed an RfC on himself. I filed my defence at the SPI but about thirty seconds later MuZemike reverted it and blocked me. Here is the evidence: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change&oldid=440694287. 94.194.22.179 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Has your IP changed or were you using a username that is now blocked? I don't see your IP listed on the page or in any of the two edits that MuzeMike has ever made on the page. OlYellerTalktome 21:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Yes and yes. Can a more experienced editor please notify all parties required to be notified under the rules? 94.194.22.179 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC) I also don't see any open RFC for MuZemike. And the editor that filed the SPI case isn't an admin, so there's no way they could have taken away your User Talk page access. Nevertheless, I have taken the liberty of notifying MuZemike. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC) The IP was referring to this RfC, which was Jc3s5h asking about when it is appropriate to revert a sockpuppet without 3RR being violated. (Jc3s5h was the person who filed the sockpuppet report linked above.) And I agree that there is a lot of quacking going on with this tomfoolery. -- Atama頭 So this is a rotating IP...and why does that name look familiar? CycloneGU (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC) This is a bloody obvious evasion of block by User:Vote (X) for Change (as well as the IP whom I reverted and blocked), who has started up again on the same calendar articles. –MuZemike 21:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, that's why it looks familiar...another IP having a disagreement with the administrator in question. Looks like there won't be much to discuss here...but regarding the obviousness of it, I can't see the user's IP, so unless there's a checkuser, I can't confirm it myself. CycloneGU (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Also, please note that this has been the 5th block on 195.195.89.70 (which is a library IP, which was why I opted for a very brief block) for block evasion. –MuZemike 21:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 94.194.22.179 blocked for a month. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC) MuZemike, instead of swearing at me would you like to explain why you don't want me to defend myself at the SPI? 82.35.114.3 (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC) lol, where did he swear? I don't believe you for some reason. LiteralKa (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:DrMarcu

I would like to request some action be taken against User:Dr.Marcu for gross incivility on the talk page of Talk:Romani_people#Azis_is_not_representative_of_romani_culture. The user has a personal problem with Azis, a Bulgarian drag artist. Azis happens to be both notable and a Romani and is mentioned on the page Romani people. Dr.Marcu opened a thread on the talk page claiming that mentioning Azis on the Romani page was inappropriate [15], claiming that anyone who supports this mention is a racist and likening Azis to Hitler.

When it was pointed out that a drag chalga artist may not be representative of Romani culture but deserved inclusion for being notable, the thread very quickly descended into more accusations of racism and direct insults referred (to me in particular) using the Romani term gadje (striclty any non-Roma but hardly a term of endearment) and a goym (gentile) and of "hating gypsies".

I have participated in a number of Romani related articles, in particular bringing Erromintxela to GA status and find this more than inappropriate. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As an apparently new editor, DrMarcu needs to embark on a sharp learning curve if they hope to continue contributing on the project. RashersTierney (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, RuPaul is missing from the article on Americans. Huge omission, isn't it? FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Americans aren't a disadvantaged minority in their own country. Romani are both in all countries they live and for one to make it to the top group of performers in any country is notable. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

PS Graham Greene probably isn't in the article on Americans either but he certainly features on the page on Oneida people. Get the difference? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The only think I get from this is that you're a slightly more civil POV pusher than Dr.Marcu. You've provided zero evidence that that Azis singer is seen as emblematic for the Romani people by some reliable source, but harp on with your personal theories, which is why usually avoid editing articles like that. Good luck with your little feud. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> and you got your adminship how? I don't have to prove notability for Azis, he has his own wiki page. As that is not under threat from deletion, that means he's notable enough to be on Wikipedia by virtue of his work. So I don't need to prove that. His bio page also states he is Romani. So I don't need to prove that either. There's nothing personal about it.

And I find your disinterest in someone who's rampantly bigoted and spouting hatred on wikipedia appalling. Akerbeltz (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

In an ongoing move request at Talk:China, SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be repeatedly removing an IP's comments (203.198.26.78) that disagree with his sentiment, on the premise that it's a sockpuppet:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

The IP has recovered his comment each time. I reverted the last of these, stating "if the IP is not a confirmed sock then it's not up to you to decide that it is". After this, he's now striking the comments instead.

As far as I'm aware, it's normally the responsibility of the closing administrator on how to address IP contributions...? And it's normally the responsibility of SPI to determine which accounts are being used for sockpuppetry? Not the responsibility of an involved editor?

These actions seem to be selective, since when it comes to IP's that seemingly agree with his position, he's reverted similar actions by other editors and let other IP's go. It also seems that this is not the first time (I haven't gone back any further). Nightw 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the edits of a sock IP of a well known and long time puppeteer. You can't have a conversation on Chinese issues without them showing up and they are extremely disruptive. They become 100XX more disruptive if he is allowed to talk - that is why he is banned. Any user can remove the banned users comments or edits. I striked, instead of removed, after someone else responded so as not to disrupt the innocent commenter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The other diffs in the last paragraph are self-explanatory. An IP made a comment that wasn't non-sense. That talk page material should stay and either be discussed or archived. The other edit is a racial slur. That talk page material should be removed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You're continuing to do this. Striking and removing. This is an administrator's responsibility if it's a confirmed sock (which it isn't). Not the responsibility of an involved user. Another editor appears guilty of this as well, Xiaoyu of Yuxi but his aren't restricted to IP's: here, here and <removed, per Quigley>. I've moved this from WP:WQA because I feel it needs immediate action. Nightw 07:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone at SPI knows something. Click the link to the IP now and you get "01:05, 21 July 2011 HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) blocked 203.198.26.78 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Block evasion)" Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked by HelloAnnyong. But removing the comments should have been done after it was confirmed. And the removal of the other IP comments and another user's comments still need to be explained by Xiaoyu of Yuxi. Nightw 07:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs concerning Xiaoyu of Yuxi: (1) is a legitimate removal of a confirmed sock's message, (2) was rightly removed as a disruptively long conversation in Portuguese, (3) looks like an is a confirmed edit conflict. SchmuckyTheCat has been dealing with dozens of retributive socks of User:Instantnood for years. He should always follow the proper procedures, but you should also assume good faith of both Schmucky and Xiaoyu. Quigley (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay if that was an edit conflict. As for the others, neither of them should be removing or tampering with others' comments in any way, since they are involved in the discussion. And you don't remove comments if they are in another language. Nightw 08:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the banning policy, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." Those sockpuppeteers were defying bans. Quigley (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What Quigley said. Sockpuppets/IPsocks of banned users, turned serial puppetmasters, often are easy to recognize. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor at Bouygues

Bouygues diff (note also a copyvio from http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62567)

I am just drawing your attention to this edit as I have been aware in the past of tendentious and non-neutral POV editing on articles relating to Turkmenistan in the past. While wishing to assume that this is a good faith edit I would like to bring it your attention in case it is part of a pattern of political viewpoint type edits in that subject area.

Thank you for your time.Imgaril (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Dfotev, formerly User:Jordanson third report

Background 1st report:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#User:Dfotev.2C_formerly_User:Jordanson
2nd report:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#User:Dfotev.2C_formerly_User:Jordanson

I'm asking again to take some action against User:Dfotev, because he continues to adding unsourced information mostly cities of birth to the articles about bulgarian footballers. Last two reports remained unnoticed. I want to ask how long this user will be disrupting wikipedia without any punishment? Isn't it enought that he already disrupt most of the articles about bulgarian footballers? And his false contribution still exist in most of the biograhies, spreading all over the web.

Warninigs doesn't work for him, citation needed templates same. Some diffs from today:

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]--Oleola (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. (You should have notified the editor; I have done so.) --SPhilbrickT 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

... and at the same time, the OP should understand that administrative actions are not used for punshment as has been asked for. We implement blocks, etc in order to protect the project and never to punish an editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the point made by Bwilkins and support it (and wish I had made it myself). The point of a block is not to punish, but to stop inappropriate behavior.--SPhilbrickT 13:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki (email) legal threat

Resolved

 – User has been blocked. Swarm ^X 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have received an off-wiki legal threat in an email from a user; the threat is against a third user whom xe is having a dispute. The relevant quote is, "What I can assure you is this, I have made copies of the screens and ongoing acts by <username redacted> will simply be sent to my attorney. I personally have better things to do with my life than to be cyber attacked and threaten with arbitrary and capricious standards." I am unclear how I can proceed; the LT should result in an immediate block, but I'm not sure that I can send/post the e-mail per privacy issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When I think about it more, I guess that technically WP:NLT doesn't apply, since the user didn't actually attempt to "chill" discussions, since it was made strictly off-wiki, unless the user also sent the same email to the third user as they sent to me. Still, this does seem like a problem that should be dealt with. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be actionable, as threatening you with a lawsuit anywhere still chills discussion. (Why'd you want to discuss it if you might be sued?) However, if I were the blocking admin, I'd probably ask for some proof in private of the email in question, to prevent a block solely on word-of-mouth.

This is all just me speculating, of course. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I'm not the one being threatened with a lawsuit, it's a third editor. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if I'm next on the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's off-wiki I'm not sure what you expect an admin to do about it. Admins have no jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

NLT states: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing". The legal threats in question need not be on Wikipedia itself, so long as the dispute is related to Wikipedia. We've blocked for off-wiki activities plenty of times, in particular harrassment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, would you like to fwd the email on to me. As thumperward says, it is probably something we would block for. I do not think there is a privacy issue here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a bit of an over-reaction, and I'd like to make sure it doesn't jump up and bite us. "I'm going to contact my attorney" sounds like bluster, but I don't view it as a legal threat. "I'm going to sue" does qualify, but that isn't what was said. Access to legal counsel is an important right; suggesting that someone can be blocked simply for contacting an attorney might be construed as an unreasonable threat by us. I don't have a problem with the notion that we block is someone actually takes a legal threat, the theory being that the legal remedies should be pursued but not on wiki, however, I think we should take at face value that a statement about contacting an attorney is an attempt to determine if there is a need to pursue a legal course, not the start of a legal course. I really think it is bluster, and I'll bet that any decent attorney will respond that the editor has nothing actionable, but absent an actual intent to start legal proceed sings, I'd prefer not to inadvertently provide fuel to a fire by blocking for merely indicating an intention to talk to an attorney.

I'll go further. An indication that someone plans to talk to an attorney should receive a response like "Please do, they are likely to let you know that this isn't a legal matter. In the case that they do tell you there is an actionable claim, and you choose to pursue it, then it must be done off-wiki. Let us know if you plan to pursue a legal action, in which case you will be blocked per policy so that the resolution can continue off-wiki."--SPhilbrickT 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't immediately explain the consequences of what would happen if such a pursuit is made (otherwise he'll obviously say he's not pursuing anything and could be hiding behind the truth). I'd indicate that if it is stated that he is pursuing legal matters. Also, regarding the jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia comment: it IS within Wikipedia. It was done using Wikipedia e-mail functions sent to an e-mail address of a registered user on Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Everyone has the right to consult a lawyer if they believe they have the need to, but no one has the right to tell others they are doing so, and continue to edit here, since the only possible purpose in doing so is to attempt to gain some sort of advantage over another editor, typically in some kind of dispute. We just don't allow it, it's a fairly bright-line offense. Talk to a lawyer if one must, but don't broadcast the fact on-wiki (or thru-wiki), because a block will be forthcoming (or should be). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I second this interpretation. A block for violating WP:NLT is in order, along with a well-worded explanation by an uninvolved editor (I'd do it myself but I do not have access to the email in question; feel free to forward it to me if you'd like me to take care of it.) -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Their response to the block appears to be a legal threat against the blocking admin. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Have we ever determined who the user was? I don't see it here. CycloneGU (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Found it. So now it's documented here. CycloneGU (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond my Ken I am not yet convinced. You called it a bright-line offense, so I reread WP:NLT and I don't see the clear wording. The policy says if one makes a legal threat, one will be blocked. That policy doesn't define "legal threat" but it does link to Legal threat. At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, that's a link to an unreliable source. Seriously, I don't think we should have a rule with the status of policy that doesn't define the most critical term on its own page, and instead, refers to a page anyone can edit. But let's skip that for now. The definition is: A legal threat is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party. Saying that information will "simply be sent to my attorney" is not a bright line violation of that sentence. In fact, I don't think it is a violation, but at best it is gray. The article does go on to say that "will refer the matter to legal counsel." constitutes a legal threat, but:

1. It is not perfectly clear that this statement meets the definition
2. It can be argued that "refer to legal counsel" is clear shorthand for "I'm going to sue" but asserting one will send information to an attorney isn't quite the same.

After seeing the "will refer the matter to legal counsel." I concede the issue is grayer than I originally thought, but I had read WP:NLT several times and not seen it (because it isn't there.) As a community, we might decide that telling someone you've talked to an attorney is a legal threat, but if we do, we should clearly spell it out. It isn't obvious, and it is most definitely not a bright line violation.--SPhilbrickT 00:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A legal threat is an attempt to intimidate. If the OP is feeling intimidated, then it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, that is not an acceptable rule. Some people get the vapors if you use a strong word. One cannot have a policy that allows blocks to be given solely on the feelings of the recipient of a message. We need rules that impartial editors could enforce based upon observable evidence.--SPhilbrickT 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• His intent was obvious. Even without saying "I'm going to take legal action", the implication was very clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Even if he didn't intend to make a legal threat, even if he thought he was only venting, saying anything that resembles "I am talking to my lawyers" is an implicit legal threat, de facto. I see no other way to interpret it. Sphilbrick's interpretation is untenable, as it provides unwarranted wiggle-room and defangs the policy entirely. Anyone who did not intend to make a legal threat can simply retract their words, and their block (in the vast majority of cases) is lifted. Given that, a bright line is entirely justified to protect the community from cohersion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Support blocking. It is a thinly-veiled legal threat, plain and simple, meant to chill editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again to see if I can make my point clear. I support the idea of a bright line. All policies ought to be a clear as possible, but the NLT policy is one where a bright line is especially important. However, we do not have a bright line. We have a policy about legal threats that doesn't define legal threats. That's about as gray as you can get. On the merits of the particular case, I don't see the statement as a threat, and would prefer a warning, and an insistence that the editor clarify, but if the community wants to draw the line differently, and call that statement a legal threat, I can accept that. What I do not accept is the notion that the present policy is clear. The community should make it clear, by improving the wording. At a minimum, can we define the term "legal threat" in the policy? If not, why not?--SPhilbrickT 10:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If the bright line were "any mention of consulting one's legal counsel", which seems like a bare minimum, then the editor in question would have overstepped it. So I don't see why we're discussing this right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because the phrase "any mention of consulting one's legal counsel" does not appear in No legal threats. If we reach the conclusion, as a community, to include that phrase, then we have a bright line and future incidents like this would qualify.--SPhilbrickT 12:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things... It is off-wiki *and* it isn't a clear threat. Let it drop. Move on and find something more fun to do. -- Avanu (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki doesn't matter. We block for legal threats made to OTRS, because the action of making a legal threat, and the privilege of editing Wikipedia are fundamentally incompatible. As long as the threat remains in existence, regardless of whether it is on-wiki or off, continued editing is disallowed for a number of reasons -- the chilling effect, potential evidentiary issues, potential issues of communications with a represented party, etc. This is a pretty clear-cut case -- there is no other reason to point out that one is going to be forwarding this to one's attorney unless one intends to imply that they will sue the other person. The intent was quite clear to intimidate the other user. This is why we block for such things. Support the block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Support the block per Elle and Beyond My Ken. I don't see how that could reasonably be interpreted as anything other than a legal threat. Kcowolf (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support the block. Implied legal threats are just as prevented as explictly stated legal threats. Telling someone that you've contacted an attorney regarding their actions is a blantant implication that you're considering legal action. Let's keep in mind that according to the policy, "statements made in anger or misjudgment should not always be held against people for the rest of their lives once genuinely and credibly withdrawn." If this user apologizes and retracts their comment, they can be unblocked, but we don't play these "I'm gonna tell my lawyer!" games on Wikipedia. Swarm ^X 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Depends If wiki cares about the letter of the law, then I understand "legal action" to be that formal process which starts with service of a summons and complaint which has not occurred in this example. If wiki cares about the spirit of the law, then WP:NLT sums that up pretty well right at the very top where it says "This page in a nutshell: If you have a dispute with the community or its members, use dispute resolution" If this is still pending, I'd first contact the alleged recipient to first see if there is a real issue to be pressed. If confirmed, I'd contact the editor who sent the email, inviting them to either retract the email or else start the dispute resolution process, and if they refuse block and invite them to seek unblocking when they think they qualifyNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is legal threats. The vast majority of our NLT blocks are on editors who never follow through with legal action, simply because pursuing things through the courts costs a lot of money while sending someone a message over the Internet saying "stop what you're doing or I will sue you" does not. Anyway, in this particular case it's a moot point, given that after the user in question was blocked he repeated his threat in plainer terms on his talk page, so it's no longer ambiguous whether this falls under NLT. I think we're pretty much done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Didn't realise this had started a discussion, sorry for not coming back sooner in that case. The offending user emailed that he was taking screenshots of another editor's actions in reverting his edits (which were deemed a BLP issue), and was sending them to his attorney. He then said he was also going to sue the blocking admin (me) for blocking him "against the rules". He was using the Wikipedia email facility to do this. Gentlemen, we cannot have this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia, it is as neat a definition of what WP:NLT is intended to guard against as I have seen. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'm with Ellen here. Remove the user's ability to send e-mail or (optionally) post to his talk page. There's no point letting him fester about issuing e-mail threats while already blocked, and I don't think he plans to withdraw the threat. CycloneGU (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rambling editor User:&Delta

Resolved

 – Indefinite topic ban for editing or creating theoretical physics articles pending demonstrating an understanding of core policies regarding use of Wikipedia as a forum for publishing original research.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Has WP:COMPETENCE issues, in any field. I won't say anything more because it will probably be a civility violation. Check his contributions if his user page is not convincing enough. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User notified.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• His contributions list is at Special:Contributions/&Delta. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is competence issues - has anyone ever given him a Welcome message with links to understand what and how to edit Wikipedia? Does he have a clue what belongs and what doesn't? Has anyone really tried to help? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• He has been editing for several years and has been on the receiving end of 3 AfDs. His only interest in WP is promoting his ideas and correcting other editors who in his opinion lack the expertise that he believes he has (I think that this diff sums it up well). He has often been advised about how we do things here but I can't see that he's ever addressed the issues directly. "Rambling" is indeed the correct term and "disruptive" might not be too wide of the mark either. andy (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm seeing discussion added to article [23], addition sourced only to a blog entry he wrote himself (and signed in an article) [24] (though I don't think it should have been reverted as "vandalism"), apparent opposition to reliable sources policy [25], pushing personal ideas [26] [27] (and many more), creation of articles that have been deleted as OR, SYNTH, etc, inc Micheal space, Quantum realism. All that, together with a look at his Talk page, suggests to me someone who doesn't have much clue what Wikipedia is for and isn't listening to people explaining it to him - and who has been trying to use it for several years to push his own rambling ideas on all sorts of topics. And he's clearly not the multidisciplinary expert he thinks he is. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Having looked at the Quantum Realism article (now deleted) and the interactions with other users, I would agree with B!sZ. There doesn't seem to be any prospect of a change. Mathsci (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

multiple (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) What administrator intervention is required here? What outcome is being sought? "You have been blocked for having unorthodox views and a somewhat difficult to understand prose style". That would apply to a lot of editors. And as for "disruptive" - 11 or so edits in the whole of 2011. Vandals and POV pushers can do 11 edits in a minute. I see only unnecessary WP:DRAMA here. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally in cases like this, topic bans can be imposed. That was the case for example with User:Terra Novus, who created similarly problematic articles. Mathsci (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some journal started where people could publish new ideas for consideration? Perhaps he could be directed there.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's not about just "having unorthodox views", it's about using Wikipedia to push them - and the latest deleted article was just this month (and for non-admins who can't see it, it was rambling, unsourced, and blatantly OR). This editor is clearly not listening, even after several years - there may not be many edits in 2011 (20 including deleted ones), but they accounted for a lot of words and took up a fair bit of other people's time at AfD. And yes, topic bans can be imposed on editors who won't stop pushing their own personal theories - so perhaps something like a topic ban on theoretical physics? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This editor appears to have a fundamental, all be it benign, misunderstanding of Wikipedia's nature and purpose. The rambling is not so much the point as the belief that one of wiki's functions should be to host his ideas. I see nothing wrong in seeking admin intervention here. It is problematical that after all this time and all the friendly advice he has recieved he still edits like this and this, putting his OR into articles, signed by himself and referenced to his own blogs. Subject to anything he has to say here, either a topic ban on theoretical physics, or at least a ban on creating or editing theoretical physics articles would be in order.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

.. i beg to differ .. i DO know the purpose of Wikipedia .. as i understand the purpose of ANY encyclopedia.. but since you have already dismissed me as 'fringe'/'crackpot' and will delete any contributions i may have to offer,.. what's the point in contributing - even if they're valid? (when they'll be auto-deleted) it's very easy in our so-called 'modern society' to label and dismiss when we feel threatened.. as i've argued before, Wikipedia is a kind of 'front man' for convention (among many things) all these personal attacks against me and 'my ideas' (not really my ideas - they've been around a long time) could be seen as simply convention's inability to allow competing perspectives - today, science is VERY intolerant.. for several reasons.. one is funding: science will not get funded if they're seen as incompetent (just as Wikipedia will not get funded without being perceived as fulfilling a needed function) another is prestige which is tied to the former .. if scientists are seen as incompetent (they cannot provide evidence for Higgs - as an example), prestige is lost, funding is lost,.. it becomes a desperate spiral.. so these things are core to 'the politics of science' but largely unnoticed/unrecognized in 'circles of modern life' (except by those who don't get funding or conventional support) in regards to interactions with me 'and my ideas', Wikipedia has been a: label machine (label me and dismiss me),.. a very condescending and explicitly NON-respectful tone/attitude.. this is not objectivity (and so is not really part of science) but more the 'politics of science'.. and so, in regards to me and 'my ideas', Wikipedia is merely 'front man' for convention who wants: funding, prestige,.. ad nauseum am i surprised? no.. but i am a little disappointed in Wikipedia editors who cannot be a 'little bit' more objective, respectful, and open-minded .. i won't argue again why i think articles like these should 'stay up'.. i think everyone here understands my position on the purposes of encyclopedias.. if this above seems 'rambling' (another label editors seem to prefer to 'throw on me'), i believe that's just more of the same.. a kind of meaningless label/dismiss people do when they feel threatened/insecure.. if i get banned from posting anything on Wikipedia, i won't 'feel bad' .. again, just a little disappointed in Wikipedia and its editors who seem to prefer not to participate in science (or progress in science) .. this likely will be my last post .. ban at your convenience, sam micheal&Delta (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here calling you 'fringe' or 'crackpot', and that's not what this report is about. And no, if you think an encyclopedia is for pushing progress in science, you are simply wrong - that is what scientific journals and other media that publish primary research are for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and only includes material that is covered in some depth by reliable secondary sources, sufficient to demonstrate notability. It does not publish novel ideas, ideas sourced only to personal blogs, or material which is not supported by multiple reliable sources. If you want an outlet for furthering scientific progress or promoting your own ideas, you really will have to look elsewhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to link to Wikipedia:No original research - please do try to gain an understanding of that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ, do we really have to keep putting up with this shit? This guy is a giant time-suck who's never made a constructive edit and is obviously never going to because he doesn't have the brains to figure out how. If he were really a scientist doing cutting-edge work in advanced theoretical physics, he'd know how to take that work to a legitimate goddamn scientific journal and get it published. He'd never waste his time trying to push it on Wikipedia. He'd also know how to compose a simple declarative English sentence with a capital letter at the beginning and a period at the end. Believe it or not, scientists have college degrees and do that all the time. How long are we going to let ourselves be jerked around by this loon.? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • What he said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I take that as support for the suggested topic ban?Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried explaining the purpose of WP etc to &delta in 2009, and it did not change his method of editing. However, in the years he's been here, he's made fewer than 100 edits total. 51 not deleted and fewer than 50 that have been deleted. I know of other editors who have created many more articles which - imo - don't meet WP standards, editors who refuse to take onboard constructive criticism, and who have thousands of edits. They're still here. I agree that he's mildly disruptive, but disruptive enough for a topic ban? Karanacs (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Partial topic ban proposal

Propose indefinite topic ban on editing or creating articles on theoretical physics, broadly construed. To be reviewed if User:&Delta demonstrates an understanding of the relevent policies for contributing to and creating science articles on the encyclopedia.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A minimally reasonable outcome. His edits to existing articles were not much better though: [28] [29]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It says editing too.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, user has only made 4 article space edits in the last 3 years, of which this revert of his edit appears to have mislabeled it as vandalism, this was (by AGF) a misplaced talk page comment, this EL remained in the article for 6 months until recently removed, and this EL was removed through normal processes. In none of the above cases did the user in question edit-war or otherwise try to break any rules to reinsert their material.

The user appears to be ignorant of the specific processes and mechanics of working with Wikipedia, but does not seem to show any malicious editing of article space. A topic ban here seems excessive; this user has an extremely low rate of contribution and the normal Wikipedia processes are working fine. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - 13 edits in 2011 - this section is monumental waste of time Bulwersator (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, next time he creates a rubbish article, I'll let you waste time AfD-ing it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think Bulwersator or TechnioSymbiosis have taken into account (a) deleted edits or (b) deleted articles. Perhaps an administrator can give the details. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

All of his deleted edits relate to deleted articles, the most recent being Quantum realism in 2011. Before that, in earlier years there was Micheal space and an article on a person.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Specifically, he has been the author of three AfD'd articles, all of which are about his fringe theories: Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature (see here for a flavour), Micheal space and Quantum realism, while the deleted article about a person, Caroline h thompson refers to another fringe "scientist" (see here for her views on neutrality in wikipedia). IMHO the guy is a lost cause but it's not AfDs that are the problem, it's disruptive edits to "real" articles. andy (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed I didn't take into account edits to deleted articles, since I can't view those, but really, let's keep things in perspective here. 3 deleted articles (and associated edits), and 4 edits in mainspace to other articles in the last 3 years, none of which appear malicious, and you're considering an indefinite topic ban? As causa sui says below, this is so minimal it could be cleaned up (including AFDs) in less time than it has taken to debate this. I agree that it's disruptive, but it's disruptive on such a miniscule scale and to such a miniscule severity as to be irrelevant. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• We're not considering this to punish "a lot of disruption" or "malicious" actions. It has been a small amount of disruption, but its large enough that we know it's going to continue in the future unless we put the brakes on it. The proposed ban isn't some draconian measure like you apparently perceive it to be, it just means that they would no longer allowed to create articles about "theoretical physics". It's a minor restriction for a minor problem. Swarm ^X 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• The proposal relates to editing theoretical physics articles, not just creating them. Regardless, it remains in my mind a disproportionate response to a small problem. Even reading the AFD for Quantum Realism, it strikes me that Delta has been quite polite despite his writing being called 'incoherent' and 'bullshittism'. No blow-ups, no name-calling, no cursing, no edit-warring, no aggressive arguing; just one mild case of potential incivility that I can see by suggesting another editor wasn't qualified to review his efforts. This is hardly the hallmark of a disruptive editor in need of a topic ban. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• The thinking behind it was that not only has he made virtually no constructive edits to articles but the edits he does make are really talkpage edits, commentary signed by him, including argument directed at another editor.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, per discussion in this and the previous section. Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- no need. As Karanacs notes, ~50 dubious (but not really disruptive) edits over several years does not seem to be something worth banning &Delta over. &Delta seems to be editing in good faith, doesn't edit war or make himself objectionable. I imagine there might be times when we'd need to block or ban a good-faith editor- such as if they're breaking things on a large scale- but IMO it would set a bad precedent to do it for something like this. Also a huge waste of time, like Bulwersator says.Reyk _YO! 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• But as I mentioned earlier, pretty much every one of his edits has been pushing his agenda so someone needs to be monitoring him on a regular basis and reverting almost everything he does. Check out his contributions for List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, for example, where he says that people who "present alternative views of quantum mechanics" are marginalized; Frame-dragging where, using an anon IP address, he abuses another editor in the body of the article; Gravitation, where he plugs his theories; Bell's theorem - POV pushing; and so on... This is someone who is not suitable to be editing wikipedia. andy (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I could have reverted all of those edits in Huggle in half the time we would spend discussing this. --causa sui (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Really? Huggle deletes articles? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How fast it takes to revert is beside the point. Someone has to constantly monitor and check every edit he makes.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support user is wholly incompetent and unconstructive and a waste of time for other editors and a serious net negative to the project. To answer Reyk, this isn't about good faith; we have a longstanding principle here that WP:Competence is required to be an editor. Just a basic, basic, level of competence. Delta lacks this basic level of competence, and banning him from creating articles is going to prevent him from disrupting Wikipedia. Also, frankly, Steven J. Anderson is spot on above. Swarm ^X 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although the user could have benefited from a clearer exposition of No Original Research, but I think working away from physics would be a better approach than continuing the present trajectory of editing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The user does not appear to want to comply with or acknowledge that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for original research. The user has repeatedly been instructed to read Wikipedia guidelines. Regardless of whether the user has done so or not, the user does not appear to care much for these policies and has substituted the reality of this policy with their own. Unfortunately, this is not at all the correct way to use "ignore all rules". This speaks to the lack of competence for the user to be a good faith editor. This AfD for quantum realism is an excellent example of the user's conduct. The user demands wikipedians be "qualified" to review his articles (not English majors apparently), seems to think "original research" is a compliment to their article, and assumes bad faith in other editors (i.e. that authors are somehow after him and his work specifically). A topic ban is appropriate to prevent the user from imposing more original research on WP and forcing inane, long and plodding AfDs. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I don't like it, but AfDs such as the one linked above are a giant waste of time for the editors involved--I'm reminded of Superbradyons--and have the potential to be far more irritating and convoluted than that one was. Given that no productive edits seem to be coming from the editor, and given the ubiquitousness of the Wikipedia cover up you don't even know half of it you're not qualified etc. accusations generally found among such fringe editors (a general rule proven correct in this case), I think this is a good solution. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, since the editor was still this month posting his original research, despite all the people telling him that it's not OK. In the latest AfD he was putting WP:FRINGE on its head; either he doesn't understand it at all, or he refuses to understand. Basically, wasting the time of editors who are knowledgeable in physics. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:COMPETENCE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Drmies. bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The disruption isn't major, but it demonstrates a consistent inability or unwillingness to abide by WP policies, and the topic ban is pretty limited in scope. Showing the they could properly edit other articles could get this sanction lifted later. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support until such time as the editor can be shown to satisfy WP:CIR. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This thread seems to be finished. I shall indef. ban the user from creating or editing articles on theoretical physics until he has demonstarted a willingness to understand and edit in accordance with the encyclopedia's prime purpose.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP dispute in progress at Talk:Harold Covington

Apparently the subject of this article has showed up, and is not entirely pleased with the contents. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a greeting on behalf of Wikipedia (I know, I'm not an admin., but someone had to break the ice). I have encouraged the user to feel free to come here to discuss the concerns where more administrators are also available to discuss his issues, and also explains WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I hope he will take my invitation to further discuss the things that are concerning him regarding his article.

With that said, there is unsourced information in the article. I noticed at least a few sentences that are not cited anywhere, and something there could very well be the bit that is bothering him. So we need to figure out what the concern is and go from there. CycloneGU (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, on the article talk page is an account Haroldcovington. It might be necessary to determine if the IP used by that account matches the IP used now, if that can even be done. The reason for that is the five year old legal threat. As it's been five years, I will overlook the threat for now and am more interested in determining first if it's him, and second addressing his concerns to make the article something Wikipedia can be more proud of. CycloneGU (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says that Harold Covington is a neo-Nazi. If this is true, his thinking is undoubtedly so deranged that "addressing his concerns" is unlikely to "make the article something Wikipedia can be more proud of." Having said that, there's been enough edit-warring and contention at the article that it should probably given a good NPOV, RS and verifiability check. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there appear to be multiple problems with the article. Short of deleting it all and starting over, I wouldn't know where to begin, myself. But I have faith it can be saved. (I'm also trying to be friendly.) CycloneGU (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In this edit, the subject (if it really is him) mentions that it might be worthwhile to take down the article. Assuming we could confirm through OTRS that this is, in fact Convington, is there any possibility that that might be the best strategy? Quite a number of the links and references in the article are to his own internet presence; he's been a member of a variety of organizations, but not all of the orgs themselves are notable, and the one's he was highest ranked in seem to be the least notable; and he once ran for election for North Carolina Attorney General, but lost. Yes, he meets WP:BIO, but not by a whole lot. Maybe this is a case where we should consider BLP-sanctioned possibility of deleting an article on a bio of a marginally notable person when they themselves request it. I'm not saying it should be for certain, but I wanted to raise it as a possibility. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As a normally-less-than-zealous-about-BLP-enforcement, in marginal cases I think a time-limited courtesy blanking or deletion is of very little harm and is potentially doubleplusgood. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Per talk page, Forky1138 is a confirmed sock of NorthwestVolunteer. Further, since the IP freely admits he is NorthwestVolunteer, there is another sock situation found. We need to make sure he is only using one account before continuing any further. At a minimum, Forky1138 must be blocked now as a sock. CycloneGU (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, and I just found this. Back to legal threats. I think it might be necessary to have a full block at this time. CycloneGU (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The situation at the talk is going from bad to worse, with the IP/Covington now dropping legal-ish threats and attacking CycloneGU, who is absolutely bending over backwards to do everything he can to help the guy. Assuming good faith is assuming good faith, but at what point do we need to force the IP/Covington to a stop? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This most definitely is one of the toughest situations I've ever gotten myself into here - maybe THE toughest. I'm starting to wonder if we're better off blanking the content portion and completely rewriting it. I'll merely add sources for information I can verify and add more info if the source has it, but other than that I can't guarantee it'll be exactly what he wants to see. CycloneGU (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Now he's requesting page deletion. Of course, given he hasn't created the deletion discussion page, it's not set up yet. I will have to see what his contribs show. If he wishes to have it created, I'll start the discussion for him but I am neutral. CycloneGU (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, Ticket:2011072110016071 is now in place. I can't access that server at all so I can't see a thing (how do you get that NEway?), anyone willing to follow whether it looks like it will be approved or declined I would appreciate so I know whether we have to eventually do an AfD. CycloneGU (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

m:OTRS/volunteering. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

New user User:Cracksinthepath

Resolved

 – Editor was blocked for block evasion. -- Atama頭 20:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

This users edits came to my attention when using Huggle, I think that an administrator might what to have a look, s/he appears to be adding Sock templates and creating new sock Categories but is less than 2 hours old. Mtking ^(edits) 09:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Outing Violation - Ferrariman1954 (again)

Resolved

 – User is indefinitely blocked by EyeSerene, move along. Hasteur (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am reviving this recently archived ANI (located here) as he has outed again. See the end for that information. Srobak (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

== Outing violation ==

Greetings, unfortunately have to report Ferrariman1954 for an WP:OUTING violation and veiled threat. After several instances of adding a link to an un-official & un-affiliated fan forum (1, 2, 3) with content in violation of copyright and in violation of WP:FANSITE,WP:ELNO and WP:PROMO, as well as sandboxing within the article and having those edits reverted - the user in question has decided to release my personal information in response to rv notifications. User has also indicated they have "filed a complaint" - though no notice has been submitted to my talk page as required, and I cannot find anything on any of the noticeboards to that effect. User also states that they will continue to "file complaints" indicating further WP:HARASSMENT, and has indicated a goal of getting me "kicked off" of WP. These instances can all be seenhere. Clearly this user is on a witch-hunt of some sort and needs to be reeled in. Thanks. Srobak(talk) 11:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

2nd instance of WP:OUTING: COI Noticeboard. This conduct needs to cease. Srobak (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Striking above due to finding it on the COI Noticeboard, however I still did not receive notification as required. User indicated on that noticeboard that they are the administrator for the fansite they keep linking to. Not often a user COI's themself on the COI Noticeboard. :) Srobak (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Juneord (talk · contribs) might be a sock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, or evidence of offsite coordination (in which it's a WP:MEATPUPPET). Either way, Ferrariman1954 has now been thoroughly warned and the offending edits removed. Unless they resume disruptive editing I think that's all we can do for now. I'm open to a request for semi-protection for the article if other accounts appear, and if Ferrariman1954 makes any further problematic edits I expect they'll be blocked in fairly short order. EyeSerene^talk 11:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens ... before EyeSerene's post, I had already blocked Juneord as per WP:DUCK. You're right though, it could be one of the fan-droolers from Ferrari's fansite come to save the day as per WP:MEAT. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See [30]. EyeSerene^talk 11:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Certainly that is actionable?Srobak (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Srobak - back off the article and let others deal with it, you're not doing yourself any favours with comments like immediately above. I have semi'd the article for a week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems sensible in the circumstances though I'm not normally a fan of pre-emptive protection. Srobak, we obviously have no say in what happens outside Wikipedia, but if we're aware of coordination off-site to organise activity on-site we can be better prepared for any problems that do arise... if they arise. So far I have to say that the disruption, while clearly unpleasant for you personally, has been pretty low-level. The main reason I posted that link was because we were speculating about sock/meat puppetry, but because problems are dealt with on a case-by-case basis using a standard set of tools and policies designed for the purpose, the reasons behind the problems make little practical difference in the end. EyeSerene^talk 12:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and I appreciate everyone's efforts here. Please understand I was not inquiring about actionability for my sake, but for the sake of disruptive, coordination against WP in general. I have far too thick of skin to be worried about being in someone's crosshairs. I only brought it here to ANI because WP:OUTING is such a gross breach of policy, and is one of the core principles of WP - regardless who the receiving end of it is. That being said, I again sincerely appreciate everyone's efforts in this matter - the end goal of course for the betterment of WP as a whole. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Srobak, you're right about WP:OUTING, and it's the one thing that has not been addressed. It's tough because you and I both use real names to edit Wikipedia, although that's not an excuse. As you already have a history with the topic, it was very very simple math to add 2 2 to get 4. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably been addressed as far as we can for now - revisions have been deleted, edits removed and warnings handed out. There have been no edits since the last warnings which is the only reason I didn't issue a block, but I'd be happy to in a heartbeat if it happens again (and wouldn't argue if someone did want to block Ferrariman1954 anyway as they were warned by Srobak before the second incident at the COI noticeboard). I agree that it might not take a genius to put two and two together, but I think that's treading on very dangerous ground if someone hasn't voluntarily given up their expectation of privacy. EyeSerene^talk 13:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So he has once again violated WP:OUTING (for a 3rd time) and also breached WP:CIVIL in the process. I am therefore refreshing my request to have this dealt with. It is clear that the warnings issued by various individuals as well as the discussion in this thread as well as on the COI Noticeboard have not done anything to change his conduct. I might add that his closing remark he seems to elude to my having emailed him. This is not the case - I haven't had any form of contact with this individual in excess of 2 years, until a couple days ago here on WP with this nonsense. I have emails to that effect and am happy to divulge them to an admin if necessary. Thanks again for your attention. Srobak (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene blocked Ferrariman1954 indefinitely, and beat me to it in the process. -- Atama頭 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The diff in question was also deleted by EyeSerene, along with 3 others. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2) Sorry Atama :) I've also disabled Ferrariman1954's talk page access given the repeated nature of the problem. Revdel applied and oversight contacted. For future reference, Srobak, you can always contact oversight directly rather than posting here (which may serve to draw more attention to something you want to remain private). EyeSerene^talk 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and attention to the issue. I appreciate it, and should another instance of outing occur like this, I will take it oversight. Thanks again.Srobak (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Resolved

 – More threats of legality, mission complete.

Possible legal threat at Wikipedia:Help desk#Journal of Cosmology WIKI--biased, libelous, slanderous, by 98.207.253.170 (talk · contribs). Rehevkor ✉ 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ditto at the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for a week, and informed them that they must unambiguously withdraw the threat if they wish to be unblocked. I would block a registered user indefinitely, but in case this is a dynamic IP I wanted to reduce the potential collateral damage. -- Atama頭 20:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Atama. Rehevkor ✉ 20:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"I fail to see what this footnoted 'comparison' adds to the article"

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

No admin action called for at this time; as such, this is not a matter for this board. This may be appropriately discussed at WP:DRN or handled through one of the other procedures recommended at WP:DR. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

---

My add-on was removed by user Hrafn providing above reasoning. I approached him with my standpoint: " Add."I fail to see what this footnoted 'comparison' adds to the article" It adds NPOV, showing that original text is baised because declares something opposite than what can be found in general scientific literature.--Stephfo (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I do declare that I followed this WP:Policy: “When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral.”

I added what I deem as neutral. I prefer to discuss your reasons for erasing given text here, I doubt that someone else might know why the text was erased by you. Please note: “Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not discussing will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution.”

If you want to discuss it in a talk page of article, than I suggest that you initiate such talk before erasing something, when you do erase, then I believe it should be you who is able to explain what you did, not others. Pls. see also advise: "A number of experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse....The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars." I do not want start another edit war and prefer to get the reason for your point here, where it is less likely to initiate a never-ending edit war by involving a crowd psychosis.

Pls. do not erase this text, WP rule: "“Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative". --Stephfo (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"

He is refusing to engage in discussion, and makes just references to talk page where there was already demonstrated that it just ends up in edit war where effects of crowd psychosis are taking place: everybody shoots accusation one on top of other, without bothering to prove them, and when the thread becomes too long, they just declare it as deadhorse and at the end even accuse me of being war editor and block me. I do not want to end up in the same trap -I'm strongly convinced that if someone is erasing something, he should stand up for what he is doing w/o making appeals to the crowd where there is no chance for decent dispute-resolution. Pls., advise.--Stephfo (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Without any article links, user information, or page diffs. nobody can do a thing here. (I see a user link now, struck that.) CycloneGU (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait...if that's a user, you should be linking to User:Hrafn. CycloneGU (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Hrafn has now been advised of this discussion. As discussed at FTN, Stephfo has been insistent on adding a specific YEC claim to an article about generic (creationist) objections to evolution, without providing a secondary source showing mainstream views of this specific version of the generic claim. Stephfo has also repeatedly dismissed warnings about 3RR, and was blocked for Edit Warring: see the user's talk page. Possibly some difficulty in following or accepting policies relating to pseudoscience and fringe views. . dave souza, talk 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo made an addition to Objections to Evolution. Hrafn, deleted it, per WP:BRD I think it would be on Stephfo to take it to talk. Stephfo did not, instead a notice was placed on Hrafn's talk page [[31]], which Hrafn deleted. I fail to see how any action is needed, except that maybe Stephfo needs to brush up on policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute not needing administration. That said, I see some shadiness like involved editors closing discussions and questionably uncivil edit summaries. I wouldn't say anyone has done anything wrong, but certainly some editors have come close due to frustration.--v/r - TP 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into the situation and here's the relevant information, as far as I'm concerned:

• Stephfo (talk · contribs) has been perseverating on the claims of Young Earth creationist Andrew McIntosh (professor) and insisting on including McIntosh's particular claims in Objections to evolution. These claims follow the general theme of evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but also contain McIntosh's own peculiar obsession with "nanomachines". Nothing has yet been presented to suggest that McIntosh's specific claims have any sort of broader influence in the creationist literature.
• Stephfo's suggestions for inclusion have been repeatedly rejected at Talk:Objections to evolution for numerous reasons. Edit warring on that article earned a 24 hour block yesterday.
• this is the "footnoted 'comparison'" opaquely referred to above. The specific content within that footnote can be found as a direct cut-and-paste from numerous online creationist sources, all of which leave out the same sort of important citation information (that it's a selectively-quoted letter to the editor) and that it's contextual meaning does not justify its use in support of claims that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Nor is its attempted use to undermine the claims to which the footnote was attached a proper or relevant edit.
• There appears to be a language barrier issue, but the larger problem is an apparent unwillingness to drop the issue when consensus has clearly opposed Stephfo's editing.

I'd suggest that Stephfo (talk · contribs) may be a good candidate for a topic ban on evolution/creationism topics as his/her edits seem to be more and more combative and have not been productive. — Scientizzle 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you making me candidate, it seems by fighting manipulation I will inevitably earn what every my opponent is after. However, I still do not consider for just to state e.g."Nothing has yet been presented to suggest that McIntosh's specific claims have any sort of broader influence in the creationist literature.", if the discussion contains something like this: "Independent source: Per A. Larsen: Darwins lære faller (ISBN 82-7199-2228) p.127: "Entropy can be forced to decrease in open system by applying enough external energy and information in an organized form."" If needed, more sources can be added. I also protest against the way how the consensus was declared - NPOV tag was not allowed to be raised, and declaration of consensus was done before a serious answer could be constituted (cf."Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time."). I was also intimidated to look for any other editors that could have different opinion that my opponents. I will restate my main point here:

My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on the second law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification [32] [33] they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm disputing this article section because it clearly violates this WP policy (“Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”)- the article misrepresents the position of proponents of this argument and replaces it with a strawman. In the article devoted to A.McIntosh (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds) there had been a hyperlink to this section (that I removed but it was already several times put back) thus creating false impression that this section should be expression of his position as creationist. That's why I propose to present the real position of proponents of this argument as stated above, properly sourced in their papers (the first refused version was sourced from BBC Radio Ulster) and not just its stripped version. If anybody feels that argument is wrong, it is possible to state it below that text with all the reasoning without the need to remove the text explaining creationist’s position (the section declares: “Creationists argue that” but it fails to present the full version of heir position).

The article "objections to evolution" obviously attempts to state that it is enlisting and possibly refuting objections raised against evolution. If one of the objection (namely “Violation of the second law of thermodynamics”) is regarded as not allowed to be presented as it is declared, then I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Wikipedia reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position (WP:V“Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”). I do not care whether creationists are right or wrong, or if someone is able to refute their claims or not, but if someone atributes some opinion to them, then this opinion should be of theirs, and not replaced by something else.--Stephfo (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)--Stephfo (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

May I inquire on why you refer to your fellow editor as your "opponent"? CycloneGU (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not meant in pejorative way, it simply reflects the fact that we disagree on certain point, namely whether the objection of creationists should be presented as they declare it or how evolutionists (mis)present it. --Stephfo (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out what the problem is here, and what policies have been violated. Full disclosure, I edit that page, and I guess am part of the 'crowd psychosis'... Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but if I were in your shoes, if nothing else, I'd most likely manage to notice at least (and try to touch points raised, at least a bit):

1.I'm disputing this article section because it clearly violates this WP policy (“Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”)-

2.section ... is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Wikipedia reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position (WP:V“Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”)

3. I can add more if you like. --Stephfo (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, yes, this is wholly a content dispute, not an issue involving a complaint of behavior, and not actionable by administrators. If you can't settle the issue at the article talk page, you should bring the issue to WP:DRN, it's not a matter for this board. -- Atama頭 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I’ll try to explain why I think that this issue has something to do with bahaviour. Psychological manipulation is defined as “a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at the other's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive. Successful psychological manipulation primarily involves the manipulator:

1. concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors.

2. knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective.

3. having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.

Consequently the manipulation is likely to be covert.”

Specifically what I've experienced in aforementioned discussion was that I’ve come across of something what I deemed as violation of NPOV policy. “When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral.” I did. My addition was erased. OK. I wanted to know reason – and evidence that I have violated some policy – and the reasoning was just declaration itself, references to general policies, w/o any demonstartion of any particualr rule being violated. I consider such reasoning for fallacy – Argument by assertion (logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth). This was the manipulative tactic that I was facing – constant accusation something is wrong w/o bothering to proof such claim quoting specific sections from the text that I added. I naturally tried to redo my add-on as I do not accept invalid arguments. It was again erased. OK. I asked Yobol at his talk page what was the reason for his removal as at talk page he just mentioned he agrees with others, but no one of others really specified anything tangible. My Qs at his talk page are left unaswered until now:”

1. Pls. explain why you are not able to enlist your objections against my text that you erased: [6]. Do you still hold a position that the text should be kept out? If yes, what is your reasoning? Stating "Numerous objections" without specifying a single one is hardly to be considered as valid evidence that my text is violating any of the WP rules. Should I interpret your refraining from objection specification in a way that your position has changed and you do not dispute my text anymore? Pls. explain.

2. Pls. also explain why you had erased the Wikipedia-sourced image. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC) “ How person can discuss things if someone keeps erasing his contributions and then is not able to provide any rationale for it?

NPOV: Likewise, when I had tried to raise a NPOV flag, it was never allowed. When I asked Jess what was his reason to erase the flag, his answer was: ” I'm not involved in your content dispute, so I can't comment on the details.” I do not think that it is very ethical approach to keep removing NPOVs w/o providing any reason and consatntly making just appeals to the crowd at talk page. Another rational was specified like this: “I too agree, and, stop adding the neutrality tag, the source's misunderstanding of evolution and 2LOT and his sticking his fingers in his ears and singling 'la la la la' really loudly does not mean there is a neutrality problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)” I do not consider “la la la” as very polite answer to my question raised: “Please explain why you've removed the real argument on topic of 2nd law of thermodynamics with quotes and kept only the stripped version that thus becomes just a strawman w/o the key elements such as link between the 2nd law itself and the presence of nanomachines in the living cells. Thanx in advance for explanation--Stephfo (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)” Problem is that people who propose certain POV rarely see the NPOV violation if the article is up to their taste, that’s quite natural.

Consensus. My propossion was: “If consensus should be reached and this seems difficult to happen, then I suggest that the page is allowed to be labeled with neutrality label until a consensus will be reached.--88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)” 4 minutes later, a following reply was placed:

“To be clear, I did give a reason: "per talk", which is shorthand for "consensus has been reach on the talk page against this change". Just so we are clear, I also agree with the numerous objections above. Yobol (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)” When I asked what a consensus is and what are the numerous objection in concrete, there was no reply. (cf. “Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time.”) Ok, to me it seems somewhat blurry how this consensus had been reached when person who declares that it was is not able to state on what grounds the aledged consensus is declared. I regard it for completely odd if someone declares “consensus reached” and at the same time arrogantly ignores questions raised.

What I regard for manipulative tactic: When group of editors avoids discussing passages of the text but ascertain it should be erased making references to general policies w/o bothering to prove the claim -nobody knows which sentence is wrong but everybody agrees the text as a whole is banned. When Q raised –arrogantly ignored; reasoning -everybody agrees (Argumentum ad populum). That's what I think has to do with crowd psychosis. Also, manipulation is if there is someone apparently purposefully avoiding pointing out specific text sentences that are not acceptable for him so that consensus in modifying it cannot be reached. That's pretending "discussion is in progress" but no actual textual passages are allowed to be discussed. Likewise, when somebody ascertians that text contains sensational claim but is not able to state what that sensational claim actually is. When only reply to question is another general accusation without evidence, or using Argumentum Ad Hominem (insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument –here: ignoring the arguments by making remarks that I should read some policies, but not able to demonstarte that I would violate any) so that when the discsusion become too long, a deadhorse is being declared. It is absolutely impossible to discuss the improvement of the text if nobody is able to specify what particar part of it is wrong (cf.:” How can be consensus shown if my Qs remain unattended?”).

What I further consider for violation of good morals: If per-review for professor of Thermodynamics is provided by people who have nothing to do with thermodynamics; put the case they have right to have their own opinion, but if somebody declares something like this: “I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry” then I consider such approach for ungrounded accusation for attack upon smb's honour and reputation if that person is not able to manifest or at least enlist these errors that are being declared.

Generally I’m not saying it is tragedy, but I would really much more appreaciate if the people who keep erasing things would have at least some remote idea why they are doing it. I think it is quite natural that if treated like that, person tends to consider such deletes invalid and tries to redo such removals.

Moreover, I’d like also to ask whether it is considered a standard etiquette if someone in discussion uses images like this:

{{whale}} I somewhat tend to believe it tends to be a provocation. I’d like to ask whether the bottom line is that it is approved to remove NPOV tags and erase texts at anyone’s discretion without being able to provide any rationale for it and if this is the behavior that should be propageted and promoted within WP. Please note that it is your report which shifted this discussion form behavioral topic to content itself.--Stephfo (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen that image used once. It was to "whale" Jimbo. Granted, that was a funny instance of this image; with the word "squish", it can be taken negatively. CycloneGU (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, after slogging through that novel you wrote, I gather that you're having trouble getting through to people and getting them to be clearer about their objections to content you want to include. You consider that a "behavioral problem", but that's just called Wikipedia. To be blunt, if you need 10 paragraphs to get your point across, I'd have trouble discussing content issues with you too. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just something for you to think about. The problem with your appeal here is that we administrators don't have actual authority on Wikipedia, we just have extra tools, and with those tools we can change protection levels, delete or undelete pages and revisions, and block or unblock people (at least those are the main tools we get). Unless you're suggesting that administrators block everyone that you're having trouble dealing with (which I assure you isn't going to happen) there's nothing that anyone can do for you here. You have a content dispute with other people, and that's why we have WP:DRN. As I said before, I strongly suggest you give it a try, and when you do, try to say what you need to say in about 1/10 the number of words. -- Atama頭 00:43, 22 July 2011 (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.

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

The above was closed and the following comment was made after the fact. Stephfo, please do not edit on a closed thread. Instead, follow the advice in the close. Thank you. CycloneGU (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

OK, if someone would notice from first sight what I wrote in 1/10, then I would for sure not need to write novels. If, for example,

1. I had written that people don't allow for NPOV flag (NPOV flag is not just "content" I want to include) to be raised on (with explanation that they actually don't follow the ongoing discussion), and you do not seem to address that point at all, then for me it is naturally a sign that you perhaps need a novel to notice that point. What I should state at DRN in this respect?

2. Likewise, you may call it wikipedia when someone attributes false opinions to other people they do not hold or stripping them out of recognition, but for me it is an attack upon smb's honour and reputation.

3. It is strange that user Hrafn on one ocassion stated: "such debates are generally theatre rather than serious expositions of the subject" and now he does not want to provide rationale for his undo of my text addition arguing that I should discuss it at topic's talk page. I do declare that for me it is utterly unacceptable to fall in the same trap, as I learnt by past experience (leading to my blocking) that the only effective way how to fight manipulation, for which I regard justifying acts of undos by fake argument "everybody agrees", is to adhere solely to 1:1 discussion where this fake argument becomes automatically invalidated and thus real arguments of person's act has to be presented. By failing doing so, to me it demonstrates violation of following WP: Policy: “Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community."

4. I agreee though that if blocking someone is the only measure you can apply, then I do not call for something like that to take place. But if you declare that you have "extra tools, and with those tools we can change protection levels, delete or undelete pages and revisions" then I would at least expect you to comment whether you agree that if user comes across something violating NPOV that he has no right to put this flag on and initiate a discussion about that topic. If the authors of article declare outwardly that they are presenting someone's position and at the same time inwardly that they cannot present the real position of that person or group, unless from noted opponents of that group, something related to NPOV is be obviously wrong while you have tools in hand to do something about it.--Stephfo (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thread already closed by Moonriddengirl, reclosing. CycloneGU (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2011 (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.

Newly placed POV dispute tag subjected to multiple reverts

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:DD2K (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

User talk:PhGustaf (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

I edited the section title of an article based upon what I felt was a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. That title edit was reverted. Rather than edit-warring, I placed a POV section dispute tag in the appropriate article section and established a talk section dedicated to dispute resolution. My POV tag has now twice been removed by a second and third editor. I believe it is well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor to both place the tag and to expect resolution discussion, not an edit-warring removal of my tag. I'd appreciate an administrative determination as to the Wikipedia propriety of this arbitrary, multiple deletion of my dispute tag while the associated discussion had barely commenced. My appreciation to whoever might intervene either to set me straight on my misunderstanding of this integral aspect of the dispute resolution process or to please restore my tag per WP:POLICY. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the dispute tag because there is in fact no dispute. This section has been argued out at the length one might expect on the talk page (it's all archived, for the patient), and nothing has changed since the consensus for "False" gelled. If Jake can come up with a reliable source, fine, but else his complaint is just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

I've said roughly the same thing on the article talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm getting old, but... since when is it an NPOV violation to call false claims "false claims"? It seems like WP:NPOV requires us to do that, rather than to pretend that false claims are just "alternative approaches to reality". MastCell ^Talk 03:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)JakeInJoisey: You are free to request a discussion on the talk page, but to place a tag as contentious as an "NPOV-dispute" tag you'd need to establish that there is a genuine intractable dispute between two sides. As it stands right now, I don't see evidence of that intractable dispute. I see you. The talk page is the appropriate page to raise issues on, and you should discuss your problems there. However, please refrain from tagging the article until it becomes a genuine dispute. --Jayron32 03:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. I would appreciate your further consideration of "Disputes over tags" which I believe is more in line with both my experience with the general practice of tag placement (considerably more observing than doing) and which provides specific guidance relative to POV tagging. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting. I've been an active adminitrator at Wikipedia for several years, and an active editor since 2005. I've never seen that particular page before. I'm not sure it is widely accepted nor carries much weight, so I wouldn't take anything written there as particularly useful in trying to decide how to handle the situation. From a practical standpoint, it disagrees directly with the documentation at {{POV}}, which states (bolded by me for emphasis): "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality reliable sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors are irrelevant." In other words, the POV tag isn't placed because the personal view of a Wikipedia editor holds that there section is under dispute, it is that there are "high quality reliable sources" which disagree with the statements in the section. What high quality reliable sources did you provide to indicate that the section is not neutrally worded? --Jayron32 05:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your open approach and I look forward to responding. However, as it's quite late here and I'd like to do this discussion justice with a considered response, I'm going to have to table that till tomorrow. Thanks again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jake the section of that essay (that's right, essay) you can probably most benefit from reading is this: "Occasionally, editors place tags to make a point, to disrupt editing, or to be tendentious." That's what you're doing and that's what you need to stop. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Could the section title be improved? Possibly. "False claims" doesn't readily identify exactly what permutation of "false" is being used ("falsified", "incorrect", "invalid"), and so something like "Disproven arguments" might work better (not least because some sources would have one avoid "claims" for "statements" or "arguments"). Nevertheless, the arguments in question are false, so the section title is neutral, and altering it to make that less clear as you did was not a good idea. If you want to pursue improving the wording without fundamentally altering what it says then you're free to use the talk page, but a dispute tag is unheralded here, and edit warring over that is plainly counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jake seems to be under the impression that on Wikipedia anybody can place a POV tag on any section and successfully insist on retaining it while they themselves "reserve further comment pending completion of their review", whenever they "strongly disagree" with the consensus and the way it came about ("merely an accommodation to multiple problematical WP:NPOV existing entries" — not sure what that means). Jake has not offered any actual reasons (yet); perhaps they'll come later. OK, if they're persuasive and build consensus when they do show up, then change the section title accordingly. But changing it or having the POV tag on it while we wait, and while Jake makes big-voiced statements without any facts in them ("one of the more blatant violations of WP:NPOV policy I have yet to encounter".. "I can't imagine how consensus agreement on this title could have come to pass" etc) is a curious idea. If that was the way things were done here, all our controversial articles would be carpet-bombed with POV tags. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
• To answer the question above, we don't call false claims false claims. Consider Moon landing conspiracy theories; if we took a poll of readers, I suspect there are substantially stronger beliefs that Obama was (insert theory here) than (comparative moon landing conspiracy). Calling theories "false" or "true" is inherently POV, and makes Wikipedia the arbiter of truth, instead of the reporter of what reliable sources say. Regardless of what the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, calling conspiracy theories of any sort "false" in Wikipedia's voice, like in a subject heading, is an NPOV violation. We can and should report that they're roundly rejected by most mainstream sources, and then let the reader make up his or her own mind. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  Noble view, but there has to be some qualifier because the article is about absurd claims with no evidence, so to list them as merely "claims" would give them a false credibility. Either delete the article or list the points as what they are—false claims. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  Once again: we don't take positions on things like that in Wikipedia's own voice, we document what RS say about things. Your argument about "credibility" is severely undermined by the title of the article, wherein they are already labeled conspiracy theories. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• May I respectfully suggest to commenters that discussions related to the merit of (or lack of for that matter) my POV article concerns specific to this POV tag are irrelevant to the purpose for which I posted my request for an administrative determination. It has been my experience that the placement of a POV tag by an editor is common practice in this community after a purportedly NPOV-based corrective edit is reverted and is certainly prefered to edit-warring over content. If it is readily apparent that a POV tag placement is patently disruptive or vindictive with no intent to initiate and engage in discussion towards resolution of concerns, that would be one matter and, perhaps, cause for summary removal by any editor. Immediately establishing a dedicated talk section to discuss perceived issues related to the tag is quite another.

My reference to the disputed tag "essay" (and to Jayron32's credit) was, it appears, considered by Jayron32 (I'll assume essays exist as having some credible merit and/or value?), found "interesting", but also found to be in conflict with other guidance he/she cited in {{POV}}. While I've yet to make a personal assessment in that regard, for the purposes of this AN/I, my concern was both considered and reflected in Jayron32's determination which I accept and have no intent to further debate either those concerns nor the merit of unrelated issues further in this space. I appreciate the consideration. Thank you.JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:110.174.63.234

110.174.63.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been going around marking socks of User:Bowei Huang to redirect to those user and user talk pages, and reverting himself. For example, [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. This IP is clearly the IP of Bowei Huang, but I don't know if it is block evasion based on the terms of the blocks of Bowei Huang and his socks.

Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely on January 12, 2010 after being told to stick to one account, A1DF67 (talk · contribs), following this ANI thread. A1DF67 was later renamed to Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs) on April 19, 2010. Bowei Huang 2 is currently unblocked, but there is also Bowei Huang 1 (talk · contribs), which was blocked indefinitely on February 5, 2010 for being a sockpuppet. An Unknown Person (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely on March 5, 2010 for being a sockpuppet. This message left by the IP on an admin's talk page muddles things as well. Can someone with knowledge of this situation clarify on what action should be taken? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not block evasion based on the terms of me and my socks. Please. Sorry. I just simply forgot and didn't bother to login.

110.174.63.234 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fistoffoucault reported by User:Dave3457

Resolved

 – Complaint was withdrawn by nom OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Femininity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fistoffoucault (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fistoffoucault has [been notified]

I initially posted this at 3RR or edit warring but was directed to post it here.

I just reported Fistoffoucault for edit warring and got a "No violation" result. I do not wish to rehash that but to report on his behavior since that result.

The most significant act being that he wrote the below taunting message at the top of my talk page...

[40] Dave, I noticed you have some trouble spelling English words, if you need help with your English, just let me know.Fistoffoucault (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason that he was not blocked at Edit warring was because he was somewhat apologetic and wrote in part...

I'm sorry for forgetting to include edit summaries. I can see that this has bothered you.

Note that I asked him several times to include edit summaries but he refuses to, he doesn't "forget".

Note that he wrote the above in response to my accusation of edit warring fearing he was going to get blocked, however when he received a "no violation" result he immediately went back to his old ways and made the following edit diff where he gave no edit summary and removed the image, Young Woman Drawing, which is the present consensus as explained in my original edit warring complaint.

He also proceeded to made these significant changes, again without any edit summary. diff

In short I just don't understand how his behavior is in any way acceptable, which is in summary...

• taunting
• refusal to be considerate of others and use edit summaries to describe and explain his edits.

and

• refusal to accept apparent present consensus.

If you do read my other edit warring claim, in light of the fact that my argument was long winded, be sure to skip over the History section stuff and jump to the sentence that is in bold and reads...

Concerning the changing of the images without consensus which is really the bigger problem.

Dave3457 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry you thought I was taunting; I noticed your edits and talk comments had a lot of mistakes and I was genuinely offering to help you. 2. Again, I sometimes forget the edit summaries. I promise I don't do it on purpose. 3. There is no current consensus on the picture. USChick has eliminated the picture many times. You and Avanu support the current picture. Aroneol and I supported the shaman picture. Doesn't it seem better to have no picture until we can agree?

The edit war was resolved as a "no violation" by administrators. Your frequent alteration of the psychology section without reference to sources (and without maintaining neutrality) is as much an instance of edit warring as my changes.

The offer still stands! Fistoffoucault (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

xxxxxxx

Regarding Fistoffoucault's claim that he was not taunting me but trying to help me...

In his response to my edit warring claim he wrote...

I resent that you have used this means of resolving this issue.

Fistoffoucault also wrote in the response....

diff I've been told by other users that you have mentioned on other pages that you hate feminism because it destroys romance. I wonder if you should continue to be involved in this particular area if you feel so strongly about something that is a generally accepted part of academic discourse--and an essential methodology for writing this article.

The above statement has somehow been deleted from his response as it presently appears in the archive, I couldn't find the diff describing how that happened.

Regarding Fistoffoucault's "forgetting" to use edit summaries...

Here is a quote from my edit warring claim...

In spite of my repeated requests, Fistoffoucault often refuses to use edit summaries. I wrote the below on the femininity talk page.

[[41]] Fistoffoucault, When you make changes to a wiki page you need to include an edit summary along with your edit. That way the other editors can follow what is going on without having to go to the page. This is Wiki policy. I noticed that you deleted the above comment with no response when I put it on your talk page . Do you disagree that it is Wiki policy? Please tell me your position on the matter. I have to be honest, I find it odd that you are "Looking forward to more productive discussion!" but then you change the lede image without so much as an edit summary. We had come to a consensus as to what that image would be.

Fistoffoucault, did not respond even though I used his name in the edit summary when I wrote the above.diff

Fistoffoucault is however correct that, even though I disagree with the "no violation" ruling, I should not have used that claim in this incident report.

Dave3457 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, as you can see, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm sorry for pissing you off by not writing edit summaries--I really do forget. I envy the fact that you have so much time to devote to Wikipedia; I've got a job though, so I'm pretty busy. I'll try and pay more attention to these small details in the future. But in the meantime, shouldn't you assume benign intent?

Looking forward to getting along better! Fistoffoucault (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If your comment on my talk page was not taunting, then how were you going to help me with the "spelling of English words" ?

Dave3457 (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I can provide you with any number of educational materials in .pdf format--I have a lot of friends who are English teachers. Additionally, we could have spelling bees/tests over Skype...I don't know, it was merely a friendly offer. It looks now like you speak OK English, and that you just make a lot of spelling mistakes.Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of erring on the side of good, I will withdraw this incident report.

Its my hope that you will continue to include edit summaries and quite frankly if you do not have time to keep up to date with what going on on the talk page about a given section you should not be editing that section. Its my sense that you aren't and its extremely disruptive. Taking the time to defend your edits comes with making those edits. I would refer you to this comment I directed toward you after your last edit. Talk:Femininity#Behavior_and_personality_Section

Dave3457 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Stalking, or proper use of contribution history?

If you have reason to think that someone will improperly tag non-free-use images for deletion, is it WP:Wikihounding to keep an eye on their contributions and remove improper speedy tags when the fair use conditions have been satisfied? Further, is it hounding when they tag a dozen files, but you only disagree with one, so that's the speedy tag you remove? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has to know you're keeping an eye on their contributions if you do it quietly is my opinion. Juliancolton (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but what if they're so prolific that you're going to reverse one of their edits every few days? (And I don't always revert them -- if they're right, I'll delete the page myself.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem whatsoever. I would say wikihounding is when someone is aware you're following them, and is made uncomfortable by it. Egg Centric 20:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the boundary when they're made uncomfortable, or when they're made "unjustifiably" uncomfortable? HOUND says "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." So, if you're protecting encyclopedic content, is that an overriding reason? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto the above. I'd only add that it would be worthwhile to leave a talk-page message. Makes it clear that you have concerns about their editing, and is probably less likely to frustrate another editor. It's also a bit of CYA, since if the other party complains to e.g. ANI, it's easier to redirect the complainant back to their talk page, where you initiated the conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with someone else's fuck-ups cannot reasonably be construed as stalking. Jtrainor (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not notifying me of this thread, Sarek. I would simply point out that in your case, you should be exceptionally careful when taking admin actions in relation to me (including declining speedy tags) and more generally when reverting or questioning my edits. In particular, if my tagging is so clearly inappropriate, the likelihood is that a more neutral admin will deal with the tags and will bring the matter to my attention. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting an edit is hardly an admin action to be fair. Juliancolton (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said that. I said, "Admin actions (including declinging speedy tags) [new clause] and more generally when reverting..." ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply put - If the editor in question is making questionable edits we should all be looking at him/her edits closely. If questionable edits are a problem then wider talk should take place. Moxy (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So make up your mind, TreasuryTag, am I allowed on your talkpage or not?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I understood that it was required and not optional to notify editors when you are starting an ANI thread concerning them. However, perhaps I misread the instruction at the top of the page. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You're itching like the crabs to actually stir some shit up with another editor, and you're stirring unsuccessfully - you're looking pretty bad right now, IMHO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I don't see why it's so necessary to drag this discussion off-track, but since you seem not to understand my point: I do not want Sarek to post anything on my talkpage except compulsory notifications. That seems a fairly clear and simple (and obvious) principle to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 21:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• If the CSD tags are really that improper, then the reviewing admins will decline them, no? So why the necessity to even create the appearance of something drama-worthy? causa sui (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Causa sui speaks the truth. The answer is, if there is a prior history of conflict between you, Sarek, and TreasuryTag, you shouldn't be doing anything to his edits at all. There are hundreds of other admins who will happen upon things he tags, and if those tags are incorrect, they can deal with them. Wikipedia has a huge level of redundancy in this department, and if your involvement has any potential to cause drama, then you aren't personally needed for this task. Some one else will do it. My recommendation is that you, Sarek, take TreasuryTag off of your radar entirely, and don't bother looking through his contributions. Just pretend he doesn't exist. If he creates a problem, someone else will notice. --Jayron32 23:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. A voluntary total interaction ban (both ways) would be much appreciated, by me at least. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Causa sui and Jayron. We've several times had substantial discussions about an interaction ban; one of the arguments against was that Sarek has particular knowledge of TreasuryTag's behaviour and should be allowed to contribute to any necessary dispute resolution. Whatever the strength of that argument, it really does not apply to standard content issues. If there were not the history between these two that there is, Sarek's edits would probably be fine. But the history is very much there, and a lot of the issue with hounding is subjective. If Sarek's following TT's contributions in this way makes TT feel hounded, then Sarek should desist from making such routine interventions which many many other editors can make. Given the history, both parties should simply keep their interactions to the minimum necessary. And I have to say, it's slightly disappointing that Sarek has not previously reached this conclusion himself. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Pfft, I felt hounded by Mr. Tag for a while until I decided that I would more or less have to act like a lunatic to get him to back off. I still can't shake off the feeling he's watching me, actually, but that may just be a bit of paranoia. So I would say to him if he feels like he's being scruitinised... tough. Egg Centric 00:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • In the interests of full disclosure, I certainly kept an eye on your activities for a week or two after your block for generally disruptive behaviour – and I daresay numerous other people did the same, including the admin who blocked you for instance. I continued this despite your personal attacks against me (unless your choice of those three 'hypothetical' articles was entirely coincidental). However, I can assure you that I stopped this weeks ago because you seem to be making a genuine attempt to be constructive at the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 08:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Look Needed at The Art of Video Games

Some Please take a look at The Art of Video Games there are many IP and new users editing it Bentogoa (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Its to fast to revert Vandalism even by using Huggle Bentogoa (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoah, I went over to help out and I see it's sprotected but gotta hope this is not the start of some mass bot attack that can be turned on any article, if it is the entire wiki is going to have to go into lockdown, never seen anything like it. Egg Centric 12:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my...

I don't think we should mark this resolved even though semi-protection is now in place (nine minutes after the report here, that's quick action). I think we need to figure out what on Earth is going on here. The IPs all appear to be different areas and people, so perhaps it's some left wing group that was insistent on some change in the article being made? If so, and if it continues, that article will need to be semied for a long time. CycloneGU (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a poor man's oversight on the article, sending about 184 edits to the "deletion zone"; the crapflood of vandalism has made the edit history virtually unusable. –MuZemike 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

disruption at Hockey stick controversy

I have now officially run out of patience with our climate change team at the Hockey Stick Controversy article. I have raised two RfCs Talk:Hockey stick controversy#RfC: Spencer Weart and .27the dedicated minority who denied global warming was a problem prompty attacked the calculations.27, Talk:Hockey stick controversy#RfC: neutral language and reliable sources and these brought unanimous support for my position from four completely uninvolved editors, and in particular confirmed my understanding of the NPOV policy, but the climate change regulars refuse to get the point, are now edit warring to remove the POV tag while the dispute is obviously unresolved [42][43][44][45], tag teaming, and have now proceeded with yet more personal attacks [46][47]. I would appreciate a review of this situation. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite the climate change sanctions, Alex and to some extent Pete Tillman have persistently pushed for promotion of fringe views in a tendentious manner, failing to provide references as required by talk page guidelines and promoting their own personal opinions that they seem to think override properly sourced expert views on the topic. Alex has resorted to two simultaneous RfC's rather than collegiate talk page discussions. Despite the RfC's being resolved by removal of a word disputed by Alex, he immediately edit warred to replace a POV template he'd added earlier. TS as an uninvolved editor removed the tag, as stated above, and Alex thinks this justifies his report to ANI. Looks like battlefield behaviour that has to stop. . dave souza, talk 15:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For background, the disputes raised by these editors go back to discussion started on 12 June following his deletion the previous day of properly sourced information from an eminent historian and relevant inline citations, with the questionable edit summary "remove irrelevant info for readability"[48]. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The articles in question are subject to sanctions. Any disruptive behaviour should probably be raised at WP:AE, the community by itself having been unable to handle the problems. --TS 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of war

I consider the combination of three edit from ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Jack Kevorkian as a declaration of war against Jabbsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both users are nor friends, nor perfect guys. ClaudioSantos is a POV-pusher (blocklog) and sockpuppeteer (SPI), while Jabbsworth also has a sockpuppet history (SPI). But the three edits are way over the line: [49], [50], [51]. They followed on this (rather unhandy and/or rude) edit: [52].

The problems on Jack Kevorkian are not the only ones. The battle is in fact going over all articles related to euthanasia. I have enough, and now request help. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of notifying ClaudioSantos of this discussion. I note Jabbsworth's Talk page bears the sock-block banner, so I did not post the notification there. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You were quicker then me, Mr. Ambassador! I have added my personal notification to it, and added a notification to the talkpage of "Jack Kevorkian". Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also notify Jabbsworth. They are no longer blocked, and obviously could not be editing if they were. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You called it a declaration of war. And this mmessage from Jabbsworth to you, was tagged as a sort of declaration of love. And you NightOfTheBigWind also declared to be desperation your promised attempt to topic-ban me:[53]. And this was a declaration of help offered from Jabbsworth to achieve the desesperated topic'ban aganist me. But, at any rate for me it seems you are an involved party in this what you -not me- called a war.-- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is in the interest of Wikipedia, I can do in my own workspace what I like to do. That it send shivers over your back is your problem, not mine. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, really, something must be done. I was indeed a sockpuppet, but only to escape the wikistalkers who have gone so far in opposing my edits that they have made webpages about me on the internet. Serious stuff. So when I am called a sockpuppet, yes guilty, but only to protect myself, because my personal details were linked to my accounts outside wikipedia by seriously hostile editors, with corporate funding. (They got my identity wrong, but the fact that they are trying to name me is worrying). I should have kept an admin informed of my different accounts, that was my chief sin, and this happened because I was not aware of that policy. Anyway, back to the topic, user ClaudioSantos (who used to sockpuppet as PepitoPerez2007) — this editor is a major problem in the euthanasia-related areas of WP. At one stage he carpet bombed the Talk page at Talk:Action T4 with this statement, over and over: PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCITIVE KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA(sic) [54] [55] etc etc To see all his obsessively POV edits on this topic, you need to monitor his edits from 190.25.192.49, 190.25.98.59, 190.27.153.9 and innumerable other South American IPs. His thrust is to pillory euthanasia because of his personal religious convictions. He inserts the word "murder" onto every euthanasia-related page he can [56] [57] etc etc, changes a medical infobox on a biography page of a doctor to a criminal one (Kevorkian) against consensus, insists that the Nazi extermination of cripples in WW2 is the equivalent of modern-day euthanasia, and much, much more (it's a huge job to collate all the madness into one paragraph). In general, he usually sources his edits to obscure, foreign language sources, or self-published sources, and edit wars every change. If he has consensus against him, it makes absolutely no difference to him. His edits are in broken English and are usually ungrammatical (so why is he editing the English version of WP and not the Spanish version?). I call for an indefinite block or topic block on him, except I know he'll just go back to IP-hopping attacks. No idea how to proceed... Jabbsworth (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jabbsworth should have been fully aware of the notification policy as he has claimed to have followed it with his account AllYrBaseRbelongUs (talk · contribs), although he did not.Novangelis (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of all the ramifications, and anyway, this discussion is off-topic. Jabbsworth (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But user:Novagelis is precisely talking about the ramification you were aware. As user:Novangelis proved, you explicity said that you were aware that you have kept an admin informed of my different accounts, although now you are saying "that you were not aware of that policy". So you are lying. And this is not off-topic as it deals here also whith your warring behaviour and means. affected users with your 6 sockpuppeteers have the right to be heard and protected. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 08:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, your tenuous grasp of English —or is it simply poor reading comprehension?— has let you down. I specifically said that I was being wikistalked above, and even worse, stalked in real life, and so providing links "would defeat the purpose", as I stated in the linked comment. Please don't reply; I don't expect you to grasp this, nor do I care. Jabbsworth (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is User:ratel again and again referring to "my" religion, which he does not even know which is it? Although religious concerns and comments are not to be discriminated at all as User:Ratel suggests, at any rate I have no made any "religious" edits. Every edit I made was based on sources, reliable and verifiable. See for example the last edits I made on euthanasia based on historian Ian Dowbiggin who does compare modern euthanasia with nazi euthanasia version, so it is not POV as User:Ratel intended. By the way, it is interesting to mention that Ian Dowbiggin and also Jacob Appel at the Bulletin of The History of Medicine, referring on the history of the euthanasia movement in the 20th century, they have noticed that: most arguments against euthanasia was based on practical and not on religious or moral concerns[58]. And it is also interesting to mention that also for Dowbiggin and other authors it was clear that (anti)religious and (anti)moral arguments came mainly from pro-euthanasia movement. But here the thing is: User:Ratel used up to 6 known sockpuppets, affecting more than one user (thus not only me) and made a mess each time, and always triggered ANI cases against me because his agenda is pro-euthanasia and he uses any mean to delete anything defiling euthanasia. Perhaps NotBW has called it properly: declaration of war. And certainly euthanasia involves casualities. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

1. You've made extensive edits on articles concerned with Catholics and Catholicism, so it's not rocket science to see where you are coming from.
2. You are starting a content discussion here, but your lack of civility and co-operation in editing is at issue.
3. Stop talking about sockpuppetry (yours or mine), it's not the issue here. Jabbsworth (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no made any edition at any article "concerned with catholics and catholicism", unless you are confessing that for you: euthanasia, nazi euthanasia program, eugenics, etc., are "catholic" issues and that your "science" consists in argue that anyone editing at those articles is catholic. Then, following your "scientific argument", as you are also editing extensively on those articles, therefore you are also catholic and also my coreligionist. No, I have not made any "religious edit", I have provided non'religious arguments and sources. But for me it seems you are trying to use the alleged "religious" tag in order to force your pro-euthanasia agenda. Perhaps like, as Ian Dowbiggin noticed, these anti-religious arguments were used by the earlier euthanasia movement to turn certain segments of the society favorable to the euthanasia agenda[59][60], although most of the arguments against euthanasia were not based on religious or moral but based on practical concerns[61]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's right, I remember now, you sourced some of your edits to religious sites/documents and you inserted the comments of religious functionaries into articles. That's where I got the religious angle. But you are continuing with a content discussion. How about you agree to abide by consensus in future and stop edit warring? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually I have experienced that you misunderstand or misuse consensus, by turning it into a sort of voting. Thus majority against minority, excluding any reasoning, excluding facts, excluding sources, but a "consensus" based merely on numbers (usually 2 users vs. 1 user). Of course, that is "consensus" for you only when numbers favour you and certainly that is not always the case. Certainly I remember that some minorities were crucified or burned for the strongest majority. A majority impossing their false ideology (such as "Earth does not move ") against the truth, but mainly imposing their status quo, by force of numbers; and that status quo was indeed what they had for consensus. Nevertheless, certainly I also have some strong particular doubts about your proposal. Let me cite here just one (1) example: WP claims that consensus is not voting not impossing 3 users against 1, but once you have said that my disagreemnt was only "flogging a dead horse to waste the time of you and the other users". And, as I said, that is just one example of your "civility" and "consensus". So, for me it seems you have never been dispossed to achieve any consensus, and your recent edits also testify this. What I have also realized is: you delete each statement defiling euthanasia wherever it is sourced, and you also use any mean to trigger and achieve blocks against those who edit sourced material against euthanasia, like the offer you did to NotBW to help him to achieve a topic ban against me. That sort fo stake is what you understand for "consensus"? You not only used 6 sockpuppets but you used all of them to do the same warring, therefore as it seems you loses temper, why do not you refrain yourself from editing these articles? That is my proposal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Now we're making some progress, because you are actually discussing editing behaviour. Is consensus voting? No, it's not, as I am well aware. But when you have 2 or 3 or 4 editors ranged against you, as is frequently the case (me, Night of the Big Wind, Bilby, admin Teadrinker, and many more over the years), it still does not stop you. Now, please explain why, when you are faced with numerous opposing editors, your response is to edit war, defile Talk pages, and make life extremely unpleasant? (I can provide many examples if required). Why can't you accept that your opinion and edits are being overruled, and move on? Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So again, numbers, years, that is your main answer. For the rest, certainly I am not defending the pleasure of death. Can not you fill of pleasure by editing other articles or do you feel so obsessed with death? Can not test another way? Change rather than eliminate? Of course, knowing to add and to subtract is not enough but too simply too boring too lethal. Yes, you did not answer my question. Qui tacet consentire videtur?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is another example of your "consensus": there was an agreement from two editors,me and also user:Night of the Big Wind who usually agrees with you and disagrees with me. But you did not refrain from reverting the consented edition nor discussed nothing but just reverted. You are not dispossed to achieve consensus, you are still editing warring and you just want to force your agenda, which i do not why includes posting a lot of irrelevant and non-encyclopedic but promotional contents about EXIT international and its products such as Suicide bag, thus nothing else but a small bussiness of doctors earning money with euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope the sysops reading this are noting your broken, ungrammatical English, which alone should bar you from editing the English version of WP, but they should also note that I am restoring long-standing, sourced (for the most part) material to articles, recently removed by you, while I was blocked (while the cat's away, the mice will play) for reasons that have zero to do with improving the encyclopedia (you want to reduce opposing articles to stubs). There is nothing promotional involved. Exit International is well known all over the world ( see google news archives [62] ) Jabbsworth (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• You should also note that the suicide bag is NOT a product sold by Exit International, so your claim that I am promoting a company and its products is prima facie wrong-headed . Jabbsworth (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do not doubt that you should be an expert on punishment and grammar, as you were reprieved although you evaded 6 blocks by using 6 sokcpuppets and disrupted each time more than one user. For the rest, earning money from books about suicide bags and suicide things, that financial accounts prima facie. why do not you refrain from editing those articles?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Just out of curiousity, other than the two involved editors, is anyone else following this? Can any uninvolved editor decipher this wall of text to see if there's an action that can be taken? Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Shh! Can't you see that there's a war out there? Doc talk 06:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's kinda sad when one editor with a bee in his bonnet is allowed to go berserk in an important area of the project like death-related articles. We are all going to get old and die, some of us in a nasty, painful and slow way. When you get to that point in your life, think back on how you turned the head and did nothing while people were allowed to censor and distort articles about euthanasia on wikipedia, all to suit their own political or religious agendas. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Everybody is dying right now. Certainly it seems that the one turning his head and not facing death, is the one who promotes to be completely sedated and unconscious when dying. The only one using (anti)religious whinnings are you Jabbsworth. why do not you refrain from editing those articles as you always lose your temper and censor anything against defiling euthanasia. Are you again repeating the modus operandi, as Ian Dowbiggin noticed, used by the earlier euthanasia movement to turn certain segments of the society favorable to the euthanasia agenda appealing to merely mark as "religious" the arguments against euthanasia[63][64], although most of the arguments against euthanasia were not based on religious or moral but based on practical concerns[65], while the (anti)religious and (anti)moral arguments were indeed used by the euthanasia movement. Of course they appealed also to financial and eugencis arguments. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You should refrain from editing those articles. You evaded 6 times your block and were involved in editing warring with those sockpuppets precisely at those articles. You lose your temper each time. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh, I give up. Let user Night of the Big Wind have a say about this character. Any admins with cojones reading this bafflegab? Jabbsworth (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You all owe me for wading through this frothing sea of emotion and turmoil. I'm retiring to bed after this post, and will deal with this fully in the morning; for now, a few things need to be said.

For one, Jabbsworth, please note that one's linguistic prowess is not a factor. Barring complete non-speakers, we welcome any editor's contributions. Making a few typos here and there or not obeying proper sentence structure is something that should be overcome through teamwork, not pointed at as a game-changing flaw. Let's not raise a language barrier.

Now, ClaudioSantos: I noticed that a few of your more-POV edits have been backed by sources, and you have used that fact as a reason to revert others. Please remember that, while sources should be considered, we still have to follow certain policies which forbid us from saying that people are murderers: unless somebody has been found, by the legally-binding law of a nation, to be a murderer, we cannot portray them as such, even if there are reliable, verifiable sources that say otherwise.

In closing - let's keep the personal attacks and remarks on character off here. If you'd like, you may pretend that the brick wall next to you is your foe, and say nasty things to it; however, on Wikipedia, I'd like us to focus on content, not those creating it.

I'll drop by your respective pages in the morning and work out a compromise from there. In the meantime, please do not engage in any disruptive activities: this includes making substantial changes to contested content, personal attacks, or more accusatory bickering. Your cooperation is appreciated, m.o.p 08:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Jack Kevorkian was convicted to prison because of murder. The mainstream media has reported it and his trial after CBS has broadcasted the murder on 60 minutes. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 11:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Even so, he was not convicted for first degree murder. And secondly, he was already widely known for his work on assisted suicide before he finally (in his fourth trial) got convicted. Putting him down as an outright killer, something you tried to do many times, is not right. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted that Jack Kevorkian was also known for he was convicted to prison because he murdered a patient, he video-recorded the murder and sent it to 60min in order to be broadcasted as it was. And certainly all that was a very famous show widely covered by the main stream media[66][67][68][69]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is unfortunately the normal "discussion style" of ClaudioSantos. He tries to drown the issue under a load of words. This "war" between him and Jabbsworth have by now spread out to the talkpages of most arbitrators involved in Jabbsworth's unblock. This whole scheme is getting highly disruptive and annoying. I think that Wikipedia must be protected against ClaudioSantos by way of a (lengthy) block or, less far reaching, a topic ban. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

TL;DR. My 2p: it's a content dispute and needs to go through the usual dispute resolution process. Involved parties might do well to start at WP:DRN. Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos might also consider a voluntary interaction ban. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, but ClaudioSantos and (to a lesser degree) Jabbsworth are becoming increasingly personal-attackey on each other. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hence my recommendation for a voluntary interaction ban. As a sidenote, considering how contentious the topic matter is, I was mildly surprised to see it NOT listed at WP:GS. But that's a matter for another time. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the interests of the two editors, I'm not sure that an interaction ban without a topic ban would be effective - they both interact on the same topics, and don't seem to edit much outside of them. In regard to WP:GS, the articles are, I think, tricky enough to limit the number of editors who are involved, in spite of the controversial nature. Thus there hasn't been a huge tendency for problems to get out of hand, with some noted exceptions. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert: this sort of "lesser degree"? or this one?. whatever, instead of that, it should be more relevant to read the contents of this dispute: RfC: Removal of every trace of nazi euthanasia program from the euthanasia article -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have kept following the indication of the admin Master of Puppets who above expressively asked: do not engage in any disruptive activities: this includes making substantial changes to contested content, personal attacks, or more accusatory bickering. In Exit International article, I took a step aside, but not even NightoftheBigWind who usually agrees with his edits, not even him was able to avoid Jabbsworth editing warring and achieving 5 reverts. In the Euthanasia article, there is a lot of users involved in a discussion. There the majority and even users like Bilby who usually agrees with Jabbsworth edits, there the majority agreed to keep well referenced contents about AktionT4. Those contents are being hardly worked and referenced by me an by this user Bilby. But now Jabbsworth without any discuss, he has deleted a large amount of that contents referenced on the historian Dowbiggin, precisely because this historian remarked similarities and did academic and historic comparissons between the euthanasia movement and the nazi euthanasia. As usual Jabbsworth is deleting any thing against his pro-euthanasia agenda and I think he is trying to drive the thing to an edit war in order to force his POV. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

collpasing off-topic: Language barrier

Language barrier Could any one of you relocate this interesting but off-topic discussion at any adequate place? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The only thing about this little comedy that caught my eye was the "let's not raise a language barrier" comment. I have to admit that I'm a bit torn about this, but at the end of the day... there are separate language versions of Wikipedia for every major language, and many minor languages, now. That being the case, why shouldn't we raise a "language barrier"? Not a hard barrier, as in "you have to take this test before editing" or something, but... I mean, outside of minor cleanup and copy editing, why shouldn't we restrict the activity of those who have limited English writing skills? It's not as though we'd be excluding them from the project after all, we'd just be limiting their involvement where it may not be appropriate. I wouldn't dream of editing any other language Wikipedia (except possibly the French one, but I'd self-limit to very minor editing) myself for the rational that I've outlined here. I'm just thinking that it'd probably be a good thing to limit the activities of editors with limited English skills here on the English Wikipedia. This is a fairly... academic pursuit, after all. There's a certain level of skill that's needed to be an effective editor (which, admittedly, isn't that high... I'd say any middle-school level native English speaker more than meets our requirements). Food for thought (or argument, perhaps?) — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 1 to that. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I suspect that if there is a "competence in language" expectation that a fair amount of English speakers (as a first language) may begin to feel unwelcome, and that expectation may then become a lever in content/conduct disputes. While it is inappropriate for others to continually correct an editors contributions, even after their lack of language skills has been extensively commented upon, it is also pretty much against the "anyone can edit" ethos to require a certain level of ability to write English. Those whose edits are consistently incomprehensible and are not willing to either forego article pages or attempt to improve their contributions might eventually be sanctioned as being disruptive - but only because of their refusal to resolve the issues with their editing rather than the edits themselves. In short, demanding a certain standard of English is a slippery path I do not think the project needs to go down. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Well yea, there's obviously a balancing act involved with all of this. I'm hardly proposing that we establish tests or anything like that, either. Actually... I'm not really sure what I'm proposing, to be honest. I'm aware of the problems that you're bringing up, but still... I think that we may be being a bit too egalitarian in this regard, I guess. As I said, "food for thought". — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Funny, but English is not my first language either... Night of the Big Wind talk 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pointy AfDs

Resolved

 – AfDs are closed, a trout might be in order for Peterstrempel.

I'm of a mind to speedy close three AfDs raised by the same editor. These are for Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology and Horoscopic astrology. His reasons are the same for all three:

• Being created to avoid known controversial debate (NPOV content fork) on the Astrology page where it has been asserted that no change can be made without considering all sub-pages (see Talk:Astrology#Sub-pages_to_avoid_disputes.3F).
• Using a Wikipedia article as a sandbox.
• Violating Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability.

All three were created in 2006 by the same editor and are clearly not NPOV forks. What the sandbox thing is I have no idea, and although all could use more references, that isn't a reason to delete these articles. This is tied in with the editor's statement he will be deleting all unreferenced material at History of astrology.

Is there any reason I shouldn't speedy keep these three articles? These are clear WP:POINT nominations of articles which don't stand any chance of being deleted. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with Peter recently. While I admire his mission, I don't quite think that this is an issue for AfD - it's a content dispute. I'd support a speedy close. m.o.p 08:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the prospect of deletion since the lack of good reason will surely find insufficient support, but I am concerned about that editor's declared intention to take a razor to all unreferenced assertions on the Astrology main page, all of its linked articles, and the astrology portal page, for what he imagines is a lack of consensus towards my suggestion that the content sections of the main Astrology article should summarise and pull together the main points of daughter articles which elaborate those points in more detail. Contributing editors have shown their agreement by adopting that plan and working to attend to daughter articles as part of the development plan for the main article. The problems are being addressed but this is slow work which is being worked through systematically. It cannot be done properly under a climate of fear.

The same editor's declaration on the talk:History of astrology page says:

I announce my intention to delete all unreferenced content from this page within seven days. This is in line with Wikipedia principles about verifiable content. Wikipedia pages are not sandboxes for personal opinions, views or discussions. Please add necessary citations for every assertion made.

If he adheres to what he has stated, something similar is likely to be applied to those articles once they are preserved from deletion, and to many other astrology-related pages in the next few days. The motivation appears to be to end the existence of related articles, so that there is no reason to consider the content of their pages when arguing what he would rather have the main astrology page say.

Such a situation will cause a lot of problems, by giving too much work to too few editors in too short a period of time. I have been helping to provide citations myself, but will be away over the next week, and this will be one of my last submissions to WP until I return. Whilst the editor is quoting WP verifiability policy, he is ignoring one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, that "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone ... The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule". I have frequently read the policy reminders that rules should be interpreted in the context of common sense.

Is there anything to prevent an editor making very drastic wide-scale cuts following an unreasonably limited notice of intent? It has been put to him that he could take a more productive course of action by placing "citation needed" tags in the areas he feels that comments are unreliable or likley to be challenged; but this suggestion has been ignored in his call to have three major articles deleted instead. The value of those pages submitted for AfD does not appear to be of concern to him; and in this I believe that (whilst quoting policy) he is working against the spirit and aims of WP, rather than in support of them. Can admins here suggest a solution to avoiding the problems that are being generated by this editor's course of action? Zac Δ talk 09:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

AfDs closed

I've closed the AfDs. I've told the editor who created them that wholesale removal of unsourced material, especially when it looks sourceable, may not be a good idea and that it could lead to a block. I've asked him to do some sourcing himself, something he doesn't seem to have attempted, and pointed out that there is a difference between articles on ancient history (or even modern history of astrology) and on the pseudoscience of astrology. I've put the Arbitration Committee rulings on pseudoscience on the talk page of Horoscopic astrology. And I'll note that History of Astrology is in fact being edited this month by others with concerns for sourcing. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to help with that task too. Zac Δ talk 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So, just to make sure I understand Dougweller here, as a spokesman for Wikipedia. Stated Wikipedia principles and rules about verifiability are in fact meaningless, because any content can be mounted without references, and cannot be removed? Yes or no? You can mount any old crap so long as someone somewhere will make a vague undertaking to finding some sources, possibly not for years after the unsourced articles are mounted? Yes or no? Wikipedia is happy to lend itself to myriad unreferenced assertions, put to the world as fact and knowledge? Yes or no?

If the answer to all these questions is yes, I am happy to cease editing here, because Wikipedia has clearly become a blog rather than an encyclopaedia. That's fine, if that's what people here want. I didn't come here, though, to take votes on whether we can call some unverified content actually not needing to be verified. So, just say it explicitly for me: Wikipedia does not require content to be sourced? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, I'll be happy to leave and tell my colleagues that Wikipedias has changed its mission from being an encyclopaedia to something else. Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you know I'm not a spokesman for Wikipedia. You should also know that that is not what I am saying. For clarification so that others know what I wrote on your talk page before your response above, I said " I strongly uphold our policy on sourcing and I do delete unsourced material where I think it can't be sourced, is a BLP violation, etc. But I also spend a lot of time providing sources. In the case of the articles you are targeting some clearly are simply about ancient history while others are about astrology as a pseudoscience. I imagine that it would be possible to source most of the history articles. You're welcome to add a reasonable number of fact tags and I very much hope you will try to find sources. If you actually delete material that appears to be easily sourced that will be a different matter and this could lead to your being blocked, something I hope will not happen". How can I say it plainer? "I strongly uphold our policy on sourcing." This morning I've removed several unreliable sources from articles and added fact tags. Yesterday I added a number of sources to articles. You aren't adding sources at all. What I'm saying is:

1. You should be adding sources before you complain about material being unsourced, particularly in the relevant articles which are on history and not pseudoscience and can be easily sourced. You might then have a leg to stand on. Take an article and clean it up, be an example of the way an editor should behave when faced with unsourced material.

2. Your AfDs and your threats are not constructive and are a violation of WP:POINT. You need to read WP:RS again, it says, referring to our policy on verifiability "This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." You are threatening to delete material irrespective of whether it is "challenged or likely to be challenged". That coupled with your failure to actually add any sources isn't at all helpful. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Several Astrology pages have been seeing never-ending discussion lately. I have not been involved on the nominated articles or on History of astrology, but have seen what is happening on Talk:Astrology. I have seen Peter Strempel make several attempts to get the train back on the rails there, some of them drastic. But WP recommends bold editing as a possible way of breaking up deadlocks.

I also see this notice on top of the Talk page: The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

So the question then becomes : what is unciteable information ? How long are you going to search before you decide that a given sentence is unciteable? Giving a page a fresh start by removing big unreferenced chunks and then rebuild by adding properly sourced materials is often a far more effective use of time.

If something can be easily sourced, then of course it doesn't need to be removed.

But some of the passages may be just cites from memory, opinion or OR by some previous editor, and there may not be quality sources for it.

If the debating editors have also not brought any 'easy sources', then is that not in itself an indication that a given passage is quite likely to be unciteable? Hence better remove and rebuild?

To put 'citation needed' tags is easy, but more often than not these tags stay on forever and nobody cares. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

When I see them if they are over a few months old I usually either source or delete. The problem here is the seven day notice on active articles and the failure of the editor involved to attempt any sourcing. I note that other editors have been actually working on the History of Archaeology article and the suggestion that one article at a time be worked on if there is a set of articles is sensible. Certainly the 7 day notice is unreasonable - and seven months would probably unreasonable as well. I can't emphasize enough that those who tag need to also be active at sourcing. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Militant atheism/July2011Razor for an example of how Peter carries out his "word razoring" — he describes his reasoning for the changes in depth on the main article talk page. His announced intent sounds much more radical than it is in reality and it seems to me to be a fairly reasonable approach. Mojoworker (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Dougweller above, 06:19, 23 July. Life intervened to interrupt my Wikipedia activities, but I formulated the following response to you earlier today.

Despite my overwhelming urge to respond to this shameful subversion of rationality with the comment ‘AAAAARRRGH!’, I am in fact obliged to assume that your egregious misrepresentation of my position means you have not understood me.

For that reason I am forced to explain at length, and with some specific detail, why you are wrong to interpret me and the Wikipedia guidelines the way you have. In that regard I have no objection to you moving the following exposition of my motivations and methods to a separate sub-page.

My motivations

Active in a an unarguably contentious debate in the astrology talk page, I was looking for a rational means of avoiding repetitious debate about the same issues from recurring endlessly (see the history of the talk page for evidence of that repetition). One of my comments was that arguing about the definition of astrology in the introduction was pointless if that argument did not reflect the content of the article itself (rather than, say, a separate argument never referred to again). Another point I raised was that one method of ensuring we did not debate pointless topics was to trim away from the article all unverified content.

A rebuttal of my argument included the assertion that all debate on the astrology talk page must take into consideration all content on every sub-page of the astrology article. That rebuttal was referenced in my AfD notices.

I then examined the first three levels of sub-article (that is sub-articles, sub-sub articles and sub-sub-sub articles) that I came across. These included History of astrology, Babylonian astrology, and Hellenistic astrology. Discussing Babylonian astrology first, this is not, contrary to Dougweller, just a history article. Its very title includes the assertion that there was such a thing as Babylonian astrology. In the absence of any definition of astrology in the main astrology talk page that isn’t also mired in controversy, how can there be an uncontroversial assertion that there is nevertheless such a thing as Babylonian astrology, and that this can exist despite no clear explanation being given as to what makes it different from religion or reading of entrails? If that’s not enough to raise a suspicion about content forking to avoid controversial debate, the Babylonian astrology article contains an entire section on ‘Theory of divine government’, which is completely unreferenced but can be taken to read that divination is a core feature of astrology, which is one specific and hotly contended dispute on the astrology talk page itself, albeit not the only one that can be inferred from content on the Babylonian astrology page.

The Babylonian astrology page has a link to Hellenistic astrology. In its ‘Mythical origins' section, the articles asserts, without references that –

Several Hellenistic astrologers ascribe its creation to a mythical sage named Hermes Trismegistus. Hermes is said to have written several major texts which formed the basis of the art or its evolution from the system of astrology that was inherited from the Babylonians and the Egyptians.

The implication here is that astrology is based on myth, and might therefore be seen as mysticism. A controversy debated in the astrology’s talk pages in the past, and almost certain to re-surface if this unattributed assertion is allowed to stand as unverified fact. A no less important point is the argument that astrology is based on, or evolved into an art on the basis of myth. Note the assertion that astrology is an art. This is completely contrary to the extant discussions about defining astrology in that article’s talk page.

In its ‘History’ section, the Hellenistic astrology article asserts, inter alia, but without references –

The focus on the natal chart of the individual, as derived from the position of the planets and stars at the time of birth, represents the most significant contribution and shift of emphasis that was made during the Hellenistic tradition of astrology. This new form of astrology quickly spread across the ancient world into Europe, and the Middle East.

This complex system of astrology was developed to such an extent that later traditions made few fundamental changes to the core of the system, and many of the same components of horoscopic astrology that were developed during the Hellenistic period are still in use by astrologers in modern times.

The unattributed, and therefore unverifiable passage assumes that everything said in the Babylonian astrology article is credible, despite the fact that almost all of it is itself unreferenced. Then there is the staggering claim about the merger of Babylonian and Decanic astrology (yet another sub-article), and the introduction of natal charts to create modern horoscopic astrology, all without references, but with considerable consequences for the arguments about divination and prophecy in the astrology talk page.

More fundamentally, it is asserted in the astrology article that the very word astrology comes from the Latin, meaning that the concept it described didn’t exist prior to ancient Roman times, and to construe its origins in pre-existing practices relies on the existence of some definable characteristics of those practices that are common to them and astrology. Since we cannot currently agree on defining characteristics of even contemporary astrology, much less its proposed predecessors, how can it be uncontroversial to mount largely unreferenced pages asserting that such predecessors existed?

I asked myself: at what stage in the sub-article daisy-chain must credible proof be presented for an exponentially growing mountain of assertions about astrology, particularly if all articles in that mountain are referred to as necessary adjuncts to a hotly disputed argument about what is, and what is not, astrology? It was at this stage that I decided the astrology sub-pages were clearly intended to fork content to avoid discussion known to be controversial, and to avoid scrutiny of sources, or scrutiny of the absence of sources.

My method

In assessing the applicability of Wikipedia policy on verifiability and challenges to my argument based, perhaps, on not seeking sufficient consensus about cutting unattributed assertions, or the argument that verifiable content is not always a requirement, I come back to an eloquent, simple guideline from WP:CONLIMITED —

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

This says to me that if content must be verifiable, it must be that way in all articles and despite all localised disputes, like the one in astrology talk. In other words, to cut unverifiable content does not require me to seek a new consensus on verifiable content every time. To challenge that assumption requires arguing the verifiability principle altogether, does it not? However, being aware that many administrators will act to enforce bans against people who don’t submit to yet more discussion, in contravention to the abovementioned principle, and possibly to simplify matters for themselves rather than to uphold principles or guidelines, I applied the rules associated with declaring my intentions and Wikipedia guidelines on making major changes, even when applied to removing obviously unverified content, and even if no attempt has been made to verify it for some time, and even when verification seems unlikely to ever occur.

Ergo, I used a notice in the History of astrology page, and AfD templates in some sub-pages.

Dougweller’s response

I would like a plain explanation of how you, Dougweller, interpreted this process to constitute ‘threats’. First of all, is what I did not valid Wikipedia process? Secondly, does the word ‘threat’ not have an explicitly negative connotation? Thirdly, does the use of the word ‘threats’ by an administrator acting on behalf of Wikipedia not imply that I have demonstrably behaved in a censurable fashion, just by using the word rather than proving that I behaved threateningly (abuse of privilege)? Fourthly, if I had behaved in such a fashion, why not apply immediate censure by way of an immediate ban to stop me discussing this matter at all (a threat in itself, and censorship to boot)? Fifthly, am I wrong to assume that a proposed ban is an indication of a foregone conclusion, particularly if no clarification of my points was sought, which were summarily dismissed as irrelevant?

You certainly appear to have dismissed my reasons for AfD proposals based only on your unwillingness to read the relevant articles and understand the controversies surrounding them. You said: ‘In the case of the articles you are targeting some clearly are simply about ancient history while others are about astrology as a pseudoscience. I imagine that it would be possible to source most of the history articles.’ I say that you are entirely wrong. The articles are about the alleged history of astrology in every case, not about ancient history, and therefore they are about a subject that has attracted considerable debate, not considerable historical scholarship. For you to argue that you ‘imagine’ these articles will be easy to reference is easy to prove: find the necessary credible references. Since that is easy, it shouldn’t be a major imposition on you. I, however, assert, again, that in order to call something Babylonian, Hellenistic, Decanic or any other kind of astrology, there must first be an agreement on what is and is not astrology. That debate is extant in the astrology talk page, and is highly controversial.

You go on to lecture me about exemplary editor behaviour being to find sources for unverified content. You berate me to undertake the psychotic process of proving that references to verify the content I’m disputing as unverifiable actually exist. Really? What if I were to say to you that sources don’t exist, or were likely to be immediately controversial for lacking credibility? At what stage in this process can I say ’stop, this is crazy’?

There is another aspect to this argument. Whether I ‘should be adding sources before you complain about material being unsourced’ is in fact the opinion that all content is valid regardless of its verifiability because we’ll just find some references sometime. I dispute that opinion and argue instead that the pages I nominated for deletion should never have made it out of the sandbox stage UNTIL credible references were found in the first place. What about articles on a massive Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world by seizing control of its financial system? Does verifiable content become necessary only when someone asks for it, or is it immediately discernible as a conspiracy theory? Would various sub-articles on aspects of the history of national banking systems, all sparsely referenced, and all labelled as ‘history of’ Jewish conspiracy, constitute valid history articles? Is that example only ridiculous because you know you’d be heading for a shit-storm of vilification if you defended ‘history’ articles masked as conspiracy theory, but it is OK to make the same fallacious assumptions about a different topic because you have judged it to be uncontroversial? Before you complain about astrology not being a massive conspiracy theory, I’m not alleging it is, but it is controversial, and you calling something an article about history when it’s not is plainly the same fallacy in either a conspiracy theory or something else. Where is rationality in such a process?

This brings me to the word ‘arbitrary’ as used by me. If administrator action to enforce, abandon or interpret Wikipedia principles and guidelines is as unpredictable and divorced from the issues at stake as has been your intervention, is there any reason to suppose there might as well be no principle in the first place that all content must be verifiable? What does verifiability mean if you can argue it is subject to individual and arbitrary administrator whim?

This goes directly to my original questions to you —

Stated Wikipedia principles and rules about verifiability are in fact meaningless, because any content can be mounted without references, and cannot be removed? Yes or no? You can mount any old crap so long as someone somewhere will make a vague undertaking to finding some sources, possibly not for years after the unsourced articles are mounted? Yes or no? Wikipedia is happy to lend itself to myriad unreferenced assertions, put to the world as fact and knowledge? Yes or no?

As I suggested to you when I first asked these questions, if the answer were yes to any of them, I would be happy to cease participating in Wikipedia because the affirmative position would make it clear Wikipedia does not aim at being an encyclopaedia so much as a large blog. As already stated, I’m OK with that aim, but not with participating in it. I have yet to see you categorically affirm or deny any of these questions.

I stand by my reasoning, and by my simple statement that if Wikipedia is not a serious attempt at creating a credible encyclopaedia, I have clearly misunderstood its purpose, my efforts have been pointless, and I would be happy to withdraw from the project entirely.

As for your reference to Wikipedia policy and guidelines at POINT, are you implying that seeking to uphold a repeatedly stated Wikipedia policy is me seeking to make a disruptive point about something? If so, please explain the apparent contradiction between POINT and CONLIMITED.

My final words to you, Dougweller, are that it is you, and others like you, who have misrepresented the mechanics and conveniences of administration as the purpose of the project, and who have failed to give due weight to the single most important factor in making Wikipedia either credible or unreliable in the public eye: verifiable content.

Good night and good luck. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Case of censorship on an article or is it libel?

Resolved

 – Boldly tagging; no admin. action required. CycloneGU (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Two members of a collections of Churches known as Calvary Chapel have been removing a criticism section on the article. That section was added by someone with an undisclosed POV against the churches. I have been in the middle of the two sides. I along with one other editor, were preventing the removal of some referenced material that called into question the authority structure of a few of the churches. The two of us have also been preventing the addition of material that is even more biased by the POV editor, although that was a year ago and entirely unreferenced.

One of the editors brought the case up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-07-18/Calvary Chapel and just before the page was completely locked for editing by a neutral third party, that editor removed the material again. So now it's completely locked and the referenced material has been removed. Is there any way an admin could restore the referenced material while the issue of its removal is being discussed or should we leave it out? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Main concern is that that Mediation Cabal has some cases open for more than half a year and I don't think we should have to wait that long for a decision. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The common practice to edit a fully protected article is to make a formal edit request on the Talk page using {{editprotected}}. That's also what the tag says on this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Triple B. I do question why people from the church are removing information from an article on the church - that reeks of WP:COI. But other than that, there is nothing to do here. CycloneGU (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing in such a manner can be disruptive, and if it is, that is a matter for the administration. It appears they were edit warring and ended up getting the article locked. That kind of behaviour could warrant admins attention.--Crossmr (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin ErrantX and Anders Behring Breivik

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

Admin action reverted - ErrantX was a little close to the issue to use the tools - all seems to have been in good faith, so back to editing articles, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• ErrantX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Anders Behring Breivik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anders Behring Breivik is the alleged perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, which happened approximately 30 hours ago. Of course, the global media and Wikipedia being what it is, we already have had quite a decent article on both the attacks and, until recently, the alleged perpetrator.

Almost immediately after Mr. Breivik was arrested, an editor created an article on him. Within 12 hours of that, as those editors who frequent these noticeboards would no doubt expect, an AFD was started. A sysop snow-closed the AFD just four hours in, stating The article doesn't include unsubstantiated "hearsay and speculation" anymore; every statement is referenced with reliable sources. The motivation for the crime has already generated a lot of interest, and multiple sources have covered the attacker's profile in non-trivial manner. The nominator's rationale strong enough to initiate a discussion on merging this article with 2011 Norway attacks, but not strong enough to warrant a deletion. WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR are guidelines (as opposed to gospel), best treated with common sense and necessary exceptions. The article can be re-nominated for deletion after a few weeks, if the coverage of the subject doesn't persist beyond contemporaneous news. This was in addition to a couple of discussions on the talk page, which have concluded that it is appropriate to have a separate article on the alleged perpetrator for now.

About an hour ago (five hours after the closure of the AFD), ErrantX redirected the article to the main one, citing WP:BLP1E. He revert-warred with a couple other editors, and after his third redirect, full-protected the article citing BLP violations (and presumably invoking WP:GRAPEVINE. While and after this, I attempted to discuss the matter with him ([70], [71]) but he refused to reverse himself. Bringing to ANI for review. NW (Talk) 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I took these actions because I believe them to be in line with widesscale community consensus relating to articles of this sort, our BLP policy, notability criteria and a dose of IAR. WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT caution strongly against biographical articles for individuals who are part of (or notable for) a single event. In this case, a terrible event occured yesterday for which an individual has been arrested. I entirely agree we should name him, and detail information about him reported in reliable sources. However, he is not independently notable and detail not related to this event is not significant for us to report in this encyclopeadia. This is a community policy, agreed by consensus and almost always upheld.

Article level consensus does not override community agreed policy, which in this case asks for any individual associated only with one event to be someone of a high level of interest; this is generally taken to mean he is reported about in numerous types of sources, not just news relating to the event. Many examples are cited as exceptions to this policy; most have the individuals featured in books written long after the event (showing continued interest in them as an individual). At this stage the content is best dealt with in the main article. My protection extends for 4 days, and my hope is that in that time emotions will have died down and any article can be discussed properly prior to forking.

I do not consider myself involved here; I saw a policy violation, corrected it, and saw a problem emerging leading me to protect the article (as it is a BLP issue).

I am happy to be told "this is a mistake", and for another admin to reverse the protection. However, I cannot in good conscience do so myself because I realise that it will be restored straight away and I do believe that this is a violation of our policy relating to living persons. My protection is for 4 days, and I have no intention of simply coming back and restoring it if the first thing that happens after that date is the article being restored, but I suggest that in 4 days a little more objectivity might be around the articles :) Even (and I don't often comment on my opinion of articles/people..) alleged scumbags should have our policies upheld for them. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to comment on the AFD closing... BLP1E is actually a policy, not a guideline (which is intended to be more strongly followed). --Errant ^(chat!) 21:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is both a policy and a guideline, which is why it is confusing. The BLP1E part is policy, but then it also directly links to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, which is a guideline, and both have to do with BLPs. Really, the notability one explains things better and in more detail. Silverseren^C 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Giving a direct link to the Merge discussion, so that it is clear that it closed as "No consensus to merge". The discussion itself, with the closing summary, interpreted WP:BLP1E and this article on the subject as being one of the exceptions explained in the second paragraph. Errant interprets BLP1E differently than the consensus, but that does not give him the right to go against it and enforce his own interpretation through move protection. This is utilizing his admin abilities to "win" an argument and it itself is against policy. I advise that the move protection is undone. Silverseren^C 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Errant's logic and interpretation of BLP1E i.e. there's no notability of the individual outside of the event, but disagree with the way he has gone about it - there was no consensus to merge (yet), and protecting the move seems like a slight misuse of admin tools. GiantSnowman 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exceptions are, well, exceptions and this doesn't fit any of the ones we usually see. Relating to the second paragraph; I am not sure I see how, one day after the event, coverage could be substantial and persistent. As I said; I think common sense here suggests waiting till the event becomes at least a bit historical. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ErrantX, the only policy violation is you using your admin tools in an edit war. To ignore the fact the community has determined, at least temporally, that this article meets the exceptions set forth in WP:BLP1E - and these exceptions are in fact, a community-wide consensus included in WP:BLP1E and are also policy, as I and others have repeatedly explained to you. You seem to ignore this exception to focus only on the first part of WP:BLP1E. If you disagree with the community's consensus, go to WP:DRV or article talk, no need to blatantly misuse your tools. Also would an admin kindly remove the protection, as he has said he is unwilling to do it? Thanks in advance. --Cerejota (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether this is one of the articles allowed by BLP1E, or prohibited by it, is not clear, and saying it's clear doesn't make it so. Protection should be removed, and whatever the consensus is, it should be followed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no qualifying exception to BLP1E here. The individual is not currently an exception. The argument has been made that he will most likely be. Great, when that happens it can be split out, but currently BLP1E dictates a merge.Griswaldo (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Errant's good policy enforcement. This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. If certain individuals want to change the policy they will need to get a consensus to do that first, but as it is written all I see here is a bold enforcement of it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E states "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". I think it is quite clear that the persistent coverage of this individual in reliable sources is firmly established. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Persistent? Yeah in the lifespan of a mosquito maybe.Griswaldo (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy says nothing about the timespan involved. Judging from the current reporting it is indeed persistent. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, seriously, this is getting annoying. The second paragraph of WP:BLP1E is policy too. Stop ignoring its existence. The community interpreted it as applicable. Thus, the consensus was based on policy. Silverseren^C 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment As one who has very recently had cause to review policies regarding such actions, I need to ask how this would NOT be considered a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Redirecting an article, and citing the need for such redirection as WP:BLP1E, is well within the bounds of reason, but to follow such redirection with full protection -- which is an admin-only function by definition -- strikes me as blatant misuse of the tools. Now, I do think ErrantX has a well-taken point in that Breivik is so far only accused of a crime, and under both WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR should only receive mention as a subsection of the main article regarding the event. However, that does not give an admin carte blanche to unilaterally protect an article he/she moved, merged, or redirected. Were protection necessary, the proper action would be to request such protection through WP:RFPP, and allow an uninvolved admin to make the call. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Protecting the subject requires protecting the page if people continue to violate the BLP policy. I see nothing wrong with that. Both actions are part of the same attempt to enforce BLP1E.Griswaldo (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:PERPETRATOR states: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Something that arguably applies in this case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, I didn't blindly do this. I checked the sources & coverage in light of that guideline. And all of it is contemporaneous and relates purely to the event. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • But you did it based on your interpretation of policy vs other editors (read the majority consensus) interpretation of policy. That is being involved and not admin enforcement against blatant violation of policy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
        • beyond contemporaneous news coverage. Since you copied it here I must assume you read it Saddhiyama. It is all such news coverage at the moment.Griswaldo (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
          • It is indeed (what else would there be at this point?), but it does devote "significant attention to the individual's role.". This is still a matter of interpretation of policy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
            • But you did it based on your interpretation of policy; no. I carefully weighed the material and arguments made against community policy, my experience in BLP and the vast majority of previous articles of this sort. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Surely that is the epitome of "interpretation" (and are you somehow implying that the majority of editors of differing opinion did not do the same?)? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
          • You're repeating yourself. I guess I will too. The consensus interpreted the subject to be one of the exceptions as explained in the WP:BLP1E policy. Essentially, the consensus interpreted the policy and decided that a separate article was warranted. Any individual acts against this is going against consensus and this interpretation of policy. In essence, going against policy without a backing of a new interpretation of it with consensus. So it was Errant who went against policy. Silverseren^C 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate, there is more than one way to interpret our policies. Saying there's only one way is wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of anything else, User:ErrantX is clearly WP:INVOLVED here.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No. I strongly dispute that. I am intensely careful about using my tools in disputes; I have worked (as an editor) on numerous contentious (and less contentious!) BLP's and have never, ever used my tools in relation to them, even in the face of what could be argued to be serious BLP issues. My actions here were to enforce policy as an uninvolved editor - the community !voted me as trustworthy enough to be able to review articles, material, actions and behaviour and judge when to employ the tools to the benefit of Wikipedia. This is a bold action, I agree, but I feel it is the correct one. I have to go catch a train; if another editor wants to reverse my actions, fine, but I think that community policy is correctly applied at this time. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

    I understand that's the way you see this, and I'm not out to play "gotcha!" over this or anything (read: I'm still assuming "good faith" here). It seems fairly obvious to me though, based on a brief skim through the history pages of the articles in question, that you're at least somewhat involved in the content issues here. I don't see anything so blatantly problematic as to require protection and overcome questions of involvement. There was, and is, plenty of opportunity to ask for other opinions at least (through use of WP:AN3, or discussion on one of the talk pages providing at least some support for tool use in this manner). Additionally, I think that extending the well considered "no harm to living people" rational to (very) marginal issues such as this damages the project in many ways, and actually works to undermine the core of the BLP policy.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me note that Anders has now confessed to the crime. It doesn't have much relation to Errant's action, but it does relate to the arguments made here that are trying to continue the merge discussion. Silverseren^C 22:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Errant's good policy enforcement per Griswaldo. Some users here really need to wrap their head around what notability independent from a single event means. An article talk page consensus cannot possibly override project-wide considerations and consensus, especially not in an area like BLP.
  Also, the merge opponents in the discussion SilverSeren desperately keeps pointing didn't even try justifying Anders Behring Breivik as an exception to BLP1E. They merely piled on IDONTLIKEIT !votes. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• • That is not true, and the majority arguments for keep/not merge/wait having based on the policy exception. You are misrepresenting a discussion you didn't participate in.--Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• • You, meanwhile, have been following me around and insulting me. Silverseren^C 22:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, 87.78. Most of the Keep-arguments invokes policies or uses other reasonable arguments. This on the other hand would be a IDONTLIKEIT-argument. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Can we at least keep discussions cool. I left a note for the IP pointing them at WP:CIVIL, lets not derail any disagreement into abuse. We all seem to be working in good faith here. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Setting BLP1E aside, for a moment (though I agree with its application here), I believe the operable policy here is more importantly WP:PERP, which advises against the creation of articles on living people, when no conviction has been secured. Even with admission of guilt, the person has yet to be convicted.  Chickenmonkey  22:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know what? Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted... --84.226.158.100 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice one. Silverseren^C 22:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The event involving Lee Harvey Oswald didn't occur two days ago.  Chickenmonkey  22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

An individual who was involved in one of the most high profile assassinations of all time, about whom numerous books and articles beyond contemporaneous news have been written. Yes, quite the same :) If this person had the same level of coverage I'd be adding to the article! --Errant ^(chat!) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to note that it is the most high profile for America. Int he context of Norway, how do you think Anders will rate? Silverseren^C 22:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the key word is "will"; it hasn't happened, yet.  Chickenmonkey  22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews is a great place for this sort of immediate reporting, I recommend checking it out if you haven't already. ErrantX has made a brave move and a sensitive consideration of WP:BLP - the content about the guy seems to me to sit well and be more policy compliant in the redirect location 2011 Norway attacks#Suspected perpetrator and a few days won't affect anything. Users seem to rush to these articles and upload any picture they find and push policy and guidelines to the limit of interpretation and beyond in support of creating the hot off the press article and start adding all sorts of editorial/speculative press content, this part of the wikipedia is not really created for such reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion is more supposed to be about the move protection and Errant's misuse of admin tools while being involved. Silverseren^C 23:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what part of, within policy and guidelines it seems totally reasonable to me, you didn't understand. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of stray thoughts:

1. Making a controversial change as a normal editor and then protecting that version of the article looks rather unpleasant to me; it looks like use of admin tools to insist that one's own editorial preference sticks regardless of what other editors think.

2. BLP1E speaks with forked tongue; the second paragraph is policy just as much as the first. I'm not going to opine on whether or not other policies preclude us having an article on this person, but it's absurd to argue that somebody who kills a hundred people and earns worldwide headlines is absolutely non-notable. (How long a period is needed, between bomb and shootings, before they're considered separate events so that BLP1E is no longer used this way?). bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not unpleasant at all, its a sensitive interpretation of policy with a little bit of ignore all rules thrown in. I wouldn't have done it because I think that in such editing frenzies policy and guidelines are put more to the back burner and imo it is a fault in wiki policy that its not interpreted concisely and with caution in such situations and I commend Errant for grasping the nettle, I think experienced admins need to step up a bit more in such situations and call it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Breivik notable or not? It's difficult for me to interpret your text. And in what way is it a desirable feat of IAR apply if somebody *claims* to be following a policy but, in fact, that policy does not support their actions? bobrayner (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• It appears clear to me that ErrantX violated WP:INVOLVED. The application of BLP1E is a matter on which the community has long been divided, with good faith and reasonable positions taken on both sides. There were several substantial community discussions involving the matter at issue at the time of ErrantX's action, which had not reached consensus as to policy application. There was no substantial argument that the article on the accused perpetrator otherwise violated WP:BLP -- that it was not well-sourced, NPOV-written, etc. In that case, there was no justification for summary administrative action, let alone summary action by an administrator directly involved in the controversy. Administrators have no special authority to decide the application of any important policy when the community has not reached consensus on it. There is no argument that the relevant content itself violated BLP, thereby placing it outside the scope of the ArbComm ruling that justifies some summary actions. Therefore, the matter should have been left for determination by community consensus, and certainly should not have been summarily resolved by an administrator participating in the underlying dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Well, Errant's protection has been reverted by User:Fastily so as it all seems to have happened in good faith this seems to be resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubted it happened in good faith, but that was not the objection. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (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.

• (Edit conflicted with the close, but still placing this because I wanted make a final comment of my own on this). Rob sums up my feelings on this nicely. There is a tendency to treat criminals with a lot less sensitivity than others; and this is by no means neutral editing :) This is an established problem with high profile current events; where we end up with a rash of poorly constructed content being fought over by editors - often with little regard for policy (except where it can be used to force in their content). I've written a lot more about this here, which you might find of interest. The idea of One Event is slowly coming to a head, I think, and there are a lot of articles that will come under intense focus in the next few days - my attempt to start any dialogue over it tends to flounder, though, because generally what tends to happen is that those arguing against the current policy are only interested in the one article. Perhaps that will change now? At the end of the day this person clearly fails the intent and language of BLP1E and One Event and the article is a product of NOTNEWS. My action was bold, true. But I do not feel it was a directly involved action (I admit, I am a staunch defender of BLP elsewhere). My stance is that the community agreed policy trumps article level consensus and that no argument has yet been advanced to meet that policy. It is my understanding that I was given the admin tools to judge situations such as this and take action to implement policy. If another uninvolved admin disagrees, well, then fine. Given the response above I think that right now this sort of action was a little too bold (and I guess I am sorry to have caused that issue), but encouragingly there are people here who saw it as sensible, or perhaps agree it was the right outcome but are resigned to the fact that it's not possible to impose our policy so directly. We can't progress if we don't test boundaries - this one seems to be squarely tested and obviously more work needs to be done on the policy. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  Am I reading this correctly? Basically you're working up to causing a bunch of disruption in order to demonstrate a need to change policy? ...maybe this isn't so "resolved" after all. :/ Do we really need to go through another BLP related ruckus? (you know, there's this thing called WP:RFC that we have here... of course, that may not go the way you'd want without first mustering some support through whipping people into a moral panic about the issue )
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  Just to re-assure, you are not reading it correctly. No intention to run off and disrupt anything! --Errant ^(chat!) 01:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  OK, good to hear. It was just... you said: "The idea of One Event is slowly coming to a head, I think, and there are a lot of articles that will come under intense focus in the next few days" which sounds vaguely threatening, to be honest.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is some further ongoing discussion of the issue on WP:BLPN#Anders Behring Breivik.  Chzz  ►  00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree with your interpretation of policy (specifically, I do not see how BLP1E requires the article to be removed, and the day we use NOTNEWS to remove even the most high-profile current events is the day we commit wikipedia to being out-of-date, losing one of it's biggest advantages). However, I think we could mostly agree that there is some ambiguity in policy, and it's an ambiguity that's likely to provoke more drama in future. So, it would be good to take a little time out - after tempers have settled - to see if we can improve and clarify the rules, just a little. bobrayner (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

An additional consideration

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

There seems to be an additional consideration here. This appears to be part of a larger... er, "movement"? which seems to have a goal of enforcing BLP1E to shut down biographical articles for people involved in current events. I personally think that this is a somewhat extreme reading of the policy (maybe "absolutist" would be a batter characterization?), and maybe we should discuss that. I note that "the usual suspects" are chiming in here and in at least one similar set of articles (namely: Casey Anthony and Death of Caylee Anthony, where Casey Anthony has also been turned into a redirect and protected [well, it was protected, at least]).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I support that re-direct but not this one. One is a pedestrian case of a mother allegedly killing her child, something that is so old and unfortunately common that even the bible has. Casey Anthony is not a notable perp. The other is the perpetrator of the worse act of terrorism in Norway during peacetime. This dude is a notable perp. Apples and oranges. Again, the problem is WP:INVOLVED blocking of the ability of the community - not just admins - being able to move consensus. It is imposing a view on policy without allowing consensus to flow. That is wrong, plainly. --Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of those usual suspects, but you'll notice I'm not on the side that you might normally expect me to be. Might I suggest that this meta-discussion be taken to a more proper venue like WP:VP or WP:RFC? NW (Talk) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that there's a similar discussion already underway on another noticeboard. With an eye towards lowering the already fractured nature of all of this, I'm just gonna hat the whole thing.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (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.

Senkaku Islands - admin COI intervention

Hi. I have a very simple issue to raise. The Senkaku Islands page was subject to mediation until recently. In order to satisfy a user, Lvhis, other users agreed that a neutrality dispute tag could be added to the top of the article during mediation. Mediation expired, so I requested the mediation admin, Feezo, (who had added the tag) to remove it. Lvhis was unhappy about this, so he asked Penwhale to remove reinsert it. Penwhale did this, despite acknowledging there might be a conflict of interest. He had also reinserted the same tag about a month ago during mediation, even though Feezo had removed it. I really don't think Penwhale was uninvolved nearly enough to intervene again on this issue.

I'm also concerned how it looks for a Chinese user to ask a ChineseTaiwanese admin to intervene in a dispute over an article on islands that China and Taiwan are in sovereignty dispute with another country over. I'm sure Penwhale was acting out of good faith, but Wikipedia should be seen to be impartial, especially from the perspective of other users (given the sorts of disputes that can blow up).

Anyway, would appreciate some feedback and maybe the removal of the dispute tag for the moment. John Smith's (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: John Smith's statement, "In order to satisfy a user, Lvhis, other users agreed that a neutrality dispute tag could be added to the top of the article during mediation.". There has never been any such agreement from me and some other editors; the tag was applied according to the usage guideline and without any pre-condition. STSC (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about how you're using "COI" here. The conflict of interest guideline speaks about citing yourself, promoting your own company or financial interests, or editing articles related to organizations or campaigns you are involved in outside of Wikipedia. In what way does Penwhale have a COI? Are you saying that because he was born in Taiwan, that he should not edit China-related articles? Or that he should be considered an involved administrator on those topics simply because of his ethnicity? Quigley (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Penwhale was the person who raised COI when actually discussing why he was taking action. Maybe he was thinking along the lines that you've described, but in any event I've struck-through the term. John Smith's (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we seriously having a real conflict over who has the right to remove a cleanup tag, where both parties agree that the tag should be removed? Because when I read this, you seem to be upset not because the tag was removed, but that it was removed by someone asked by your opponent to remove it, and not by the person you asked to remove it? Please tell me you didn't come here with that as the central conflict here. This is beyond stupid, into the realm of sheer insanity, if in fact you went through the trouble to complain about who has the right to remove a cleanup tag that everyone agrees should be removed. Please tell me I am wrong... --Jayron32 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood the issue because I used the wrong word. The inclusion of the tag was a subject of an edit war. Editors who didn't agree with the tag's inclusion generally accepted that it could be included during mediation to satisfy Lvhis, as a sign of good faith. It was removed after the mediation ended. Lvhis wasn't happy, so he cherrypicked an admin that previously reinserted it, asking the tag to be put back. The tag was put back. Hope it's clearer now! John Smith's (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If all that is of issue here is that the admin is Taiwanese, then there is indeed a serious problem here, however that problem is user:John Smith's. Preface it however you want, but that you would even see this as an issue and bring it up is somewhat appalling. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree strongly. I think it's incredibly improper for people of particular groups to even be seen to be taking sides over issues like this. I'm certainly not suggesting that Penwhale never get involved in any article related to this sort of matter. (And apologies for describing him as Chinese, though the point is still valid as Taiwan is more or less on China's side in this dispute). But the matter has already been characterised by people on both sides of the argument as being "pro-China" and "pro-Japan". In a similar fashion, if I was Japanese I wouldn't have sought feedback from a Japanese admin over this. Or, if I'd been a Japanese admin, I would have asked whether the editor in question really thought that I was the best person to deal with this.

That said, if it was just down to ethnicity I wouldn't have thought much about it. But when added with the cherrypicking and previous intervention, I thought something should be said. John Smith's (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And to make another example, I don't think that it would be correct for an editor that was (noticeably) Christian to seek assistance from another (openly) Christian admin over a dispute at, say, the Jesus or Christianity articles. John Smith's (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, your using the word "removed" in above are really confusing. If you want to argue against adding the tag, you should argue on my two main points in my edit requested. You'd better to read the wp guideline Wikipedia:POV Cleanup#Guidelines for cleanup at least 3 times or more before you made such complaint again and again. Admin Penwhale just did a thing 100% in line with wp policy and guidelines, nothing with COI at all! --Lvhis (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You cherrypicked an editor who had previously reinserted the tag. You didn't wait for, or seek assistance from, an uninvolved editor. That was inappropriate. John Smith's (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think you can rely on a page that has only been edited 14 times and has not been edited since 2007. John Smith's (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are playing down or even trying to deny a wp guideline or policy that you feel you cannot be benefited from, you shall not use (actually misuse or abuse) any others to make your complaint here at all. --Lvhis (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Who says it's policy? It's a page some random editor started in 2005. And the lead is completely nonsensical. "There are pages sitting in Point of View (POV) Dispute state where the discussion ended and it was resolved months ago. We clean up those tags." What does this mean? John Smith's (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's very badly written, indeed, but aren't you being a bit disingenuous in saying you don't understand the intended meaning? It seems perfectly clear to me, despite the poor writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was exaggerating. Though I have no idea who "we" are. Was this supposed to be a page about the removal of stale tags? John Smith's (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that we're having this conversation means that there's still a dispute. As I was not a party to the mediation case, I cannot tell how many people were on each side of the viewpoints. However, we're warring over a template that fits the current state of discussion. Have we resolved anything? If you take a look at the edit history, I've added the tag twice; once due to Feebo delayed his closure on RfM, and once after the RfM closure due to the situation not cleared up at all. I claimed possible COI issues for myself because this is related to Republic of China political issues and my view may not be as neutral as I could on other cases.
• What I'd like to see happen to this article? Constructive discussion on what to do with the title, while title-NPOV is tagged (to reflect the ongoing discussion), and unlock the page provided that no parties edit the infoboxes/title disputed information without detailed discussion. That would be what I'd like to see the editors collaborate on. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (revised at 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

So how long do we have to use the tag? We have discussed possible pages moves many, many times. Each time there was no consensus to change the title. However, some users don't like the fact that the titles are staying the way they are and are using the tag as a sort of protest. As far as I can see, they will want the tag to stay up there indefinitely - or until other users give in out of boredom. That is not what the tags are for. John Smith's (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Penwhale: We've had discussion (I'm not sure that it qualifies as "constructive", but at least some of us have tried) about what to do with the article. We've had it on that article's talk page, on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, on WT:Naming conventions (geographic names), and, most notably, a MedCom mediation that ended (failed may be a better word) after it, well, completely fell apart. I don't have an answer to the problem (I'm one of the key disputants), but the problem is by no means caused by lack of discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Penwhale: Please answer my question. Who do you think in the world in general do not like the name Senkaku and think it a biased name? Oda Mari (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the best examples I will provide here, but both Google Maps and CNN articles (Google Search Keyword used: "CNN Senkaku Islands") have mentioned both the Japanese name and the Chinese name right near each other. Here's a good example on how CNN deals with it. Both names would be biased based on which view you take, for the record. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Penwhale: I asked you "Who". "Both names would be biased based on which view you take"? Who on this planet take the Chinese view and think the name Senkaku biased? Please give me a specific answer. People in Africa? I think they are indifferent to the name. I take the Japanese view, but I don't think those names are biased. They are just two geographical names to me.

That's not really relevant. No one is suggesting the article only refer to "Senkaku Islands". The alternative names are mentioned in the article. It is not biased to have a name used by one country in a territorial dispute for the title of a Wikipedia article. E.g. "Falkland Islands", rather than "Falkland/Malvinas Islands". Or are you going to tell me "Falkland Islands" is biased too? John Smith's (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that CNN and Google, two of the prominent media groups in the world, refers to both at the same time, without using the phrase Pinnacle Islands. This is almost similar to Liancourt Rocks situation, except the usage of the phrase "Pinnacle Islands" is much smaller than "Liancourt Rocks". NPOV name would force a move to "Pinnacle Islands", as both "Diaoyu(tai)" and "Senkaku Islands" have bias. But then the term "Pinnacle Islands" is underused... I personally don't have a preference over which one this article (and the dispute article) settles at, but I believe the tag should stay until a final consensus is reached (i.e. as mediation didn't resolve in agreement by parties, the name's NPOV-ness is still under dispute).

In addition, CNN has actually refrained to name the islands in its article titles (only mentioning both in the article text). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to highlight a few important things: John Smith and cohorts' arguments of common name usage were defeated quite soundly in the recent (failed) mediation, so that already robbed a pretty key point on their side. In addition, the mediation failed because of active sabotage committed by individuals who very passionately advocated for the removal of the POV tag. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have to have an article title that identifies the islands by name. News outlets can create their own headlines. And I don't understand why "Senkaku" is biased such that it cannot be used. Are you suggesting that "Falklands" is similarly biased and it would be legitimate to NPOV tag the article title until a name not used by the UK or Argentina could be found? John Smith's (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe we should not go off on a tangent here. This ANI is about Penwhale's alleged COI and inappropriate actions taken as an admin due to him being Chinese. Content discussions about naming had been discussed in great detail in the mediation and other previous discussions, including why Falkland Islands is obviously a very bad example and an inappropriate analogy. If further debate is desired on why Senkaku Islands is a bad name of the article, then a separate thread should be opened in the appropriate article talk pages. Please stick to the original points of discussion. In the event that you can no longer justify your accusations of Penwhale, it is advised that you apologize to the Taiwanese admin for the inappropriate initiation of an ANI. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that I know if I'm on topic or not - I brought this matter to the board in the first place. I did not say at any point that it was inappropriate of Penwhale to act because he's Chinese, I made a subsidiary point that it could be undesirable to see a Chinese user seek help from a Chinese (got that slightly wrong) admin over a territorial issue that China was involved in.

Penwhale has said quite clearly that he thinks it's POV to have "Senkaku Islands" as the title. It would help if he explains why it's POV. I raised the issue of "Falkland Islands" as an example for him to consider. John Smith's (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Then consider this: using the name Senkaku Islands, by itself, could make English Wikipedia seen as taking Japanese views on this topic. That, by itself, would mean that we're not following WP:NPOV in the title. (Consider a Japanese party wanted Google to remove Diaoyu Islands from Google Map some time last year, we editors picking one over the other is definitely NPOV.) Technically, Republic of China also has a claim on the islands (for the record). I would not comment on Falklands issue due to the fact that I have very little (read: none) knowledge regarding that dispute for me to present a suitable analogy in that regard. I am using Liancourt Rocks as an analogy, and ideally, we would pick a title that can be agreed upon that would not advance just one side of the views. True, people wouldn't like it (the English name definitely wouldn't be as common as either Diaoyu or Senkaku), but at least we would have maintained neutrality. We are not sacrificing accuracy by doing so, either. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• If you want true neutrality on a topic that is controversial in any way, Penwhale, you'd need a blank article (or no article at all). As soon as text is included or excluded, people will start to accuse Wikipedia of bias. These allegations are unavoidable. The NPOV article is clear on naming articles. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. I know that you are referring to Liancourt Rocks, but personally I don't agree with that approach. But in any event, there is no reason that we have to follow that decision. It is not Wikipedia policy to avoid using any name commonly used by one side in a dispute, and if anything policy says that it is permissible. John Smith's (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• We are going around in circles here, and we're going nowhere. Perhaps instead of arguing about this, the naming conventions should be re-examined instead, since both you and I are arguing with policy supporting our main argument. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you're not referring to policy correctly. You're using a general principle whilst ignoring specific details in the NPOV policy guide. Sure, you can bid for that to be changed. But until it's changed, it is perfectly acceptable to use the Senkaku Islands title. You can't base your actions on what you think policy should be. John Smith's (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Again, this is off-tangent. The ANI is about whether or not Penwhale had done something in violation of his responsibilities as an administrator. Whatever issues you guys have with NPOV or Liancourt Rocks is irrelevant. Penwhale has very specifically addressed why he re-added the POV-tag, which is due to the fact that the dispute not being resolved by mediation (which was, in fact, forced to an unsatisfactory closure by parties opposing the POV-tag). What was relevant but not discussed, however, was that the tag was inappropriately removed by the administrator User:Feezo who was the mediator of the failed mediation.
• Just to remind everyone what this ANI was about, let me re-quote a key part the complaint by John Smith's that started all of this:

• Penwhale [re-added the POV tag], despite acknowledging there might be a conflict of interest. He had also reinserted the same tag about a month ago during mediation, even though Feezo had removed it. I really don't think Penwhale was uninvolved nearly enough to intervene again on this issue.

• I'm also concerned how it looks for a Chinese user to ask a ChineseTaiwanese admin to intervene in a dispute over an article on islands that China and Taiwan are in sovereignty dispute with another country over

--Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions

Related to the above, earlier today User:Magog the Ogre unprotected Senkaku Islands dispute, which had been fully protected, on and off, for quite a while (due primarily to the NPOV Title tag, but also due to other disputes). In explaining the removal of protection, Magog placed the article under what are essentially self-imposed general sanctions. You can see an explanation for his position at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#BRD cycle, crystal clear. While I'm not usually a fan of "rogue" admin actions, in this case I support the decision fully. The disputes at these articles are painful, seemingly neverending, with lots of bad behavior on all sides. The biggest point of contention is the title, but there's plenty of other problems lurking in the corners if and when we ever get the main one taken care of. As someone fully involved in the dispute, I'd like to say that I concur with Magog's actions; as such, since we're here at ANI anyway, I'm wondering if we could get the community. I think that we might as well make the sanctions official, get them listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, and that way nobody can claim that, when an admin acts in the best interests of the encyclopedia and puts the beatdown on bad behavior that it wasn't fair. Alternatively, if the community doesn't want to deal with it, we could always consider kicking the issue up to ArbCom. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm wondering if we could get the community." - seems as if you didn't quite finish this sentence, get the community to what? Chaosdruid (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much problem of Magog's suggestions, but I cannot agree to the inclusion of the dispute tag forever. There has to be a time-limit on its inclusion or some other way of allowing for it to be removed down the line, apart from "consensus". The sad reality is that certain users will never agree for the tag to be removed until they get their way. John Smith's (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! I think I meant to say, "I'm wondering if we could get the community to give its input." Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes; I support community sanctions on this article, including a 1RR limit and a strict line against BRD, as I've explained there. And John, I understand your desire to not have the NPOV tag up forever, but apparently other people feel just as strongly the opposite way, and the utter lack of ability on the two sides to come to even the slightest agreement on the issue is disturbing. I might point out they would rightfully say you will never agree for the tag to stay until you get your way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They could say that, but it wouldn't make any sense. My position is that it is inappropriate to use the tag indefinitely regarding the article title. This would be the same if the article title was "Diaoyu Islands" or "Pinnacle Islands". I am not refusing to have the tag until X happens. I simply don't believe the tag should be included. John Smith's (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My British friend, I hope you realize that the recent attempt at mediation failed largely because of sabotage committed by editors who were on your side of the opinion spectrum. As a result, you should take your issue up with Tenmei and Phoenix7777 if you are wondering why the tag is still up there. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncertain as to whether ArbCom would actually rule on the actual name of the Senkaku Islands article to be used, as generally that would be seen as editing dispute. In addition, the long-term full protection on there means that there may be very little remedies actionable things that can be ruled upon. I'd think that the main thing that would come out of this would be remedies either imposed by the community- or ArbCom on related pages. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC), modified 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate and apprize admin Magog the Ogre for his decisive action of this kind at this moment very much, more than just saying support it. I'd like to say it would be better if such action had taken earlier. As for the dispute itself, even I am on one side but I can say I am quite open, not only including open for either of dual name D/S or S/D, or pure/real English name, but also including let the tag be on if there is dispute even the title can be moved into a one which I support as NPOV . I am not going to take advantage of status quo by stubbornly removing out such tag when the title is the one I support but the dispute has been raised and ongoing. Admin 日本穣 mentioned Liancourt Rocks dispute in his message there, that remind me the moment when the mediation started going to a deadlock. When I mentioned the precedent Liancourt Rocks which has been demonstrated as an example in the the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, Qwyrxian expressed "Please drop it" and then actually shut a door or way as a possible solving approach. I am not critisizing anyone here, instead, I just hope we should be more open in the future DR no matter it will be through AbrCom or the extensive community. Otherwise, I am not optimistic for any means to solve this kind of dispute. --Lvhis (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I remember seeing one particular post made by John Smith's in Senkaku Islands dispute...

I have not accepted the tag. Please do not misrepresent what I said. I would like to see a commitment from people like Lvhis and everyone else who has reinserted the tag that they will accept its removal after mediation. If that does not happen then I would want the tag removed. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

... which suggested he would permit the POV-tag to be left on as long as others accepted its removal after mediation (i.e. presumably, ended with satisfactory resolution of disagreements). However, what made this interesting is that his cohorts (who had closely collaborated with him) proceeded to force an unsatisfactory end not very long after the mediation had started (by savagely attacking the mediator and flatly refusing to cooperate). Since the disagreements were effectively unresolved for reasons due to inappropriate actions taken by opponents (rather than proponents) of the POV-tag, it does seem strange that John Smith's is still adamant about the immediate removal of the POV-tag.

This ANI he opened on Penwhale and subsequent attack on Penwhale's objectivity as an administrator (purely on the basis of racial background) does further cast deep shadows on John Smith's motivations and interests in the article. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate your concern about this. I will point out that on my user page, I have the words I was born in Taipei City, Taiwan, therefore I do engage myself in PRC/Taiwan political issue discussions occasionally on it for quite a while. As this topic clearly deals with political issues (namely administrative rights of lands), people could find me having a biased opinion while editing. I brought it up when I wasn't prompted to do so, and the only actions I've taken on either SI or SI dispute articles was to re-insert the tag, which is clear that the neutrality of the title is disputed by not just me. I could be faulted for re-inserting a tag while the page was full-protected, but otherwise I've tried to remain neutral in this dispute. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• You did the right thing, because the motivations behind the removal of the POV-tag were actually inappropriate. You do not even need to cite naming conventions or NPOV to justify your actions in this case. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Susan Polgar Hiding in plain sight

Resolved

 – No admin. action required.

Could someone lend a hand here. Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't want to see the solution to a chess problem in the Susan Polgar article, so he's put it in a collapse box four times now. He's got a marvellous explanation as to why WP:COLLAPSE doesn't apply [72] - apparently it only applies to 'notable content'. He thinks I'm being really mean to him - I used one of my Yorkshire expressions and it really hasn't turned out well [73] [74] [75] - I'll hold my hands up and say I really should have learned not to do that by now. Could someone who isn't me explain to him that we don't hide content because a user doesn't want to see it. We've had absolute battles over this in the past, over things like the Rorscharch inkblots (Wikipedia was allegedly undermining the entire basis of psychiatry according to some) and pictures of Mohammed, but this is just a user who doesn't want to see how Polgar solved a chess problem. If anyone thinks I also deserve a trout for handling this badly, I have the frying pan waiting. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I play chess. I'll take a look. I wondered why that name sounded familiar. CycloneGU (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If the problem is with that puzzle that she composed at age 4, I actually like the idea of hiding the solution in the fashion he has. This is a good concept. CycloneGU (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it better to hide it than show it? I don't see any policy-based reasoning or MOS reason to collapse it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Both WP:COLLAPSE and WP:Spoiler are guidelines, not policies, and both lead with the disclaimer that reasonable exceptions can be made. I think this is a situation that could be a reasonable exception to both. Perhaps I'm not looking at this correctly, but it seems harmless to hide a solution to a chess problem that can be immediately revealed with a single click for those so inclined. I don't see that hiding that information in any way damages the project or its goals. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Torchiest has it correct. Someone viewing the page and presented with this problem as part of an encyclopedic look at Polgar's early life and composition history could be assumed to want to attempt solving the problem before being presented with the solution. I myself thought of some possibilities, then clicked the Show button to see I was wrong all along. Why ruin it? Sure, this isn't an excyclopedia of chess problems or other puzzles, but in this context the same problem would appear in a regular encyclopedia as the creation of the youngest puzzle composer ever and the solution must be visible underneath; let's take advantage of what technological improvements are available to us. CycloneGU (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's OK, but I'd add that I've seen similar practices in print reference works -- a puzzle could be presented and discussed on one page, with the solution on a subsequent page, or in a chapter's end note, for example. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I dable in chess, and I concur with CycloneGU. Keeping the "show" button allows the reader to think about it for a moment. Jonathunder (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not article content, per se. It not prose, but rather part of a diagram. I think it is an elegant use of a feature, presenting a problem as a problem.Novangelis (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the top of a slippery slope all the way down to the name of G-d and pictures of Mohamed and genitalia (with the butler did it somewhere in between), but I don't see any harm in hiding this chess solution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't think that one through to the full implications. Concealing content in images or captions would be inappropriate. This was a case where it was clearly not an abuse and I think a better expression of why is that the goal is making the diagram interactive. The concealment, in this case, is content.Novangelis (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with CycloneGU as well. I don't see any harm in collapsing the solution, and he laid out why it can be seen in a positive light. Swarm ^X 19:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. It would be wrong to not show it at all, or to link elsewhere, but a chess problem loses its point if one can not avoid simultaneously seeing the solution at first--almost nobody could sufficiently focus their attention. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one solution could be to mention that she created a notable chess problem at a young age, with an external link to a page containing the solution, if there is a convenient one available that meets our standards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no reason to create a new page containing merely the solution to the problem, or to link off-site to get the solution. I prefer to stay in the wiki and, if presented something like this for thought as part of an article, would not want to leave the article for the solution. CycloneGU (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had to go make dinner for the family, then eat it, then watch some shows on gardening. I was worried as Anthonycole was, about this slippery slope stuff (veteran of persuading people that while we understand entirely that in the religion of Islam, images of the Prophet (BBH) are forbidden, this is actually an encyclopaedia with servers based in the US, so a different ballgame entirely). Can we perhaps formulate a very tight change to WP:COLLAPSE or WP:SPOILER pertaining specifically and completely restricted to where a notable problem (maths, chess etc) and notable solution is involved (for my sins, I did the drafting on the RFaR for the Monty Hall Problem). Alternatively, might it be possible to lay the article out so as to separate them - I know this was done with Monty Hall. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Would be nice if the other editor involved could actually come and discuss this, rather than just continuing to post personal attacks [76] Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(Excuse, please? I was responding to a question or challenge on the Talk:Susan Polgar page from an editor apparently trying to defend your behaviors towards me today. But it was off-topic for the Page, so I put it away. I don't appreciate your compounding things here with false accusation "personal attacks". You have been the aggressor today, not I. Including your consistent condescensions, creating a 3RR situation after consensus discussion had already been initiated on the Talk page, and threatening me with a block at my User page contrary to WP guideline advising that kind of behavior can easily be interpreted as overly-aggressive, which is how I interpreted it. I've asked you to please stop baiting me and I hope you'll respect that. I want to thank you, however, for opening this noticeboard incident on my behalf, but I did not appreciate the superior tone regarding how you framed the issue.)

Obviously, of course, I agree with the Admins/editors here supporting the concealment technique for chess problem composition solutions. I know they are right. They know I am right. I've enjoyed reading their responses, they are all really great, really thoughtful. And they can express their reasons way better than I. (I especially liked the profound observation: "The concealment is the content.") The editors here understand the nature of chess problems; how they're different re WP:SPOILERS from movies or books. I think the main problem here might be a simple one: experience with chess. (Maybe if you're a player, you "get it". And if you're not, you don't. Based on how far I was getting you to understand my views on Talk:Susan Polgar, which was nowhere, I presume neither you nor the other reverting editor are players.) I am very appreciative of the wise editors here, and they give me great respect for WP as a whole, after a short but bad experience today on Talk:Susan Polgar. I'm still relatively new on WP, and this in total was an awesome, unexpected experience. Thanks to all. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

When I went to bed last night I didn't imagine that I'd wake up to find the discussion about spoilers and chess problems to arrive on ANI...I figured maybe I'd be soliciting a third opinion or the like. My opinion is, no, they shouldn't, and let me say that I had in my youth extensive experience with chess problems, plus all sorts of puzzles, logic problems, etc., where knowing the answer "ruins" the problem. To me, that is in no way different than spoiling a movie, book, or play--especially if you think of those creative works whose sole interest is in the "twist", like a mystery novel, for instance. I don't like the idea that any group that feels that their "twist" is special gets to override WP:Spoiler, because that's the whole point of that guideline--some people think that their "twist" is special, so it has to be hidden away, but the consensus of the overall community is that no twist is special. However, perhaps this discussion is going beyond the bounds of what ANI can handle; maybe we need an RfC at WP:Spoiler.

So, it seems it is back to square one, regarding your understanding there is an important difference, even in light of all the comments here from other editors?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On another note, though, I think you (Ihardlythinkso) misunderstood Elen's warning on your talk page. Elen isn't trying to warn you for your opinion on the spoiler tag; instead, she's warning you about WP:3RR. This policy is very strict, what we usually call a "bright line". No one is allowed to cross 3RR, no matter how right they think they are (even if, in fact, they "are" right based on policy and guidelines). The only exceptions are for things like reverting vandalism and violations of WP:BLP. That's why I stopped reverting your addition of the tags; once another editor reverted you, you should have stopped trying to add it and just participated in the talk page discussion. If you had reverted one more time, you would likely had been blocked, not because you're right or wrong about spoiler tags, but because you just can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. That is a case where the community has agreed that strict rules enforcement is a good thing in every single case not covered by an explicit exception. I've even seen admins who mistakenly break 3RR request their own block. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

First, your assumption is wrong, I did not think Elen's threat to block had anything to do with the "spoiler tag", I knew it was about 3RR. (And BTW, please don't speak for Elen. And she should stop speaking for you. It's frustrating to dialogue with you, and hear from her in response. It's frustrating to get explanations from you, about what she did, or why you think she did something.) Second, your "refresher course" on 3RR is misplaced, since it wasn't needed - I already understood 3RR before interfacing with you or Elen. Third, please don't extend this topic (here), it has already wanndered off from purpose of the AN/I. (And I'm not looking for reply in any event, just so you know.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiding the solution looks good to me. I think one should always first look at what is best for an article while keeping in mind the fundamental Wiki-policies. It's not a good idea to let a good solution be overruled by some obscure policy or guideline, because the dynamics should be the other way around. It could be that there are novel uses for collapsing texts which can then lead to changes of the relevant policies.

Another example: In this article, some of my derivations were collapsed by another editor, which was necessary in order to expand te article. So, I think there are a lot more legitimate uses for hiding texts on Wikipedia.

Let's not forget that WP:IAR is the most important policy, saying that it is compulsory to follow the MOS is just ridiculous. This is just Wikipedia; you can get away with not sticking to the guidelines of serious peer reviewed journals and still get your article accepted. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, WP:SPOILER doesn't apply in this case. It says "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists." WP:COLLAPSE does apply; it says "boxes that toggle text between hide and show should not be used to hide article content. This includes reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." It would be possible to slip an exception for notable chess, maths, etc, solutions in there, and I'd suggest you do that now. Or you could just ignore the guideline, as the count suggests, but there are some strong feelings around this issue and you may find that, without an amendment to the MOS, you'll be defending this little collapse forever.

You should be warned though, there was a long and somewhat bitter argument here years ago about collapsing plot summaries, offensive material and stuff some editors don't like, and some veterans of that conflict may see this benign and sensible suggestion as a challenge to their hard-won victory. If editors commenting here take the trouble to contribute to the argument there, you should prevail. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The good Count beat me to it. There is no better way for a chess problem to be presented in this nature, and WP:IAR applies if there are other rules suggesting otherwise. Many sites operate in this fashion, hiding the solution either until a single (or multiple) attempt(s) is(are) made - assuming you can play directly on the diagram. We have no reason to split the solurion and move it away from the puzzle in this instance, having a separate section titled "Answer to 4-year-old's Problem" or something stupid like that.

I'm going to boldly mark this as resolved if no one minds. There isn't really any administrative action required here. CycloneGU (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to continue the discussion, I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC for Collapse boxes on chess problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I am going to pop over and comment myself, in fact. CycloneGU (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, though of course I favor use of "hide"/"show" for chess problem compositions, there exists a number of uses of "hide"/"show" already in some rather mature articles, for use not to depict chess problem composition solutions, but rather brilliant or difficult game continuations. For examples of these, please see articles Mikhail Botvinnik (contains two such game continuations), Wilhelm Steinitz (one), and Alexander Alekhine (one game continuation in "Notable chess games" section, plus a problem composition in the same article). And I'm sure there are other article examples besides these. In addition, besides game continuations and problem compositions, there is an additional use of "hide"/"show" demonstrated in the mature article Emanuel Lasker – a diagram about the Rice Gambit. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please speedy keep this pov AfD?

Resolved

 – Closed as speedy keep. –MuZemike 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Cylinder is clearly a pov nomination of a famous artefact, presumably because the editor doesn't like some of the interpretations. Editor has neither edited the article or the talk page. This is their second such nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajik people which probably should also be closed as speedy keep. I'd do it myself but as I'd already reverted an edit of his earlier I might be considered involved, although it's £$"%$ obvious that this nomination will fail. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Xythianos (talk · contribs) has also submitted a plainly abusive AfD concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajik people. This is very likely related to extreme Iranian nationalist views on both subjects, as the latter AfD makes clear (denying that the Tajik people exist). Could someone please close both AfDs? Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I third this request, and think that the closing would be best handled by an admin to avoid backflashes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:69.249.133.74, mostly at Louis Van Amstel

On July 14, Floquenbeam blocked this IP for a week, citing "long term edit warring, BLP violations, silly threats, lack of discussion, and likely sockpuppetry." The editor involved apparently also has edited as User:Jww047. The user came off the block last night and promptly resumed edit warring on Louis Van Amstel, where most of the original problems seem to have started. The IP has already violated 3RR on that page and has ignored all warnings and comments from other editors, as is evidenced by their talk page. I've got little involvement in the page, but the problems are evident and the IP is unwilling to correct its behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've reblocked them, for a month. It's clear that they are continuing the exact same thing they were doing before. Hullaballoo, feel like starting an SPI? Is there one already? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've had a lot of involvement with the article and, unfortunately, the IP. I've been the one who has reported the IP, and I appreciate the response and help. Despite the work I've already done on the article, it needs more, and it's hard to do in an environment of disputes that aren't even grounded in good faith. I was very close to too many revisions when Hullaballoo and another editor came to the rescue. Can someone please update this section if they open an SPI? If not, I can do it tomorrow. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't see a formal SPI, but Floquenbeam identified the IP with Jww047; note their comments at User talk:Jww047#blocking. It looks like a clear case on behavioral evidence, with only the named account and the IP involved. I'm not really familiar with the details; if Bbb23 is willing to open the SPI, they'll likely do a better job than I would. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll do it tomorrow, although I don't think I'll do a better job. I'm familiar with the article and with the IP in the context of that article. Until I saw Floquenbeam's comments (after the last block), though, I had no idea any other account was involved. Still, I don't mind doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And they're back, now editing as User:69.249.135.41. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll include that in the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Report filed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The second IP was blocked for a month. No action was taken against Jww047, perhaps because there's been no recent activity by the user, although the SPI admin doesn't say. The admin invites us to relist if there are more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And Jww047 is now repeating the disruptive edits, in violation of the conditions Floquenbeam set for not imposing an indef-block on the account last week. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've relisted the SPI, but so far no result. I've also placed warnings on Jww047's Talk page, a lot of good it'll do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The relisting was declined with the following reason: "as long as the master is editing from only one place, it's fine. I meant to relist if new accounts or other IPs show up." Not that I'm an expert on this subject, but I'm at a loss. The IPs are blocked as puppets, but the master is not, simply because they aren't editing simultaneously. Even if a check user can't connect the IPs to the master, isn't the behavioral evidence sufficient? In any event, I just reverted Jww047's last reversion and put a final warning on his/her Talk page. If they do it again, I suppose I'll go to AIV, but this is really tedious and a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo has commented at the SPI report. So far, there's been no response to that comment. In the meantime, Jww047 continues to edit disruptively. I was about to report them at AIV when they reported both Hullaballoo and me at AIV. An admin has now fully protected the Louis Van Amstel article for one day and restored the article to its correct state. That may resolve the editing issue temporarily, but it doesn't go to the heart of the problem. This is an editor problem, not an article problem. Do we have to start another ANI report specifically about Jww047? What's the right action to take here?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Balkan nationalist IP editor

Resolved

 – Both IPs blocked for 48h & article semi'd for 2w

77.77.25.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive, ultra-nationalist Bulgarian IP editor that is POV-pushing and edit-warring across several articles [77] [78] [79] [80]. His views are so extreme that he is edit-warring mostly against other, more moderate Bulgarian editors (e.g. User:Tourbillon, User:Laveol, User:Jingiby), as well as numerous other editors in general. He is aggressive and hostile, as evidenced by edits summaries [81] [82] and things like this [83]. The tenor of the POV being pushed, the stubbornness of the edit-warring and the tone of the hostility lead me to suspect this could be User:Pensionero, who hasn't edited since July 1, though I am not 100% sure. He also knows to game 3RR and states his intention to revert in the future [84]. Regardless, clearly this user is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia and cannot/will not work with others. Yesterday I asked for page protection for Plovdiv, but it was rejected on the grounds that it is a single IP editor and that an IP block might be better. Clearly, I think the time for such a block has arrived. Athenean (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• IP blocked for 48 hours, purely because of the edit-warring and intention to continue. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems he is really stubborn: another ip editor (with same edit summary explanation style) is supporting his version.Alexikoua (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is now socking through another IP [85]. Athenean (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Physical threat of violence

Resolved

 – IP blocked 24 hours by Elen of the Roads. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this anything to worry about? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

IP belongs to Eircom, and the comments make sort of warped sense for a local in Drogheda. I've blocked for 24hrs - couldn't see any point in giving him four goes at this kind of stuff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

Would an admin re-close the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka? EdJohnston (talk · contribs), an uninvolved admin, closed the discussion and was reverted by Ohms law (talk · contribs) here. The discussion among EdJohnston, Ohms law, and me is here. If the topic ban is re-enacted, please restore EdJohnston's edit at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Balkan nationalist IP editor

Resolved

 – Both IPs blocked for 48h & article semi'd for 2w

77.77.25.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive, ultra-nationalist Bulgarian IP editor that is POV-pushing and edit-warring across several articles [86] [87] [88] [89]. His views are so extreme that he is edit-warring mostly against other, more moderate Bulgarian editors (e.g. User:Tourbillon, User:Laveol, User:Jingiby), as well as numerous other editors in general. He is aggressive and hostile, as evidenced by edits summaries [90] [91] and things like this [92]. The tenor of the POV being pushed, the stubbornness of the edit-warring and the tone of the hostility lead me to suspect this could be User:Pensionero, who hasn't edited since July 1, though I am not 100% sure. He also knows to game 3RR and states his intention to revert in the future [93]. Regardless, clearly this user is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia and cannot/will not work with others. Yesterday I asked for page protection for Plovdiv, but it was rejected on the grounds that it is a single IP editor and that an IP block might be better. Clearly, I think the time for such a block has arrived. Athenean (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• IP blocked for 48 hours, purely because of the edit-warring and intention to continue. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems he is really stubborn: another ip editor (with same edit summary explanation style) is supporting his version.Alexikoua (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is now socking through another IP [94]. Athenean (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Physical threat of violence

Resolved

 – IP blocked 24 hours by Elen of the Roads. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this anything to worry about? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

IP belongs to Eircom, and the comments make sort of warped sense for a local in Drogheda. I've blocked for 24hrs - couldn't see any point in giving him four goes at this kind of stuff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lopeztonight clearly doesn't listen and is guilty of repeated edit warring.

Resolved

 – Re-blocked, this time for 72 hours

Involved

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

Background

Lopeztonight was blocked for 24hrs (see here) for edit warring at Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Similar behaviour at Woohoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Christina Aguilera discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Issue

Now that he/she has been unblocked, they have continued edit warring adding more reverts here bringing their total number to somewhere around ten i believe. Note how there is less than 24hrs between each revert. Despite numerous users telling him/her they refuse to listen. He/she has now posted uncivil comments on my talkpage and is promising to keep on edit warring. (which I have removed, as is my policy clearly noted on my page). He/she was offered a detailed explanation of why his/her edit was wrong and even show where he/she could attempt to seek a new consensus to overide the existing one... yet he/she is intent on flogging a WP:DEADHORSE. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think Lopeztonight just vandalized this section. Dan56 (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Restored to original version. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Given the persistent edit-warring, snarky edit-summaries, incivility and the silly edit to this page, one has to assume the editor doesn't Get It and I have therefore reblocked them. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik needs attention

Resolved

There is a consensus on the talk page that using his manifesto, a primary source, is problematic. Users are increasingly adding longer and longer and more speculative quotations from his manfiesto to the article, without reading the talk page. I have propsed adding an editnotice to the article, but the request is pending an admin who could do this. There are two supports for this motion, and no objections more than 5 hours since the proposal was put forth. Any admin can add the edit notice here. Text to add:

{{editnotice | header = Attention editors | headerstyle = font-size: 150%; | text = Please note that the Anders Behring Breivik "manifesto" (''2083 - A European Declaration of Independence'') is considered a [[primary source]], and its use must adhere to the [[WP:PRIMARY|relevant Wikipedia policy]]. In short, editors are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate his manifesto. Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a [[WP:RS|reliable]] secondary source. | textstyle = font-size: 120%; }}

Many thanks, hydrox (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done as it seems a sensible idea. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bars77 and Gorzaim

Bars77 (talk · contribs) and Gorzaim (talk · contribs) have been engaged in on-and-off disruptive editing, which recently degraded further into lame editwarring. While I suspect the meat or sock nature of these accounts, they continue to act as obvious SPAs in the Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration area, most likely interchangeably to avoid arbitration restrictions. Both conduct similar contentious reverts and extensive POV-pushing in the sensitive Nagorno-Karabakh article in particular, such as [95] and [96].

Bars77, who reverted other users as well ([97], [98]), proved to be unable to comprehend WP:V policy and continues to own Nagorno-Karabakh article, ignoring or not understanding arguments, brought recently at the talkpage by mediator Golbez and me. The majority of Bars' contributions pertain exactly Nagorno-Karabakh, remaining in the general Armenia-Azerbaijan field. I don't exclude the possibility that Bars77 belongs to Aram-van (talk · contribs), judging by interest in Georgian and Azeri topics.

The account of Gorzaim was opened to editwar mainly in Azerbaijan-related topics. After one month of inactivity he suddenly appeared on July 19 exactly in the Nagorno-Karabakh article to support Bars' reverts. The editing atmosphere has become unhealthy. Ehud (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

statement by Bars77

Ehud's reporting is apparently a retaliatory measure aimed at covering up his own edit warring and other incidents of abuse by accusing his opponents in actions that he is guilty of in the first place. This tactic is common among those editors who after exhausting their intellectual arsenal resort to blatant edit warring, mis-characterizing it in the process as actions that allegedly restore something of value. Accusations of sockpuppetry are of course unfounded; see this for evidence - [99]. Ehud's statement that I "proved to be unable to comprehend WP:V policy" is as untrue as it could possibly be. I added a dozen or more meticulously verified references to the article and understand WP:V policy very well (examples [100], [101], etc.).

statement by User:Gorzaim: Ehud acts with Unclean hands

My account was not opened for "editwar" as insinuated by Ehud. Record of my contributions shows that well. But Ehud is clearly someone with an old history of disruptive editing.

He initiated this case with Unclean hands.

Ehud entered into edit war on the Nagorno Karabakh talk page in order to push for an unbalanced definition of the international status of that region, which is recognized by some governments and organizations as part of Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani government insists that Nagorno Karabakh is its territory. Now the article features an NPOV language developed by as many as four editors that strikes a compromise between simple mentioning that Nagorno Karabakh is a disputed land and Ehud's position that it is supposedly internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Present definition, supported by at least four users active on that page, suggests that the region's status is unsettled but there are governments and other institutions that prefer to consider it part of Azerbaijan. Then there was an interesting discussion involving Bars77, Golbez and me where three of us discussed international law in a relaxed and amicable atmosphere ([102]). Enter Ehud with his warlike and arrogant attitude which is strictly discouraged in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 [103]. Ehud immediately branded new edits as POV [104], in disregard of Wikipedia:Assume good faith requirement. Then he engaged in massive and unexplained revert actions trying to undo an assortment of good-faith edits by at least three authors [105], [106], and [107]. Immediately before the final bout of reverts, Ehud arrogantly stated on talk pages “Roma locuta, causa finite,” [108] which means: “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” In other words, after making a series of irrelevant statements and essentially exposing lack of logic in discussion, Ehud unilaterally imposed his decision to close the discussion for all participants without bothering to ask their opinion first.

Ehud also failed to acknowledge or explain the deletion of several passages in the article: [109], [110].

In contrast to Ehud’s manners, User:Bars77 tried his best to accommodate the opinion of his opponents by restoring or rewriting parts of text which caused debate. Here is evidence [111], [112], [113], [114].

Here are some older examples for which Ehud was subjected to sanctions ([115], [116], [117]. Also, Ehud has been suspected to be a sockpuppet of the disruptive editor User:AdilBaguirov who was indefinitely banned for his abusive conduct.

Canvassing at RfA

Resolved

 – Diligent007 blocked for one month by Courcelles and Glen Gale. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Diligent007 has a pretty big mad-on for is vigorously opposing Qwyrxian, who is running for admin here. This seems to go back to Diligent trying to edit war at the Cheney Mason article, which I was also involved with.

Diligent started yesterday by canvassing [118] [119] two other editors who had previous problems with Q, including one who is an admin. After Q and other editors (including the admin [120]) pointed out to him that it was clearly canvassing, he denied it and continued ranting on the RfA page. Now this morning, Diligent has returned and canvassed another 20 editors, including two IP editors who've been in conflict with him before. It looks like the RfA will still pass, but the RfA and the editor don't deserve this disruption. More than half of Diligent007's edits have been in regards to tainting this RfA. Would an uninvolved admin mind stepping in? He doesn't seem to listen [121] [122] to anyone else. Thanks in advance for your attention. Dayewalker (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

First and foremost, Daywalker has a vested interests with Qwyrxian. Furthermore, what I was doing was not canvassing, per se. Merely, I was affording others, who have a link to Qwyrxian, to post their position--of either favoring or opposing--Qwyrxian's nomination. In NO way did I IMPLORE anyone to oppose Qwyrxian. In fact, this is taken from the view of another editor, to wit:

"WP:CANVASS is a real policy. If you were to persist in leaving messages for people saying 'go vote against Q now', you would find that you weren't able to do it, because you would have been blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)"

What is important to take from the above of Elen of the Roads is that I was not blocked because, as she came to see, I did NOT tell anyone to vote a certain way.

I, in fact, have peformed a vital service, too. Bobthefish2, another editor, stated on my talk page that Qwyrxian failed to inform him of the opportunity to voice his opinion about Qwyrxian, to wit:

By the way, I feel offended that he [Qwyrxian] didn't invite me. I am a pretty harsh critic of Qwyrxian as well. In fact, I've just admonished Qwyrxian in some recent posts [2]. Way to slight your potential fellow opposers. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC). So, in this light, I helped fulfill the need of giving someone an opportunity to become involved in what should be an open and fair nomination process, and not one that is shuttered by a select-few colleagues of Qwyrxian (like Dayewalker) who want to wrap up this nomination without much discussion via denying others the opportunity to voice their position. Consequently, what I have done is in light with Wikipedia policy, to wit: "...it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The addition of Bobthefish2 would improve the quality of the discussion given his real encounter with Qwyrxian, and this need not be belabored.

In fact, I feel that there's been a methodical attempt to stifle a full opportunity to voice opinions about Qwyrxian, as alluded to earlier by Bobthefish2. In this vein, is there a process to petition the invalidation of such a tainted nomination and the re-initiation of another one?

Thanks for your assistance! Diligent007 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been MIS-QUOTED. See [123][124]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope I am not out of line here; I am not uninvolved, as I am the person who nominated Qwyrxian for adminship, but I have posted a further explanation of the canvassing policy on Diligent007's talk page, plus a warning for telling Qwyrxian to go fuck himself in Japanese. --Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment See also the message left me on my Talk page, here. As I stated there, it's quite clear there's "bad blood" between Diligent007 and Qwyrxian. If Diligent007 wishes to oppose the RfA based on that "bad blood", well and good, but WP:CANVASSING is quite clear in both letter and spirit. I've cautioned Diligent007 regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND, but his comments above lead me to believe that caution went unheard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Only a slight issue, I know, but can the OP please change the wording of their initial complaint - suggesting somebody has a "pretty big mad-on" is not appropriate by any stretch of the imagination... GiantSnowman 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've warned Diligent007 and also banned him from further posting to Q's RfA space (he can appeal the latter here). If the canvassing seems to have swayed the outcome (though I think this is very unlikely to happen), perhaps a consensus here to delete posts made to the RfA by the canvassed editors, along with those made by Diligent, would be the answer. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I've said it somewhere else, but canvassing as a policy becomes weak due to uncertainty on how it can/should be enforced. It wasn't that long ago that some vested contributor was telling me something to the effect of 'editors are intelligent and can make their minds up for themselves so it doesn't matter'. It then became apparent that it's easier to cause the disruption than it is to undo it (or the full effects of it), if any. Hopefully if the Community comes to a consensus one way or another about that, policy can also be updated accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support the striking of canvassed !votes if it comes to it. But before that might be needed, perhaps revert the canvassing on the mass of Talk pages where he's done it? (I won't take any action as I have been working with Q in some areas and have Supported, so I'm too involved) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, among others, were deprived of the ability to be informed of their opportunity to voice their opinion about the nomination. Bobthefish2 said so himself because of Qwyrxian's sly attempts of manipulating the turnout. So, I won't make my reply long because it need not be belabored: The nomination process--certainly the process of voicing opposition or favoring--needs to start anew! My having been blocked from further addressing the nomination forum, I take it, as a sacrifice of mine in bringing attention to the fact that the process has been manipulated to disallow a fair and open process. A redo is needed---and this time, make sure all those who had involvement with Qwyrxian are invited to make their decision--let's try to make it look fair, at the very least! Diligent007 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are clearly unaware of how RfA works. Editors are expected to be aware of the existence of the page and therefore which editors are being nominated. Any other notification process could be taken to be canvassing, even if it wasn't. Your version, however, clearly was canvassing. No RfA will be re-started because of canvassing though; the offending votes will merely be struck or the closing bureaucrat will take the canvassing into account. . History has shown, however, that negative canvassing against an RfA candidate usually has the Streisand effect of attracting more support votes from editors keen to show that such tactics will not and should not work.Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The way that RfA works is that all your enemies add a redlinked entry to their watchlists so that they can be alerted to a possible future nomination and get in quickly to sabotage it should it go live. Meanwhile any potential supporters or neutrals are left in the dark unless they happen upon it. The essence of RfA is that as far as possible things have to be done in secret, away from the light. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• So let's make sure I have this straight, Diligent...because you don't like how this discussion, let alone your Oppose discussion at the RfA, is going, you're now asking that the entire RfA be thrown out and started fresh? Or are you in fact asking that the entire RfA process be thrown out and started anew? Either way (and take note, I am not an admin), I see your comments as an attempt to turn another discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND against an editor with whom you have had (to understate the case) less than favorable interaction with, and I'm calling it out as such. You've been cautioned by others regarding WP:CANVASSING, but you chose to ignore the cautions. This has progressed well into an area where a full WP:RFC/U would serve well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Dayewalk, to say I have a pretty big "mad-on" concerning your beloved friend, Qwyrxian, seems to be very perverted and homosexual in nature. I consider that to be a sexual slur. I'm not a homo, so please refrain from using terms that can be interpreted as being derrogatory! Thanks a bunch! How do I go about reporting Daywalk for such a crass, derrogatory statement because I'm new here? Diligent007 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously unfamiliar with certain British colloquialisms, none of which are sexual in nature. This is an observation, not an accusation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, N5iLn, I'm having a HUGE mad-on you now doesn't sound sexual? Alright, you know it is, and the best thing you can do is not attempt to defend a crass statement that is untenable! Is there any administrator who will direct me to the right forum to address this complaint of mine as to the perverted statement made by Dayewalker, or is there just too much subjectivity on behalf of Qwyrxian and his posse for that to happen? Diligent007 (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't sound sexual to me. But I've apparently been around enough Brits to recognize it for what it is. And at any rate, the comment has already been struck and replaced, so you hanging onto it is rather WP:POINTy at best, so your best course of action would be to just drop the stick. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor to me.[125] Mathsci (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mad-on is UK slang for very pissed off, angry (that's the only meaning I've heard it spoken with). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Wikipedia is a joke. This was my experience in the process, and I can see why it will never ever be accepted as an acceptable source by any educational institution or otherwise. I mean I knew this from the beginning, and just re-confirmed it now. It's made up of people who really don't have jobs (or neglect them to escape into a fantasy world in which they feel important via enforcing various Wiki policies and the sort--and then ther are those who so much absorb themselves in such policies that they start to unconsciously apply them in ever-expanding ways beyond what were intended by such policies in the very beginning). It's ridiculous. My daring approach to see how far I could lure the galvanizing subjectivity of Wikipedia editors for one particular editor--Qwyrxian--exhibits the fact that there is no independence in the sense that there seems to be a 'wolf pack' mentality. The wolf pack tightly controls what encompasses Wikipedia articles, and when a member of the wolf pack is questioned and called out for his censorship (i.e., Qwyrxian), surely enough the other members of the pack come to his aid. This ensures no outside, neutral diversity to provide for a free and meaningful media source. Yeah, so Wikipedia ia joke, and those are my findings I'll share with my colleagues.

So, lol, with that said, can someone ban me pronto so that I won't waste a scintilla of my time trying to delete my account on here? I kind of feel like saying, "Get me out of here! I'm a celebrity!" YAY Diligent007 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you royally f-up based on policy, and when you get called on it you attack, rather than smarten up. Welcome to the Darwin awards. Go ahead, WP:DISAPPEAR and someone who actually reads policy can take your place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I note that one of the canvassed editors has now opposed the RfA, and managed to describe Qwyrxian as "simpleminded" in the process. I have asked them to refactor this. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say, posts from canvassed editors to the RfA should at least be tagged as such, or even blanked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Gale, lol, are you hearing yourself: blanked = censorship of what people think about some person who is about to be given enormous control over this site, which is already akin to online authoritarianism. Alright, someone ban me yet? Diligent007 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's replied and refused to refactor it, so I have given him another chance to do so or I will do so myself. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this: You'll rewrite someone else's reasoning for opposing the nominee??? Diligent007 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't rewrite it, but I will remove the invective. I have given the user a chance to refactor it in case he is using the phrase to mean its less common usage of "unsubtle". Black Kite (t) (c) 21:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diligent blocked

Since as far as I remember, I'm not involved with Diligent or Qwyrxian, I have blocked Diligent for one week to prevent further disruption of the RfA process. Feel free to unblock without consultation if the consensus here is that it was inappropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he DID ask for it...literally. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did, but I think he made valid points. You all have to do some self-introspection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrismanUSA (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet? Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not impossible...including the above, two edits total, and created within the hour. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much worth a WP:DUCK-block, wouldn't you say? LHM 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Check IP? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This "new" user has now continued Diligent's disruption at RFA. LHM 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I filed this checkuser request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Diligent007. Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. He has so far made a single post in the RfA. It does not amount to disruption (yet). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's quite obviously Diligent continuing his disruption. LHM 22:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Obvious sock is obvious. Diligent has now cast two votes at the RFA. Someone will need to clean up that page once the sockpuppet report has been dealt with. --Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as Diligent. Blocked indef - we only need one of him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diligent007 I have blocked ChrismanUSA (talk · contribs) indefinitely. — Scientizzle 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And Gwen Gale and Courcelles simultaneously have blocked Diligent007 for 1 month for block evasion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, uh....wow. I went to bed, thinking the there was a small problem but that it was basically handled, and I wake up today to find that my RfA has exploded in a paroxysm of technicolor hyper-drama (if I may coin a phrase). Thanks to everyone for helping sort this out. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just watching from the sidelines, it has all been quite entertaining, definitely technicolor, even 3D in fact. Btw, congrats on the adminship Qwyrx.

Fancy a game of chess anyone? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not in the mood to count, but how many "support" votes came in after the massive WP:BOOMERANG that brought Diligent's canvassing here? He's personally responsible for more eyes on that RFA, I would bet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

24/3 if I have not miscounted Agathoclea (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(Hopefully I am not premature on this.) If something like this happens in the future, where it has been evident that blatant and inappropriate canvassing has affected an RFA, then the bureaucrats need to be aware of this (if they already are not in this particular case), just as closing administrators of AFDs need to be aware when deletion discussions get inappropriately canvassed. The RFA would need to be weighted appropriately by the closing bureaucrat, just as would an AFD by the closing administrator. –MuZemike 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles like Science and Technology Center in Ukraine

I hope I am posting this in the correct space. But this issue concerns an issue that many persons have experienced (I have not but seen it happen). The article just serves to make the point I am trying to make. The subject of the article is notable, verifiable and cite-able by anyone. It is well documented by multilateral treaties at least 2). Organization has standing an International standing and is recognized by the UN and has observer status on UN committees. A Google search will immediately provide information regarding the treaties and other information (not just the official site of the org). Initiator of the article can be considered an expert in the field - International Law.
Another example in the same vein, lets say (just as an example) the article Elephant did not exist on the Wiki, and the Elephant is well known to most persons and an editor was to write an article on the elephant and post it on the Wikipedia however, it was not cited. The subject matter is verifiable and notable obviously - being about elephants. Lets say that is a given...
Obviously the criteria fits, overzealous patroller who lacks knowledge of the facts and who has very few edits at the time and had several cautions about his activities - but these are in the end besides the point I am trying to make in the end but highlights what happens sometimes.
I contend that articles such as this (notable, verifiable, cite-able) should not be tagged for deletion but rather only be tagged as not being cited when there are first created as was the case with the article in question (I want to use the article in question to make my point). Obviously categories make a difference or else all the several thousand articles that have not been cited which exist on the wiki that are less notable, but yet verifiable and cite-able could quickly be tagged for deletion because they lack cites. So the articles' lack of citations should not be a stand alone factor for consideration for deletion and should not be tagged as such. Oversight of patrolling activities may be necessary: allow for tagging for the first 500 edits but no permission to tag delete or speedy delete. Perhaps the tagger should take more time and do a search before tagging. Content editors do much more "substantial work" (new article) on the Wikipedia and anyone show wishes to tag for delete or speedy delete should just a moment and do a search for an independently verifiable source on the (first 3 links ) first page of a Google search lacking that fine tag as delete but if it is quickly apparent then it should not be tagged for deletion. Discussion is on here DeusImperator (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer is to add sources, not come to this board and moan about your article being nominated for deletion for lack of sources. Go...add some now. If it has sources, the closing admin won't delete it for lack of sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) get your facts straight before you spout off. This is not about the article - originated by somone else; it is not "mine" but rather one that is worth saving. Now go... do something useful... (Personal attack removed). Close the article if you wish yourself. I don't give a dame about that article, I do about the process itself. If the admin cannot be courteous in their posts do not expect anyone to be to you in turn. DeusImperator (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for twelve hours. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that a longer block would have been well justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm well conservative on the blocking: New-ish editor, no evidence from the talk page that this was typical behavior. No objection if someone wants to extend it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Which now I look back that's a 2010 welcome, not 2011. *facepalm*

Would have gone for 31 hours myself, but meh. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well well circling the wagons by the clique I see. Obviously a personal fiefdom where admins can launch a personal attack on and editor and suffer no repercussions. DeusImperator (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's only one editor throwing around personal attacks here, and that's you ... we have a deltion policy. We have the assumption of good faith. We have a policy against personal attacks. You fail on all 3 so far, and if you cannot abide by community standards, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No. You are the one who is shoving your massive inferiority complex into everyone's face and are expecting them to put up with it. The problem is that we don't need to, nor do we want to. Here, it is critical that editors work with others instead of against them; editors will not be able to be productive or be an asset to the community if they cannot exercise the former. –MuZemike 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rfellows

For several years, I've had a number of articles in the technology virtualization space on my watchlist. At one point, almost all of them were laden with spam and article spam. I've worked with WikiProject Spam and other users to try to clean as many of these up as was possible. Over the years, this has upset a number of single-purpose advertisers with blatant conflicts of interest. Some have been willing to recognize Wikipedia is not the place for their campaigns, while others have taken more convincing.

All that being said, for nearly the past two weeks, Rfellows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on an all-too-familiar campaign to first try to convince me his spam is good and then to try to threaten me to accept his additions — or else. Based on the limited purpose of his editing for the past year, I believe he may be affiliated in some way with a storage industry association known as the Storage Performance Council. He has edited, on numerous occasions, to include various vendors associated with that organization in a number of articles (to varying degrees of success).

Today, he took his first "retaliatory" edit, reverting my removal of three non-notable products that do not have articles on Wikipedia (one deleted in the recent past as being part of an article spam campaign, as a matter of fact). He had never edited the article prior to today, and it was the most recent article in my contributions lists (which he has now taken to stalking).

I simply no longer have time to edit Wikipedia often enough to deal with persistent but subtle spammers like User:Rfellows. Drive-by-spam I can clean up, but this is a different situation entirely. The limited amount of time I have had to edit for the past few weeks has been taken up dealing with his threats on my talk page. I've seen the exact same behaviour from other subtle spammers in the past (User:Jcalamity being one of the most recent), and I doubt he will give up and move on to more productive editing voluntarily. Any assistance would be appreciated. I would bring this up at WikiProject Spam, but my past experience is that the talk page there gets too little traffic to be effective at dealing with these sorts of issues. jæs (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct link is actually Rfellows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by the way... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, corrected above. I'm getting a little rusty. jæs (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

208.180.21.117

208.180.21.117 (talk · contribs) is engaged in on-and-off disruptive editing, which recently degraded further into edit warring. They account seems to be SPAs and frequent committee of vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBolivar20112 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP has done similar things about 3 months ago. I know it's a bit harsh, but I have blocked the IP for 1 week on that premise. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't appear to be too harsh, I was just investigating - this IP consistently removes embarrassing material about Bill Flores, almost exclusively edits this article and deems other users referenced contributions to be "vandalism" as justification for removing them. Oh, and the IP traces back to near Wellborn, TX and guess what? Flores just happens to be the U.S. Representative for Texas's 17th congressional district. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What about semi-protecting the article for a while? Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Protection is normally only done if there are multiple parties causing disruption and block is ineffective as deterrence. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil es by IP 98.27.74.206

98.27.74.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some nasty judgements on editors in edit summaries: [126], [127], [128] and [129]. After I pointed to this uncivilty at their talkpage, my rv in an article was reverted by the IP with this es: [130]. Could someone write some words to or a block for this person? And, rv the article to the original text? Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 24 hourse for WP:NPA. Lets see what he decides to do tomorrow. --Jayron32 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP probably has a fair point in regards to the edit though. John lilburne (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevent to the block. People with fair points need to make them fairly if they wish to be heard. If he wants to make a point, he can do so without calling people scum. --Jayron32 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

incivility by User:Sahuagin at Talk:Unified Modeling Language‎

The 3RR noticeboard is this way, and the dispute resolution noticeboard is that way. AN/I is not an appropriate venue to discuss content issues.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not assuming good faith here and has called two other editors liars here and here while pushing opinion on a recently added phrase. I requested a retraction but none was given. I'm afraid that this will just escalate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I can't see why he thinks he's being lied to, but User:Ottomachin's contributions look distinctly dodgy to me [131]. He is indeed adding unsourced criticism and personal opinion - that statement "...cannot be taken seriously" appears to be nothing but personal opinion. If this was about a person, not a very obscure technical artefact, the whole lot would have been out long ago. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Having studied UML for a time in the past, I'll second the personal-opinion statement. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:69.249.133.74, mostly at Louis Van Amstel

Resolved

 – 2 IP's and User:Jww047 all blocked for 1 month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On July 14, Floquenbeam blocked this IP for a week, citing "long term edit warring, BLP violations, silly threats, lack of discussion, and likely sockpuppetry." The editor involved apparently also has edited as User:Jww047. The user came off the block last night and promptly resumed edit warring on Louis Van Amstel, where most of the original problems seem to have started. The IP has already violated 3RR on that page and has ignored all warnings and comments from other editors, as is evidenced by their talk page. I've got little involvement in the page, but the problems are evident and the IP is unwilling to correct its behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've reblocked them, for a month. It's clear that they are continuing the exact same thing they were doing before. Hullaballoo, feel like starting an SPI? Is there one already? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've had a lot of involvement with the article and, unfortunately, the IP. I've been the one who has reported the IP, and I appreciate the response and help. Despite the work I've already done on the article, it needs more, and it's hard to do in an environment of disputes that aren't even grounded in good faith. I was very close to too many revisions when Hullaballoo and another editor came to the rescue. Can someone please update this section if they open an SPI? If not, I can do it tomorrow. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't see a formal SPI, but Floquenbeam identified the IP with Jww047; note their comments at User talk:Jww047#blocking. It looks like a clear case on behavioral evidence, with only the named account and the IP involved. I'm not really familiar with the details; if Bbb23 is willing to open the SPI, they'll likely do a better job than I would. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll do it tomorrow, although I don't think I'll do a better job. I'm familiar with the article and with the IP in the context of that article. Until I saw Floquenbeam's comments (after the last block), though, I had no idea any other account was involved. Still, I don't mind doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And they're back, now editing as User:69.249.135.41. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll include that in the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Report filed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The second IP was blocked for a month. No action was taken against Jww047, perhaps because there's been no recent activity by the user, although the SPI admin doesn't say. The admin invites us to relist if there are more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And Jww047 is now repeating the disruptive edits, in violation of the conditions Floquenbeam set for not imposing an indef-block on the account last week. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've relisted the SPI, but so far no result. I've also placed warnings on Jww047's Talk page, a lot of good it'll do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The relisting was declined with the following reason: "as long as the master is editing from only one place, it's fine. I meant to relist if new accounts or other IPs show up." Not that I'm an expert on this subject, but I'm at a loss. The IPs are blocked as puppets, but the master is not, simply because they aren't editing simultaneously. Even if a check user can't connect the IPs to the master, isn't the behavioral evidence sufficient? In any event, I just reverted Jww047's last reversion and put a final warning on his/her Talk page. If they do it again, I suppose I'll go to AIV, but this is really tedious and a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo has commented at the SPI report. So far, there's been no response to that comment. In the meantime, Jww047 continues to edit disruptively. I was about to report them at AIV when they reported both Hullaballoo and me at AIV. An admin has now fully protected the Louis Van Amstel article for one day and restored the article to its correct state. That may resolve the editing issue temporarily, but it doesn't go to the heart of the problem. This is an editor problem, not an article problem. Do we have to start another ANI report specifically about Jww047? What's the right action to take here?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Morocco article

Resolved

 – Reported user blocked by EdJohnston for edit warring based on report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• This user continueously edits sourced material, pushing Arab nationalistic ideas on the Morocco article. He removes information without any justification. He is unwilling to discuss anything nor to bother writing an edit summary. Now he's back at it with other accounts and Ips
• User:Ouail

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ouail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 09:50, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 09:59, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 10:02, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 10:04, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
5. 10:18, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
6. 10:33, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 440978899 by Materialscientist (talk)")
7. 18:19, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
8. 19:12, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
9. 03:58, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "")

• User:128.12.214.56

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 128.12.214.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 18:15, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441171716 by Tachfin (talk)")

• User:Alphax26

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alphax26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 22:11, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441216243 by Tachfin (talk)")

• User:128.12.221.41

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 128.12.221.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 03:53, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "")

—Tachfin (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you started a sockpuppet investigation report?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No i haven't. reporting here seems to get me no response. look at this again:

1. 05:09, 25 July 2011 (edit summary: "")

Tachfin (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "no response". It may not be the response you want, but there's always a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right, he's been blocked for EW. I hope he'll be more open to discussion when he comes back. --Tachfin (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

One can always hope. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another IP Editor changing hockey player stats

70.30.46.113 is the guilty party this time. I noticed edits to Nail Yakupov, which I created and thus have watchlisted, suggesting he's now 6'0" (still not confirmed) and changing the 101 points to 141 points (which another IP already changed back). I did not report on this sooner as I am returning from an extended power outage; there was a tornado not far from here and it knocked out some towers, rendering me unable to check anything for over a day. I just reversed the wrong height and weight.

NEway, back to the IP. On that contribution history I also noticed some other height and weight changes. I haven't bothered with warnings as I am tired ATM and will screw something up. Wonder if this is the same person as someone else we recently discussed. CycloneGU (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I find it troublesome when the IP has nothing on its talk page (and no edits were deleted). I wouldn't quite use warnings yet (yes, I AGF way too much). Besides, the IP has stopped for the last few hours, so I don't know if we need to block him. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This kinda of vandalism is pretty standard, although perhaps under recognized. I'm not sure whether or not this editor is one of those vandals, but the changing of birthdates and height/weight is pretty common... this is not a rare sort of vandalism, if that's what it is. Shadowjams (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

...if any player agent is using Wikipedia stats as a reference for upcoming contract negotiations, fire'em! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I agree. Changing Wikipedia to suit their needs and adding an extra inch just before going into s meeting, and when they bring up the player profile in the meeting..."Uh, that's not right, let me correct that information...why is it not staying, my info is right!"

Seriously, though, I have seen it a few times. I just wondered if there was a connection to another vandal and wanted to report it. I did see another IP changing information but that one only edited Nail Yakupov and nothing else, so I wasn't going to accuse it of vandalism. It did change to the same 6' however. CycloneGU (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That IS a standard / common type of vandalism. I suggest.....when in doubt, revert the changes as unsourced, and tell them to come to talk if they are serious. That usually resolves it either way. And if it is persistent, take it to a notice board to get a few weeks of protection for the article or for action against the IP. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this is common, we get it all the time. A tag was made so that we could easily identify it and revert. Just revert it when you see it and move on. If you want to verify just look at the nhl.com profile for the player. Sometimes there are legit changes as the players profile changes sometimes. -DJSasso (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In cases like Nail Yakupov that isn't an option yet. I don't doubt, however, that he'll have one in a year's time the way he's playing. But I don't have a crystal ball. The Sting have a new head coach who is signing new talent left and right; the team on the ice this year is going to be DRAMATICALLY different this year, and this new coach is basically trying to get new talent that can back up Yakupov, Ritchie (now a Dallas Star but sticking around another year), and Galchenyuk. This reminds me; I should update the Sting article if it isn't already with the new head coach. CycloneGU (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just recapping one point, you don't have to prove it wrong to revert it. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. I just have the information from a source that appears to be updated (after all, he was 5'10" last season, so 5'11" at another source is sensible). CycloneGU (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I love it, Bwilkins! That comment made me
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bully tactics by User:Debresser

Resolved

 – No need for admin action, parties just needed a little bit of informal mediation. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I recently created a maintenance category Category:All pages with excessive dablinks. User:Debresser apparently disapproves, and came to my page demanding an explanation. Here's the discussion, I'll let it speak for itself. Personally, I consider his behavior uncivil and bullying, and would like to get some opinions here. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in your opinions on this matter. Was surprised to see the WP:ANI-notice appear on my talkpage over such a thing. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

3rd opinion(s):

• JaGa, I think you might have read an attitude into Debresser's original query that wasn't there. If I had received a question worded like that, I would have just answered it; taking offense wouldn't have occured to me. Is there a past history between you two I don't know about?
• Debresser, it would have been nice to see you turn the other cheek, and say something along the lines of "I'm not criticising, I'm asking" instead of reverting the addition. Is there a past history between you two I don't know about?
• Like so many conflicts that arise here, this seems to have started out as a misunderstanding caught in a negative feedback loop.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No history. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Post #1 by Debresser was fine.

Post #2 by JaGa was... acceptable but not the best choice.

Post #3 by Debresser did not help the situation.

Post #4 by JaGa was needless escalation, could have been handled better.

Post #5 by Debresser was needless escalation, could have been handled better.

Posts #6 and #7 by JaGa and Debrasser in that order are kinda ironic, kinda silly, and not all that helpful in resolving the now mildly heated dispute.

Both of you go to the fishmarker, pick up a fish larger than a minnow, smaller than a trout, and hit yourselves with said fish. Then go back and calmly restart the conversation by starting over at Post #2.

No admin action is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Will see on talkpage if other reply to my initial question will be forthcoming. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

JaGa seems to have a hard time just answering the question. His reaction was no better the second time around, just a little more politely worded. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Faking smiles for the sake of not killing each other is always a good thing.

As to my thoughts on the issue at hand, as someone who does a lot of backlog work, I tend to like to have backlog trees available (i.e. a Category:XXXs needing YYYs, with subcategories Category:XXXs needing YYYs from July 2011) because a) it makes it easier to prioritize on the oldest issues, and b) looking at a backlog page of 30 items is less daunting than looking at one with 2000 items. At the same time, I know people that like having huge lists, so they can pick items that interest them. There's no reason not to have both, assuming both are kept equally populated, and both link to one another.

Therefore I declare you both right, (but also both wrong for letting it get to this state), and recommend that you continue to at least fake smiles towards one another. Also, if you two can manage not to come across each other for a week, that always helps. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User: Dzlinker/Omar2788

Resolved

Dzlinker (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Omar2788 (talk · contribs). In a previous AN/I discussion he claimed to have "abandoned" Omar2788, but a quick look at his contributions shows he's still using both. I suggest both should be blocked, allowing one to be unblocked when he decides which account he will use. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds like a fair and eminently non-punitive resolution.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Since he said he had abandoned the Omar2788 account, I have blocked that one, with a tweaked boilerplate explaining that if he would like that one unblocked, the other must be blocked instead. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 a disruptive editor who knows the rules well

MakeSense64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am used to intense debate, but MakeSense64 has an exceptional pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing and harassment. On 12 January 2009, he started editing over a 5 day period focussing by promoting Chinese Astrology. [132] The account was reactivated on 27 May 2011. In two months and nearly 1000 edits over 90% have related to astrology, stars or biographies of astrologers.[133] In almost every case, his arguments and edits have been obstructive or destructive towards the field of western astrology. Though he appears to be a new editor, his detailed knowledge and use of WP rules suggests he is a highly experienced editor who has been reported on this page before.[134]

There is not space here to document the many specific examples:

• An example of how he disrupts and makes major edits in the face of consensus.
  • Discussions on the Astrology Talk page concerning one word were extended for a month, partly due to his intransigence. [135]
  • He ignored responses to his posts and repeatedly raised arguments that had been addressed. [136]line 612
  • He polarized the argument see here by repeatedly raising unrelated issues from a recent edit war.
  • To break the impasse, I proposed a 48 hour straw poll resulting in 5 in favour of the change and 1 against. MakeSense64 abstained. A few days after the changes were made, he undid the text. I reverted with a comment that this was disruptive. Next day, he edited the lede substantially with unsourced additions that were diametrically opposed to the spirit of the consensus. Another editor undid these edits and warned him to stop being so disruptive.[137]
  • Two days after a consensus had been reached, Makesense64 reopened the debate with a new section on the talk page. [138] Several new editors who were not involved in the debate or the straw poll argued against his rehashed points.
• Much of MakeSense64's editing involves tagging articles. [139][140][141] (approx 93 astrology sites between 9 June - 19 July) Some are valid, but very many are unjustified. His tagging is directed at schools, groups and biographies of astrologers, including my own. I accept that my biography is open to criticism since I do not disguise my identity on WP, but consider it harassment that he put tags on my biography within 12 hours of me undoing his posts. [142] After another editor removing the tags, he reapplied them on 19 July after I undid his unauthorized edit for the second time.
• My record shows I only edit a controversial page after discussing it on the talk page and only with the support of the editors. But MakeSense64 is consistently partisan and driven by his own agenda. He admits to being an astrologer in the past [143] and his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war [144] and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors [145]

I am asking administrators to look into this with the hope that you can block or ban him editing all astrology related pages and discussion pages. Robert Currey talk 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: "His agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI". I hope Robert Currey has strong evidence to back that up, as otherwise a little star-gazing reveals that a large boomerang will be on its way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Am I able to comment, even though I am not an administrator? I can give evidence to demonstrate that point, and a lot more besides to show how he has made my editing experience almost unbearable by his wilful obstruction and sinister agenda. Zac Δ talk 22:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  If I can close discussions and I'm no admin., surely you can also comment. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator either - that isn't a requirement here. If you have evidence, I suggest you provide it (with diffs from Wikipedia - take note of our policy on outing if that is relevant) - though again, beware boomerangs: accusing someone of having a "sinister agenda" is rather risky if you can't back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can back this up – although I could add a lot more were it not for the outing policy. I can also provide numerous examples of where experienced and non-involved editors have criticized Makesense64 for non-constructive, disruptive and tendentious editing. I don’t know an adjective big enough to describe how glad I am that Robert Currey raised this complaint on a situation that has gone on for too long. I am putting some diffs together now and will comment again shortly. And yes, I’m aware of boomerangs but I’ll take the risk. I have come close to quitting WP altogether several times because of the harassment of this editor and don’t think I would want to hang around much longer if something isn’t done about this.Zac Δ talk 23:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be wise to wait for MakeSense64 to reply before going too far with this. He/she hasn't edited for over 7 hours, and is quite likely unaware of this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

?? Am I to post the evidence you asked for or not? In defence of Robert's suggestion of an agenda I think I should, because Robert Currey has no idea what I know, since I am someone he has been haressing directly. I am able to show, without revealing his off-wiki identity, that he has definitely targeted the biography of an astrologer whilst simultaneously engaging in an off-wiki hate campaign against that person due to professional conflict regarding his preferred branch of astrology. (This is not normal BTW, most astrologers have healthy respect for other branches of astrology). Also that he has commercial interests in the sale of his own astrology software programs. I have raised this issue before and can point to the diffs, or at least what remains of what can be seen, following the censorship of some comments for the sake of the outing policy. For this he has complained about me officially twice, and that's why I have never instigated a complaint against him myself, for fear he will paint himself as the victim instead, (Both complaints were dismissed BTW, the only criticism being directed towards him for being uncivil - but still, instead of engaging with him further, I have adopted the policy of shunning him as much as I am able to. I am able to provide full verification of everything in private, if necessary. Indeed, in early June I asked the administrator AGK, who advertises help with arbitration issues, for assistance on how I could initiate a complaint myself, since I was inhibited by the outing policy - but although he initially offered to help, after several weeks he was still enmeshed in other wiki-things and couldn’t find time to look into it so I dropped it. I should also add that I changed my username from Clooneymark to Zachariel in the naive hope that it would detract Makesense64 from targeting my contributions so disruptively. Someone please confirm if I am to proceed with the details and provide the diffs or not. If not, then fine - I'll drop it. But the point is he acts from an agenda and his editing history is enough to show that he is deliberately disruptive, and not concerned about contributing productively or constructively to WP Zac Δ talk 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is up to you, obviously - it just seemed sensible to me to wait for a response before going too deeply into this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, have you looked at the edit history of Makesense64? Surely you must be aware of the disruptions. Don't act surprised, you have been following this long enough and you certainly know the rules well enough to know better. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not really commented on Makesense64's editing history - I have however pointed out that before making allegations about him/her having a COI, and an "agenda" ("sinister" or otherwise) is likely to require strong evidence. As for the rest, as I've already stated, I think that we should wait from a response from him/her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Before considering my experience, consider this in regard to tendentious, disruptive editing. Here's some of the comments addressed to Makesense64 from other editors (not Robert Currey / not me) about some of the disruption he causes:

“I find your discouragement of a new editor to be distinctly non-constructive. I find nothing even remotely constructive in your statement about "If other people insist on destroying the article" There has definitely been some non-constructive feedback provided”

All the previous edits were undertaken in good faith following extensive consultation amongst the editors. You have suddenly and without advance notice, consultation or any other reasonable notice made drastic changes to the topic. You are editing disruptively against consensus and against the interests of collaborative editing on Wikipedia.

(Three from the same editor - re issues raised on the NPOV noticeboard):

As to the actual dispute I believe you are wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring

Standing alone is against the basic principles of how Wikipedia works. The basis of decision making in Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. Warring to achieve aims is wholly wrong and can lead to administrative action.

What you are doing is removing information rather than linking to where there is extra information. I have reverted your deletion. Wikipedia is not a place for you to exercise your hangups about deleting everything that is not scientific. Plese try to improve the content and coverage rather than deleting well sourced information.

every single one of your edits was with the aim of degrading astrology and overly emphasizing it's pseudoscientific nature. Moreover, none of your edits had consensus, which would indicate POV pushing. I suggest that you work with the editors on this page before unilaterally making such one-sided changes

Your posting a spammer warning on their talk page was excessive.

Do you need more?

In regard to incivility, as an inexperienced editor the very first interaction I had with any wikipedian came from Makesense64 in May when he placed this final warning that if I “spammed again” I could be blocked from editing without further notice, and the website whose pages I had given as external links (because they offered interviews with the subjects of the biographies) - Skyscript.cok - could be blacklisted from all Wikimedia sites. The warning (the first of many I was to receive from him) specifically referred to links on the Deborah Houlding biography, who is the creator of the Skyscript website. See Makesense64's contribution history for how, when he resumed his editing activity at the end of May this year, (following a series of contributions to Chinese astrology pages in 2009) his first action was question the biography of Deborah Houlding on the notability noticeboard, here

In defense of the spamming accusation, I argued the links were relevant and helped establish notability – and tried to fix the problems on the pages but all my edits met with unreasonable obstruction by Makesense64, who resolutely maintained that there could be no link to the Skyscript website on the Deborah Houlding biography, even though she was the creator of that site, because it would be spam ..., it would break WP NPOV policy by promoting pseudoscience .., one excuse after another. A few days later Houlding gave a statement that this editor was someone who was engaging in a vendetta against her because a few days earlier (just before he resumed his WP activities) she had banned him from the forum of the Skyscript website. Houlding also gave links to his commercial astrology sites, where on one he had placed condemnatory remarks about the Skyscript site and how it had banned him - but all this was removed because the links revealed his identity. Makesense64 also removed other comments himself, such as the subsequent comment of another editor who acknowledged the statement. I let this roll because he initiated a complaint about the fact that I continued to refer to the situation (although not repeating the information about his identity) in arguing that because of his COI and vexatious attitude towards western astrologers, he should not be allowed to continue editing those kinds of pages. See the talk posts from here:

He never denied this BTW, simply maintained that he doesn't need to be a neutral editor since no one really is, and all that matters is that his editorial contributions are neutral. But the fact is that he is not a contributing editor, he very rarely adds anything to content and never makes attempts to resolve the problems that he tags (sometimes for no good reason at all, as I believe was the case when he tagged Robert Currey's biography). His editorial contributions are all about deleting content, reducing content, causing dissent and division on talk pages and proposing that anything related to western astrology or western astrologers is expressed in the most negative sense. He obstructs almost all of my Wikipedia contributions, using every way possible to twist WP policy. (Yes – he knows the rules far too well; does it sound feasible that an editor with only 9 days editing experience in his whole WP history, would be bold enough to place notices on boards, tag numerous pages, and place a “final warning” on my talkpage?).

Since my editorial interest is in a controversial subject, I frequently work with editors of different views, some highly skeptical; but I have not encountered anyone completely unreasonable as this editor is, or who I view to be editing WP from a wholly disruptive motive as I believe he is. I hope others will comment too because the problems he causes are widespread, although especially focussed on anything I try to contribute. He has a habit of deleting at least one of my contributions per day, for clinging to arguments and repeatingly asking for his questions to be answered again, and most definitely has caused me to abandon trying to contribute content on pages where he will not let the argument drop. He should not be allowed edit the astrology pages, but also consider that most of his disruption is about causing argument and uneccessary division on astrology talk pages, because that is where he seems to delight in baiting and proposing that his arguments are all backed by WP policy! Zac Δ talk 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump you will admit, will you not, that this editor has definitely masqueraded under the pretence of being a sceptic, and that from the arguments he makes, you would never have considered that he makes a living from the sale of his own astrological software? Zac Δ talk 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you are asking me to 'admit' anything. I'm in no position (as someone involved in disputes over the Astrology article, and as a non-admin) to decide one way or another whether your claims are valid. As I've already stated, my input so far has been to point out that serious accusations need strong proof. I'll leave it to others to decide as to whether this has been provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, on reflection, I accept your point about COI. I recognize that I have COI as my interests are on public record and you might if say you are an editor of a sceptical book or magazine etc. My complaint is about his disruptive behaviour on WP which is not in question. His/her motivations are background issues that may or may not account for the intense focus on tagging, deleting, marginalising, polarizing and disruptive editing in a particular field. Robert Currey talk 08:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If this story were to fully check out, it would be a pretty damning account of MakeSense64 not making sense, so to speak. Such an editor has no role on Wikipedia in my mind. Is there some way we can get in touch with Ms. Houlding (or the logs, etc.) to verify this? I'll ignore the sales of astrology software bit for the time being. CycloneGU (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 comments

In response to the complaints formulated by Robert Currey.

• It is true I went through a lot of astrologer pages on WP, checking all pages on List of astrologers, tagging those that have serious issues and cleaning up some spam where it was obvious. Later I did the same for the category 21st-century_astrologers. I went over them alphabetically, over the course of several days, something which can be easily seen in my edit history. If some articles were unfairly tagged, then Robert Currey is welcome to bring the diffs.
• He complained on my Talk page about harassment after I tagged his page Robert Currey, and subsequently two uninvolved editors have come in to remove the tags, without doing anything about the issues with the page. Just have a look at Robert Currey, some 'references' are nothing but pages that give the address of his shop in London. A 'selected books' section, and so on.. Tagging a page like that is harrasment?
• A group of editors have been on my neck since I started tagging astrology articles. The most vocal of them is User:Zachariel, and you will find his constant personal attacks and ad hominem comments about me on nearly every Talk page where he engaged me. I have told him many times that personal comments should go on my User_talk, but he doesn't care about WP guidelines. His actions started about here [146] and have continued ever since. If I need to bring more diffs, then tell me how many are needed. This editor has been on a mission to bring more astrology into astronomy articles, something he discussed with other editors on the WikiProject_Astrology Talk. I advised against that idea. While Robert Currey is more civil editor, he frequently came in to support Zachariel's efforts, and it was also Zachariel who went to remove the tags I had put on the Robert Currey page. The activity suggests a connection between these editors.
• On July 6-7 Zachariel reverted 3 or 4 times on the Algol page within 24 hours, and I gave a 3RR warning on his Talk page. He laughed in my face, saying that he was 'implementing overriding policies'. Since then a group of editors, Robert Currey being one of them, seems to be taking turns in reverting almost any edit I do on several pages. A coincidence? I do not object to editors reverting a bold edit, but they do not engage in discussion after doing it. My questions are either negated, or answers are not to the point. Recently the discussions have been on Talk:Astrology, where there is now a long list of unaddressed questions.
• Robert Currey is right that more editors have come to the scene who argue against me. The strange thing is that almost immediately upon arrival these editors complain about me in very similar language as Zachariel has been using in his personal attacks against me. Also a coincidence?

I could go on about this, but then I would be writing a book. I think none of the above is a coincidence, and before I bring the diffs that admins may want me to bring I invite them to take a look at some other evidence. For more than a month Zachariel and Robertcurrey are contending that I am in a vendetta against astrology. But there is evidence that just the opposite is the case, this is their vendetta against any skeptics of astrology, whether they are working on BBC or on WP. Please have a look at this recent note on Facebook [147], where some Robert Currey is basically trying to recruit meatpuppets, asking for ideas on how to get around the WP rules, advising new editors to first work on 'other' articles before they go on to the 'real' work, asking them to contact him first, and so on..
Could it be that some of the new editors that came to the scene on Talk: Astrology and immediately criticized me, are some of these new recruits? Could it be that I am seen as a disruption for the plans they have on WP? Because I don't go away too easily, even in the face of ongoing ad hominem comments?

So, I ask some admin to take a look into the editors that have lined up to revert my edits in the recent days, without even making an attempt to engage in subsequent discussion on the Talk page. I also noticed yesterday that some of the new names that pop up are the same names that were involved in problems on the Astrology page before. E.g User:Petersburg and User:Aquirata, who came in to remove the tags I had put on the Robert Currey article.

MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to suggest about “very similar language to Zac”? Be clear about your arguments, as I have been, so that anything which needs to be looked into can be. You give a link to one comment from the many difficult situations you have dragged me into, and if that’s as bad as it gets in your criticism of me then it suggests that you can multiply examples but you can’t strengthen (or justify) your argument. I’ve already proven the motive of my involvement, which is self-evident in the contribution histories on record. I did very little on WP (beyond minor typos and links) until the day that you slapped a spamming warning on my user page, and that is when I started contributing to WP in earnest, to justify why I was not a spammer. Here is my contribution history to show how my only editing contributions since 2007 were 1 minor typo and three submissions of relevant links (the latter on 1st June)

Here is yours to show that (unknown to me then) you had reactivated your account by making a call to the notability noticeboards about one of those pages, saying “I came across this page Deborah Houlding and wonder if it passes the notability test ? …” (how disingenious) - and then you placed your spamming warning on my user page on 9:27 am June 2nd.

Admins here can easily see for themselves that my WP involvement got active, immediately, from that point onwards, and for no other reason than that. From a sense of moral outrage that you would accuse me of being a spammer and that my arguments that those pages I had placed links on should not be tagged as lacking notability – which I then offered to help fix to demonstrate my argument.

Houlding’s email address is on public record. Her statement said that she did not want to post herself because your attempts to undermine her character were widespread and she had drawn a line under her negative interraction with you when she banned you from her website. She also said that she had sent her statement and her own complaint to the WP helpdesk, offering more information if necessary.

(I see you have since removed the comment where your only defence was to say that what she wrote was irrelevant because it broke the outing policy and the only thing that mattered was that your published contributions adhered to WP policy, not your lack of personal involvment or neutrality.)

Her email address is advertised on her site: [email protected] I am not going to email her myself about this because I have had too much trouble already on the backlash that came from her statement. Otherwise I would and it might be a good idea if someone else does.

You can try to suggest some conspiracy of you wish, you were obviously going to try to drag up something to obscure the facts. The facts are these – I post for myself, I became an active editor in direct response to the intimidating warning you placed on my user page – and since there have been so many of these, I routinely delete them and refuse to indulge your desire to bait me by entering into talk-page discussions with you on your talk-page.

When I first raised this issue it brought me nothing but aggravation, so I decided to remain quiet about this (until now), and have been trying to edit around your obstructions lately by shunning you as much as possible without failing to answer your arguments and questions when I need to. See WP:shun, for the recommended advice that I have been trying to follow lately. Don’t pretend to be a sceptic – you are not even a pseudosceptic, you are just a someone who uses WP to pursue your own personal vendettas.

To AndytheGrump, I wasn't suggesting you had anything to admit to, I was asking you to share your own experience, by which you can surely that this editor (who makes his living selling his own astrology software) has falsely presented himself as a sceptic who rejects astrology completely. (Note western astrology, he has contributed positively to Chinese astrology pages, including inserting links that go to his own Chinese astrology services - this was also demonstrated in the removed material, because by giving the link to his websites, his off-wiki identity is revealed)

Makesense64 - do you want to deny this? I am willing to give further accounts to admins privately if required Zac Δ talk 10:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there are a few independent and long-experienced editors, whose contribution histories show no involvement in astrology-related topics, who would be free of accusations of being involved in astrology-disputes, who could verify different aspects of what I have reported and/or give independent accounts of how obstructive and disruptive his editing has been. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for me to contact these editors via their talk pages, and ask if they would be willing to comment here? I'm not sure whether this would be viewed as canvassing. Zac Δ talk 10:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense64 (typo) Zac, if you wish to seek comment from other editors, you are welcome to do so. However, one must be careful not to make a comment in asking them to comment that would sound like Wikicanvassing. For that reason, having been suggested of it once before (I wasn't) and not wanting the same fate for you, please visit my talk page and give me the names of the people you want to ask to participate. I will notify them neutrally about this thread. CycloneGU (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It was me who asked that, not Makesense64. I'll do that. Zac Δ talk 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, twas a typo. Corrected and section on talk page noted. Give me a few. CycloneGU (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Neutral notifications sent. CycloneGU (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a notice about this discussion. The only experience I remember with MakeSense64 was working on the Deborah Houlding article. I came across it because I sometimes check out the "Notability" noticeboard and wanted to have a look. Generally I do not believe in astrology but at the same time I realize that others do, and my aim was to be fair to astrologers and the subject because some Wikipedia readers want to know about such stuff, so I try to help in keeping with Wikipedia's rules and not let my POV (not believing in astrology) affect my contributions. I have not read the previous discussion in detail on this ANI page and I will only comment on the Houlding article; so please only consider this one thing -- I am not qualified to make an overall assessment of someone's edits elsewhere. I went over key changes made by MakeSense64 in the past month or so on the Deborah Houlding article and examined them to see if they were within Wikipedia's rules. Here they go: (1) MakeSense64 tagged the Houlding article as unsourced; it was unsourced, so this was correct; so it's within the rules. (2) MakeSense64 added a "no more links" hidden editing warning in the external links; constructive in my view since this discourages spammers; within the rules. (3) MakeSense64 removed unsourced material; it was unsourced and yes, maybe it was a little rough, but it was unsourced stuff in a BLP (including unsourced stuff that DH had some kind of tumor); within the rules. (4) MakeSense64 added a "notability" tag; there were 3 references at that point, it was a rather bare bones article at that point, so the tag here was somewhat dubious possibly but one could argue that the quality of the references was substandard, possibly, because the topic of what constitutes a good reference in the astrological world -- well, I'm not sure; so I'm kind of extending the benefit of the doubt here: within the rules. (5) MakeSense64 did a copyedit changing "She has been" to "Sydney Omarr" said...; improvement, since it's more accurate; within the rules. So, trying to look at it impartially, my guess is that MakeSense64 was playing by the rules on this article. In this situation, MakeSense64 had to contend with me working to make the Deborah Houlding article into a competent one and I can be a rather persistent and stubborn type who usually gets my way since I really really try to work within Wikipedia's rules and I'm an adept researcher and competent copyeditor -- perhaps in some other situation, MakeSense64 could have whittled down articles which didn't have an adversary. I don't know. But overall in the Houlding instance, MakeSense64 was, in my view, while an adversary to me, working within Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a notice for this as well, and I don't recall ever being involved with anyone in this dispute in the past (or astrology-related articles), but I believe that's why I was given the notice (sort of a WP:3O request). I looked at the complaints above and followed the links by Makesense64, and right now I just have one comment. MakeSense64, you said:

• "Robert Currey is right that more editors have come to the scene who argue against me. The strange thing is that almost immediately upon arrival these editors complain about me in very similar language as Zachariel has been using in his personal attacks against me. Also a coincidence?"

I don't think it's a coincidence, I think it's a case where Zachariel's complaints were valid, and so they were echoed by other editors. Maybe you should listen to the chorus of complaints against you and not dismiss them. Anytime I see a case where an editor accuses (or hints) of sock- or meatpuppetry when they receive consistent criticism of their actions, things don't end well. Also, just to point out, I see no personal attacks from Zachariel, a complaint about an editor's behavior is not a personal attack. -- Atama頭 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This complaint starts "he started editing over a 5 day period focussing by promoting Chinese Astrology. [148]". As far as I can tell, in that diff all he does is provide a ref for an unref'd statement: he adds no article text. A brief scan through the rest of your diffs didn't show anything particularly interesting, either. This isn't all a snit because he tagged your COI bio, is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, you have cleverly turned the argument around to my bio. I have already written here “I accept that my biography is open to criticism since I do not disguise my identity on WP,” and I once suggested to User:Verbal (who loved to tag pages like you) that it was deleted. My complaint is that on the two occasions where I undid your posts on other pages, both times you responded by placing tags on my biography within 24 hours. Your claim that you were merely following the list of astrologers is false as I have never been on that list! This timing was ill-advised since it suggests that you were pursuing revenge (harassment) rather than good editing as you claim. This is just one small issue among many bigger complaints about your behaviour.

My public comments on Facebook took place in March and were not recent as you implied. At the time several editors who had expertise in astrology were banned from WP and I was the only editor permitted to remain. News of this was widely reported outside WP and this brought me a lot attention. At the time, there was a real possibility of a lot of angry astrologers reacting by piling into the Astrology Page and treating it like a forum without following the rules. If you read my comments, my advice was that they should not to get involved with the Astrology page and that if they wish to be an editor, they should adhere to the Wikipedia Rules. Otherwise we would have another edit war, which is not in anyone’s interest. And until you appeared on the scene stirring up trouble last month, I remained the only consistent editor on the astrology page with any knowledge of astrology.

If anyone has recruited astrologers to Wikipedia, it is your practice of tagging some 93 astrology biographies, schools and organizations. This has served to irritate a huge community and it may account for reactivation of old accounts and an influx of new editors who don’t understand the rules. At one point, I seriously considered that your obsession with tagging was to motivate disinterested parties into a crusade. Certainly, your actions and inflammatory comments on astronomy pages appear to be designed to ignite potential disputes. For example you wrote “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome.” on a WikiProject Astronomy page . In retrospect, I should have requested that you were barred from these astronomy pages as well.

I understand why editors prefer to remain anonymous. Both the above personal comments are based on the fact that I have not disguised my identity. I think that taking advantage of my openness and mining public information about everything that I have ever done or written is the equivalent of outing an anonymous editor and using their activities outside WP.

Rather than dig for dirt on my life outside Wikipedia and try to imply that everyone who disagrees with you has to be part of a conspiracy, you need to look in the mirror. Zac is one of several editors from all areas – many who have no history of editing astrology pages have found your activities disruptive. Incidentally, only two days ago one of the non-astrology editors who experienced the early disputes in March first hand, was kind enough to refer to both Zac and myself as being in a different category to those who were banned from WP in March, for having made sincere attempts to cover the subject while adhering to policy.

As you know when I first responded to you, I supported your request for solid verification. However, since then I have watched how extreme you activities are, but have resisted a strong urge to act like your personal cop. I have also tried to work with you on the Aries article and we even established a consensus on the talk page. However, I notice that yesterday you went back to that page and without discussion, deleted a section put in by an editor in good faith last month. This is typical of your policy to shoot first and only ask questions when it suits you later! You may not like the Western Signs of the Zodiac but continually trimming down these pages to a stub of an article does not serve the interests of 25% of the population who follow the subject.

No matter how clever your arguments, it’s obvious that you are a divisive force within a community that is seeking to build bridges. Though I have not requested a total ban from Wikipedia, I believe that wherever you go on WP, the same problems will come up. Robert Currey talk 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The March ban [149] looks to be relevant. For example, the editor who reverted the tags on Robert Currey, User:Aquirata, should not have done so, because he was banned. Unless someone has undone said ban? Note also the text of the ban: People may also want to keep an eye on Robertcurrey (talk · contribs), a professional astrologist, who, while he may not be a devoted SPA, has a definite conflict of interest in this matter William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Tomsulcher doesn't realise, not having read the previous discussion, that one point he could help to clarify is that the Houlding statement was given, he saw it, acknowledged it, and so would be aware of what it reported (and that what I have described above is accurate). Zac Δ talk 17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The posts have been removed from history, including your reply to Houlding. I recall that you acknowledged her statement, reassured her there there were editors on the page who would prevent innapropriate actions, and that you asked if she would submit a photo for the page. I remember because I was relieved that you at least had seen it before it was zapped from all record. Subsequently your post which responded to her has been zapped too. So now you understand why I am asking. Zac Δ talk 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And if I do not believe in astrology, I do favor assology (my POV) but again, I try to keep my POV out of my contributions here.Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well here's a wierd thing, although Tomwsulcer's reply to Houlding can no longer be viewed by the history diffs because it has been deleted (see here), as has Makesense64's reply to the statement, the posts that relate to those diffs are still visible on the talk page under the extended content tab. This the code I have, just now, copied from the page.

"

Hello, comments noted. The material in the article at present is all based on reliable references and contributors here are doing our best, by following Wikipedia's rules, to make sure we follow the guidelines. And we'll be keeping watch of the article to make sure it's fair. Ms. Houlding, please email a picture of yourself to me via email at thomaswrightsulcer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com. And give me permission to post it in Wikimedia Commons under license ccsa2.5. Say when the photo was taken approximately. That way, I can include your photo in this article, thanx."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Contributors are not required to explain why they spend more or less time on WP, or why they are inactive for certain periods. There can be a myriad of reasons for that. Contributors are also not required to be neutral (usually they are not), they are only required to apply the WP guidelines and write from a NPOV, which is what we have been trying to do here. To bring challenge to an article WP:CHALLENGE is also part of what is being done here, and it is not rarely the quickest way to get an article improved ( as this case shows)

This article as I found it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Houlding&oldid=393392111 ) violated a lot of core WP principles, so I tagged it. I found similar problems on a number of astrology related articles and biographies and tagged or improved them as well. Fact is that Tomwsulcer has done most of the trimming and editing of this article here, and now added back some things for which some reference could be found. Ms. Houlding's complaint is thus nothing but an exagerated story, most of which cannot be verified, and interestingly she has nothing to say about Clooneymark, who woke up after a long period of inactivity, only to add more external links the day after Tomwsulcer had trimmed them to one. Ms. Houlding is asking to block me from abusing any WP page, without pointing out even a single WP page that has been abused by me.MakeSense64 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the comment by Ms. Houlding based on WP:OUTING MakeSense64 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)"

Obviously the statement by Houlding has been removed from all accesible records Zac Δ talk 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall the Houlding talk page stuff being of any importance. I looked over MakeSense64's contributions to the Astrology article hereon July 19th. The contributions seemed to me to be reasonable, referenced, fair, within Wikipedia's rules.Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal observation: my recent request to gain unqualified support for working within Wikipedia rules on the astrology pages is undersubscribed, and the relevance of asking for that support has been explicitly challenged. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where you said "I ask for a simple show of hands – all who favour abiding by existing Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings, say yes, those opposed to these principles, guidelines and rulings, say no –" and several editors thought that was too silly to vote on? My comment "Peter let's just move forward. Commitment to Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings is surely self-evident by the collaborative effort to bring this page up to WP best standards. We don't need another time-diverting discussion when it's obvious that most editors here understand the issues involved and the necessity for consensus on how best to meet those policies and demonstrate their principles in every element of the page's content". Your response: "Gibber-jabber".

On the whole most editors are working collaboratively and productively on that page. Zac Δ talk 22:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Tomwsulcher, from not appearing to have any clue what I was talking about when I asked you to remember your post, to now (after I found your forgotten response) remembering the statement it referred to as not “being of any importance”, some details of what is fair and reasonable and important may need to be reconsidered. So let me recap on a couple of things.

This editor, whose edit you approved of, was insistent on making three references to pseudoscience in the lede of the astrology article – inserting an extra one into the first sentence, and then augmenting the one that already said “in its modern form astrology is a classic example of a pseudoscience” to read “In all its forms, astrology is a classic example of pseudoscience”. He removed citation requests on points editors were working collectively to substantiate and clarify, and removed the one positive point about astrology’s history from the lede, even though there had been a proposed structure to the lede that ran “outline introduction > historical outline > philosophical contradictions > pseudoscience status and scientific criticisms”.

The citation requests were not there to dispute the pseudoscience status but to find clear authoritative references to substantiate it. We have asked more sceptical editors to help us get this right and most are showing a very positive willingness to offer valuable and constructive criticisms. But Makesense64 redesigned the content in his own preferred image in flagrant disregard to the good team of editors who have discussed and worked hard to establish consensus for over a month, and are doing their level best to bring this struggling article up to featured article status. So no, Makesense64’s edits were not fair and reasonable. No editor should remove citation requests until suitable citations are found. No editor should bloody-mindedly and repetitively revert and disrupt, and badger and harass, and call for talk-page answers to questions that have been answered over and over, particularly not in an article that has a prominent tag at the top saying:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

There seems to be a lot of willingness to look in other ways here, and I understand that astrology may not be a very popular or well liked topic for many reasons. Regardless, just like any other subject it requires thoughtful attention and a clear representation of facts and its notable points of interest. There is a good collaborative team working hard on getting the content of this controversial subject just right, and a lot of talk page discussion is analysing sensitive problems very critically. Against this we have one disruptive editor who delights in creating division, argument, annoyance and frustration. Good editors will leave this project if administrators don’t take their blinkers off when someone who is acting against WP interest is supported because their actions undermine a subject they dislike.

With regard to the statement Tomwsulcher doesn't remember so well. I remember it very well. This editor, who pretends to be a sceptic even though he makes his living from the sale of astrological software, was engaging in a malicious web-based off-wiki hate campaign about the subject of a biography page who at that time was being subjected to significant harassment and character assignation attempts by him. The reason was because his branch of astrological interest was different from hers. He was calling for the links to her website to be rejected as spam. He questioned her notability even though he was well aware of it. He reactivated his account two days after she had banned him for causing trouble in her forum. He was uncivil to me from the start because I sought to add content to her page. He initiated WP editing with a vexatious agenda and almost all of his edits have pursued this agenda one way or another. I have exaggerated nothing and could add more if it were not for the outing policy. I have offered to substantiate privately what I am not allowed to substantiate publicly here. If this is not a serious COI I don’t know what is. But regardless of all this, his contribution history speaks for itself and so I ask admins here to go back and consider Robert Cuerry's complaint more seriously, and keep in mind that this long-established editor (Robert Currey) has an excellent reputation for fairness and is not of a character to criticize anyone without strongly established good cause Zac Δ talk 23:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point that is missing is that MakeSense64 knows the rules and his actions cannot be judged on one edit but as part of a one month discussion involving at least 10 editors. How he deliberately and repeatedly asked the same questions, repeated the same arguments, didn't read other's posts, extended the debate, posted his edits without agreement in spite of 5 to 1 majority against in a straw poll and reopened the topic. His record has to be judged as a whole. Terry Macro (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Zac 22:50 21 July above: How do you know that there were a number of editors who thought my proposition was too silly to vote on? Up until the time I posted on this page, you were the only editor who expressed that point of view. Have you been canvassing or communicating with other editors somewhere I wasn't looking? Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check the page again and note the comment of 13:42 20 July, from the editor who whose comment began and ended: "This is beyond silly. All editors are in support of WP rules and guidelines by default... Please do not try to have editors conform to your ideal process of editing but follow WP rules and guidelines, as we all do (or strive for doing it anyway)"

It is silly to ask for a vote on who is going to agree to policy, when there has been no reason at all to question that. If you returned to the page more than periodically, you would have a better awareness of how all your previous posts are properly discussed and answered. But you never engage with those responses, you just keep raising the points anew every few days as if no one has taken the trouble to address them already. So you don't seem to have noticed how there has been collective agreement to work to best standards and practice by using WP policy as the guideline to follow.

You have been the only editor of the mindset of Makesense64, although until now you have not engaged in widescale destructive tagging which means that a group of editors working within the same subject interest are put under too much pressure to attend to too many articles at once. Yet within a few hours of my reply to you above, you raised an AdF request for three major articles on the history of Asrtrology: for Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology and Horoscopic astrology and announced on the main History of astrology page that you would return to delete every unreferenced comment in the article. This is another example of the kind of unreasonable and disruptive behaviour being complained against here, which cultivates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation amongst those who are working on fixing the problems, to improve the content rather than delete all the hard work that previous WP editors have contributed.

Can an admin here tell me how these kinds of ANI requests for help get concluded? Do they all get resolved in one way or another, or can they drift off the page with nothing being done, after input which distracts the issue rather than focusses on the problem for which help has been requested? Zac Δ talk 07:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you, Zac, won’t allow me to discuss edits in the astrology page because I don’t have a local majority rule despite long established Wikipedia rules, and you won’t allow me to engage in the process of eliminating unverifiable content, which is Wikipedia policy, and you won’t allow me to argue a case about the article definition that doesn’t ignore article sub-pages, what exactly are you permitting me to do? When you take umbrage at ‘gibber-jabber’ characterising your posts, don’t make it true. Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is equally silly - I have never prevented you from doing anything. I have also never minded or took umbridge at your talk-page responses, but do mind when you propose the deletion of three valuable pages for dubious motives after I responded to your comment here - this ANI request was initiated to prevent such problems, not perpetuate them) Zac Δ talk 09:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into yet another long rambling discussion which is going nowhere. Its ben here several days and no admin has even sniffed at a block or ban - clearly you're not going to get admin action. So this should got to WP:DR or WP:RFCU if you want to take it further. I've boldly collapsed this, though I won't be surprised if someone uncollapses it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My sense is that people are evaluating MakeSense64 by seeing editing choices and extrapolating from these a kind of hostile agenda (that is, an agenda different from others.) Well, guess what. All Wikipedia contributors have differing agendas on many things and, as a result, battling happens often here. The way to approach this is not to make inferences about a person's character because of their agenda, but rather to limit yourself to this test: are they working within Wikipedia's rules? And the two articles I looked at, Deborah Houlding and Astrology, suggest that rules are being followed. In the first article, MakeSense64 and I were somewhat adversaries, with him or her wanting to delete & trim, and with me wanting to reference and expand (I got Houlding to send me a picture which I put in the infobox). We battled. But we both played by the rules. And that's what's important here. We will not always get our way. That's life. About pseudoscience -- I bet there are numerous reliable sources which identify astrology with pseudoscience. But I agree with William M. Connolley that this is a "long rambling discussion which is going nowhere."Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As you anticipated, William M. Connolley, I have uncollapsed your bold collapse. However, before your comments, I had a chance to reflect on this. I didn't come to Wikipedia to restrict other users. This was never about my biography and I have no objection if you put it up for deletion. I should never have questioned MakeSense64's COI, but I stand by my other comments. The bottom-line is that it was not about adhering to the letter of Wikipedia rules, but about following the spirit of the rules and principles and accepting consensus. I have seen more constructive edits from MakeSense64 recently and if this is an indication of the future, I am happy not to take this any further. I want to thank everyone for their contribution, especially administrator, Atama, who showed insight into the issues and Zac. Robert Currey talk 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 comment 2

I don't know where you have seen my more constructive edits, since I have hardly had time to do anything in the recent days.

I think the problem was that you , and some other editors, didn't know the difference between bold editing and disruptive editing.

I have pointed you to WP:BRD before. Bold editing and reverting are not by definition 'disruptive', they can actually be very constructive. I never had the impression that that point was taken on board.

What is considered 'disruptive' is reverting an edit and then not properly engage in discussion, avoid questions , and so on.. Because that suggests editor is not willing to find concensus based on WP guidelines.

Anyway, I haven't seen you bring any example of what somebody referred to as 'destructive tagging'. And it was you who brought up your biography in your complaint, not me. Since you now suggest yourself that your article may be one for deletion, then isn't it clear that in my tagging it for 'primary sources' I was being rather mild and giving it a chance to be brought up to WP standards.

True, the subject of an article is not supposed to work on his own article for COI concerns, but it is allowed (even welcomed) for subject to bring suggestions and sources to the Talk page, where other independent editors can then decide to use it or not. So why didn't you try to help your article on the Talk page? Maybe because there are no independent quality sources to warrant an article? In that case you can ask an admin to remove your article, no need to wait for somebody else to nominate it. You are talking about following the rules and the spirit of WP, don't you? So, here is a great chance to show you mean it.

Admin Atama describes my actions as "a lof of good but some bad" on his User_talk, so you realize that your complaint was without merit. Editors, and even admins are also not supposed to be perfect.

Before we move on from this I have a few other questions for you, I think relevant in the context of working in rules and spirit of WP.

Taking some clues from your facebook article I came across this: http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/bbc/petition.pdf

It looks like (mainly) British astrologers are involved in a rather emotional campaign against media like BBC, Guardian .. to demand for apologies and (in their eyes) 'more fair' coverage of astrology. Is that correct?

Given the description in your facebook article, how WP is the prime source of information for a lot of media and journalists... I am connecting some dots:

* Could it be that passionate astrologers are trying to change the WP coverage of astrology, in order to change the media coverage?

* Could it be that the influx of astrologer WP editors in March was directly related to this campaign and petition?

* How many people responded to your call for 'Help' and to your tips, and are now quietly correcting typos and other innocent tasks on WP, to prepare for "working" on pages like Astrology and History of astrology?

I also noticed commotion around the astrology of Ophiuchus in that petition article. Our friend Zac has not only been very busy trying to remove any reference to 'divination' or 'pseudoscience' on the Astrology page, he also nominated Ophiuchus (astrology) for AfD, while adding large chunks of astrology about it on Ophiuchus and Zodiac. And, even after Ophiuchus (astrology) was decided a Keep he went on insisting that the astrology should stay in the astronomy page Ophiuchus as well, giving this reason: the media and the public needs to know.

Why does his editing on WP reflect the agenda of that AA petition campaign so closely? With you and other editors coming in when it is convenient? Consistently reverting edits that do not suit this campaign agenda? Why did these editors get active on the articles about British astrologers I had tagged, but not on the others? Coincidence, or connections?

I hope you agree with the WP policies about advocacy: WP:ADVOCACY. So, "the public needs to know this" doesn't cook here.

We also know that WP is not a place for "righting great wrongs" WP: GREATWRONGS, but that's what that petition and your facebook article sound like.

Any comments on this?

I don't want to be accused of WP:CANVASSING, but why didn't you invite the admin who handled the problems in March to have a look at this? He has experience with the problems on astrology pages, and you are here to work fairly according the WP rules and spirit, don't you? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! MakeSense64 – why didn’t you have the grace to accept my proposal to close this down yesterday? It seems that I was wrong to expect you to work with me to build bridges. Clearly you mean to continue exactly as before, by repeating the same points and dragging them out ad infinitum. You are showing everyone here how you have made the life of other editors so exasperating. Almost, every point you have made has been dealt already in this lengthy post and you are still trying to mine and make something out of harmless stuff about my life outside Wikipedia. There is no a conspiracy out to get you or anyone else. People come to Wikipedia for lots of reasons and I have since made a point of not going into why you are here. Your example: the question of the removal of the Ophiuchus (astrology) page is a case where Zac proposed that the page be removed, you and I both argued to keep it!

I believe that you still don’t get it! – This was never about content nor my biography. I proposed that my bio was put up for deletion to make it clear that it was not an issue – not because the 10 references which you suggest are not good enough for a puny 4 line bio or that it is an advert which it clearly isn’t. I didn’t argue on the Talk Page on my bio because I did not feel it was my place to provide links to support my TV and radio work as this might be considered self-promotion.

Already, your supporter William Connelly, who is evidently well known here, has said “This is turning into yet another long rambling discussion which is going nowhere.” I think he is right. You are wasting everyone’s time and I believe you fully intend to continue to do that every day.

Now that you have re-opened your case, I request that an administrator makes a swift decision on my initial request. Robert Currey talk 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that in the name of building bridges you wouldn't mind answering a few fair questions to rule out a possible COI on your side. Apparently not so.

I can't be blamed for this long rambling discussion, as I have only made two comments.

By the way, if you have put your bio up for deletion then why is it still there? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, this is just to note that MakeSense64 has opened a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard which involves some of these issues. It is about the articles Ophiuchus and Ophiuchus (astrology) and whether the former should contain information on astrology. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Makesense64 has raised a complaint on the COI noticeboard, (without acknowledging this complaint, which concerns his COI). Zac Δ talk 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is my final comment, because I want to spend my time working on content. But just to say that I am fully aware of the difference between bold editing and disruptive editing; and it is definitely the latter that Makesense64 employs. His latest post demonstrates how he draws upon policy references to make divisive rather than constructive contributions. His negative implications (that all efforts to substantiate content, establish consensus, or improve the reliability of the information given, must be driven by a prejudicial agenda that mirrors his own), supports his desire to draw every historical and cultural reference into an unnecessary pseudoscience dispute. This has been a problem throughout his discussion-contributions.

In biographies and articles with astrological content, he argues that independent astrological books and publications cannot constitute a ‘reliable source’ because this would be breaking WP:PSI. For example, in a small but interesting biography of a hugely influential astrologer (who is now in his 80s), which has 30 substantiating references, Makesense64's final comment (after a month of development) was to say “Yesterday I came upon this WP:PUSH. If true it would mean this article has few (if any) reliable sources.”

He attempted to fabricate (and then initiate) some kind of ‘war’ between astrologers and astronomers, following the contribution of some commentary on star lore which relates to the historical and cultural associations of the fixed star Algol. This diff which shows what he objected to, and what he wanted instead. In this he tried to instill in the minds of members of the astronomy project that “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages”; and then made inflammatory comments on the talk page with a remark which does nothing to build good spirit into this community effort’: “Please consider that it will not be helpful for astrology articles if you go to war with the astronomy community on WP”. He edit-reverted six times in his insistence that even well substantiated historical information would break WP:PSI policy, since this would give coverage to a ‘fringe theory’, before I raised the matter on the NPOV notice board, asking for clarification. Despite being told that he was “wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring” he persisted in his removal of the content, against all consensus (his further edits needing to be undone four times by multiple editors). He flat-out refused to accept consensus, and also refused the suggestion of another editor to propose his argument on the rational science notice board, declaring:

You can notify the Rational Skepticism Project if you want, but I am not going to do it. Because it is not the number of editors for or against that matters. What matters is how many valid arguments are brought. One editor may bring up 6 valid arguments that are not refuted, and on the other side you may have 6 editors all holding on to one and the same argument. The lone editor has the consensus, and all he needs to do is continue to ask the right questions. Over time he will prevail, because fair questions cannot be avoided forever.

.

And he has done this regularly in the discussion about the Astrology main page. A series of 8 anti-consensus edits he made to to the Astrology page a few days ago sought to place within the lede no less than three references to astrology being a pseudoscience, whilst simultaneously removing from the lede the content that outlined astrology’s historical significance, (in defiance of the discussed structure of the lede being 1) broad definition > 2) historical influence > 3) internal consistencies and criticisms > 4) modern rejection by science; and presumably only because he felt this diluted the impact of his favourite word). Please note, the lede already holds a perfectly clear and unambiguous statement about astrology being a pseudoscience, in a form which is stronger and more prominent than the pseudoscience policy requires, and no editor is arguing to remove this – in fact, research is being undertaken to substantiate the point more clearly, in order that this is established as an undeniable academic fact, and not made subject to further, ongoing dispute. But Makesense64 appears to want to turn the entire Astrology feature into nothing more than a statement about astrology's pseudoscientific standing. He frequently refers to WP:POV policy as reason why the 'Astrology and science' content must receive dominance at the expense of historical content (eg), refusing to accept talk-page explanations that in an article about astrology, even if it is a fringe subject, it is OK to cover the subject from all its relevant angles and not just the pseudoscience angle which is the only perspective he is interested in.

The time involved in dealing with an editor that is so unreasonable is endlessly disruptive. It has the effect of taking good time away from the work that needs to be done across a host of related pages that require attention regarding content structure and the need for better verification. Wikipedia would benefit tremendously if myself and others were allowed the opportunity to do this work without the hindrance that comes from personal agendas, since the editors working on the astrology-related material have mainly demonstrated keen awareness of the need to treat this controversial subject sensitively, to gain consensus for edits, and to scrutinise every comment made by reference to WP policy and independent sources. There is a declared objective to reach featured article status for this WP entry, and the contributing editors all know that it is not possible to achieve that unless the content is comprehensive, neutrally reported, strongly substantiated, and free of WP controversies. That is why your support is required here.

Every editor working on the Astrology pages knows that the eyes of sceptical editors are watching what is being done, and the importance of getting the tone and the neutrality of the article just right. As you will see from these comments other editors involved in previous disputes, and wary of them re-surfacing, have felt that the work being done is productive, and that the page will benefit from a good faith assumption that present editors are working in the right direction, and can be trusted to let the focus fall upon content revision for a reasonable period of time, free from the pseudoscience disputes that prevented the page contents getting properly attended to in the past. That is why your support would be so valuable in preventing one editor's personal agenda from single-handedly prohibiting that, by constantly acting against consensus and creating division where none need exist. I apologise that this post is quite long and demands your time and attention, but it will be my last, and I think the issues raised are important, and need proper consideration of Makesense64's motive for involvement, and the consequences of that motive. Zac Δ talk 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 comment3

In response to recent comments.
I took the Ophiuchus question to DR, because Robertcurrey indicated that he has nothing to do with it, so it doesn't need to be mixed up with his complaint here.
Robertcurrey indicated he was ready to drop his complaint a few days ago, so I took the COI question to the COI noticeboard after he declined to comment on the questions I asked here. I figured that ANI is maybe not the place for such questions, and COIN is more appropriate.
I have negated Zac's long rants, because they are WP:BAITING and only a constant rehashing of the same old irrelevant stuff. By the way, how does all that repetition fit in with WP policies and guidelines?
On the top of this noticeboard I read: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."
Well, the only thing Robertcurrey ever discussed on my user talk page was his question about my tagging his bio page, and I answered him.
And our friend Zac has never come to my user talk page to discuss anything, but here he is cluttering this entry with all kind of accusations and side-discussions.
All these accusations seemed to be geared towards gaining the upper hand in a content dispute they had with me on Talk:Astrology. Here is the diff where Robertcurrey announces this ANI complaint on the Astrology Talk page: [150]. Do the WP guidelines only apply for me, or are they also applied to Robertcurrey and Zac?
Are there any remaining questions I have left unaddressed? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring

• Badugi
• Suited connectors
• Cardroom
• List of playing-card nicknames
• Shirley Rosario
• Proposition Player
• Jennifer Leigh

User:TheTakeover is edit warring on several poker articles. I removed a spammy self-published source (poker-babes.com) from numerous poker articles and he reverted my edits. I changed them back and made a note on his talk page, asking him to discuss this before changing them back. He gave a very short reply and instantly changed them all back again, including multiple edits I made to one article (Shirley Rosario) which had nothing to do with this issue.

A former employee of a cardroom is the author of 100% of the content on poker-babes.com and it is not a notable poker website other than the fact that it is used so heavily across Wikipedia. It is clear there has been an effort to include this source in as many Wikipedia articles as possible and this makes it meet my definition of spam.

I request all links to this site be removed from Wikipedia and it be banned from being a reference in the future as it is spammy and a self-published source. I also ask that user:TheTakeover be warned about reverting edits in the future with no discussion. DegenFarang (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked first at Jennifer Leigh; to be fair, it was her account of her entry in the tournament, so I can't really question that. I also went to the home page and clicked a random article on Jennifer Tilly, and I learned some things I did not know about her from that article. Now, perhaps I'm biased as a poker player myself (been a while since I last played, mind), and maybe I am not looking at the quality of the site correctly (the style indeed does suck, even if the content doesn't), but I don't have an issue with this site if used appropriately in the right articles. It's not used as a reference, but as a See Also; IMO it could be a reference when information is added to an article that is on that site. What do others think? It is clear that if the contributor in question is the publisher of the site, she cannot add it to articles without a COI, however.

(Degen, I changed your list of sites to a list and headed the topic post with them so it's clear what this post is about, and removed that paragraph putting your sig. at the end of the prior one. I hope you don't mind this change to your post.) CycloneGU (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, you never notified TheTakeover of this thread. I have now done so. CycloneGU (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If it had been used in one or two articles I wouldn't have an issue with it either. But before I started removing links to it there were more than 200 instances of this completely random and obscure self published source being used as a reference and/or external link on practically every notable BLP for professional poker players and tons of articles about poker, across many languages of Wikipedia. That is clear evidence either Rosario herself or somebody connected to the site made a prolonged effort to spam the site into as many Wikipedia articles as possible. I don't think such blatant spamming should be rewarded and I think this site should be punished for this conduct. Add to that there is simply no reason this site should be used over so many better alternatives for things such as the rules or strategy of poker. Perhaps the Leigh and Rosario articles can stand, but all the rest should be removed. DegenFarang (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This of course not true and you know it, as anyone who uses the history function can see. Many editors added links to this site over the years, most by CryptoDerk, some by other admins. There are less than a dozen instances now; there never were 200. As for your assertion that Rosario somehow owns Pokerstars, really, get a grip. 2005 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In case it is not completely obvious to you, user2005 is the one who has been responsible for the vast majority of the 200 links added to Wikipedia from this "source", the vast majority of which have already been removed. DegenFarang (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

False, as anyone who actually edits the Wikipedia can see if they check. There were never 200 (lol) links to this site, and the big majority were added by other editors, about 30 by CrytoDerk in 2004 or so when he used the site as the main source of the player articles he created then when BLP rules were different, and there are only about 10 links now, and at least five editors have readded the links and reverted your disruptive edits. Instead of your your edit war against the world, find something else to do. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks no better than a fansite to me and should not be used as a reference on BLP articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur. It's a subsite of pokerstars.com and appears to be 100% promotional. Based on the pervasity of the editing as described above, perhaps both URLs should be added to the blacklist. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO (not an admin, just came accross this on my watchlist), this is a self-published source, but it's hardly spammy; no affiliate links etc. The problem with poker is that the few reliable sources out there are mostly magazines and poker room websites, both of which contain much more advertising and are more likely to have minor errors slip through. Although I agree that this is hardly a reliable source in the context of Leigh's or Rosario's wiki articles, I'd much rather trust someone from that site than a random CardPlayer magazine editor when it comes to rules or strategy of poker. AFAIK there are no PhD's being written about poker strategy or poker history yet so we'll have to settle for something. Rymatz (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There are affiliate banners and links all over this site for pokerstars. Have another look. As for your opinion that a self published source is more reliable than CardPlayer, you are just wrong. They have the same profit motivation (advertising and affiliate links), but CardPlayer is run as a traditional media organization. This is like saying Glen Beck's blog is more reliable than the New York Times. DegenFarang (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one link to PokerStars in the bottom left corner and it is no more magnified than any of the other several dozen links on the page. Contrast that with e.g. CardPlayer main page where the first thing in the sidebar are affiliate links; thus I'm pretty sure non-intrusive advertising is not a big problem when it comes to determining reliable sources. Also, I'm not sure what viewpoint are you're trying to hold here: first you're trying to make this an advertising subsite of the world's biggest poker site (a site which BTW holds such a huge market share that it could be viewed as an authority on poker rules), and then you're saying that this is something a few non-notable poker players wrote on their own. Is this a PokerStars subsite or not? Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The site was bought by PokerStars and from the looks of it they haven't changed anything other than the advertising. And if you aren't seeing PokerStars banners and stuff you aren't clicking around on the site. CardPlayer is a much more reputable source than this site, there is absolutely no question of that. I don't even think user2005 who spammed this site all over wiikpedia would disagree with that. DegenFarang (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I was apparently using adblock, but what's the harm if we're using pokerstars.com itself as a WP:RS on many of these articles? Rymatz (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

PokerStars didn't write these articles, they were written by Shirley Rosario and PokerStars acquired the site along with several others and from the looks of it have made no changes to the site. Given that this random obscure site has been spammed hard on Wikipedia by user:2005, I think it should be blacklisted. Spamming should not be rewarded. DegenFarang (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It was never spammed. A couple dozen editors have added it, including several admins, as edit histories show. They were added by a variety of editors including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Wikipedia Essexmutant and again and again and again and [151], as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and again and again for starters. These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them. You are making up nonsense just because I removed your factually untrue spam link two years ago. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The website in question owned by Pokerstars, the largest poker site in the world. The face of the site is an expert player who has won several poker tournaments in different game variations and has been quoted as an expert on poker in The New York Times, The Times of London, the Associated Press and other reliable sources. The links he is removing are unquestionably valid links, and they aren't even reverenceing anything controversial. For example, User:Rymatz added references to the Razz article saying how many cards each player gets in the game. In contrast, User:DegenFarang has a long history of tendetious editing. He has been reverted by at least five editors in the past few days. He previously has vandalized other articles in extremely tendetious ways where he makes nonsense claims against many editors. He has stated he will ignore any rule he wants. He has been give at least one, two, three, four "final warnings" to stop his disruptive behavior, and even a double final warning. He has called administrators incompetent... etc etc etc. Whether it is this issue, or a Supreme Justice, or any of several other issues which I am too tired to continue to list, he needs to finally be banned for disruption and blatant dishonesty. That is the issue. This user needs to finally banned and his IP blocked permanently. No more "final warnings". he is long past that. (Finally as his lie of "heavily" linked, the site he is attacking is linked in eleven articles in the wikipedia. he is fanatical about eleven links from a site owned by the billion dollar, industry-leading company. It's just incredible how he is allowed to continue to disrupt the work of multiple good faith editors. 2005 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like it meets the threshold of an reliable source to me. Self-published sources are allowed when the author is a recognized expert in the field.--Crossmr (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, only two of the above articles are BLPs. One is the article about the face of the site, the other are articles written by the subject of a different article. Those are certainly valid ABOUTSELF links. The site is used as a refernce for game concepts, rules, stuff like that, not BLPs. Many editors have added links to the site because it is authority/player site for game stuff, but it is not being added now to BLP articles -- even though back in 2003-2004 when former admin User:CryptoDerk created the oringal poker player content in the Wikipedia he used this site for the basis of his articles because there was no other bio-type site online at the time. So again, the issue here isn not BLPs. The articles are too personal and subjective for that. The issue is that it is plainly obvious that it is an expert site that is a far better source than most for game basic practices and so on. (Actually the real issue is DegenFarang's long history of tendatious editing for which he has been warned over and over and over again.) 2005 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this page because I was wondering why a perfectly good reference on the "List of playing--card nicknames" was removed. While poker-babes.com might not be the most visually attractive site, it certainly seems like a valid source for a wide variety of poker information. Also, there are clearly multiple writers who have contributed to the site, not just Shirley Rosario. This is not spam but rather a valid and well-written source of poker information. Paige Barbeau (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit here that often and part of the reason is because of people like DegenFarang. Just a quick look at the PokerBabes site shows that 7 or 8 other people have written articles, and that the copyright is to PokerStars, the biggest online poker room there is. Reading the comments above, it's obvious this editor has been disruptive elsewhere too. I don't appreciate him saying that I am edit warring when I see at least four other editors have reverted him in the past three days. TheTakeover (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You repeatedly reverted my edits with no discussion including one article where I made 5 edits, several of which had nothing to do with this source. That is the definition of edit warring. Next time discuss and reach consensus before overriding somebody else's work. DegenFarang (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No offense to anyone involved, but maybe a better way to approach this situation would have been to discuss the source on WP:POKER or WP:RS/N before engaging in an edit war and labelling the source as spam (which is something we don't all agree on) in edit summaries. Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not "repeatedly" revert your edits. You removed about 20-25 links, and I undid only 9. And I even gave you the courtesy of replying to your post before editing them the second time. However, you got reverted by 2 other editors on the same links after that. Obviously, you are the only one that can't see that the site is a valid source of information. I looked up the writers for the site and they are professionals; ex prop-player who continues to work in the industry and has successfully played poker for 10 years, a writing major who writes content for PokerStars, an online grinder who is highly respected on PocketFives and was the commentator for their radio broadcast, a poker businessman who has been everything from a prop-player to a casino manager. They obviously can be considered reliable sources. You are the only one who thinks differently. TheTakeover (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to compromise and leave Jennifer Leigh and Shirley Rosario as they are with regard to this source along with the nicknames article, so long as it is removed from Omaha, Razz and Suited connectors and any other general poker article. That is information that can be found in every poker book ever written and on any reputable poker information website. There is no need to use this questionable, self-published, obscure, spammy source DegenFarang (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in compromising. It is either a reliable source for poker rules & strategy, for player biographies or both. Also leaving the page as a source at the pages of the two site owners is the last thing that makes sense to me with respect to WP:RS and WP:SPS. Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please take note that User:DegenFarang removed references to poker-babes.com from about 10-20 more pages since this discussion started, using, amongst other, edit summaries suggesting that WP:AN/I has already ruled against this site being a reliable source ([152] [153] [154] [155]). Rymatz (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had found them all, I found some more. DegenFarang (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that a ruling is not finalized yet. CycloneGU (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

More tendatious, threatening, misrepresentations and factually incorrect editing from DegenFarang, even though now he's been reverted by at least five other editors. It would just be sad if every time he appeared he didn't waste many other editor's time. 2005 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for resolution/action - I started this to put an end to the edit war but it continues. Can somebody make a ruling on this site please? I think it is clear the site has been spammed aggressively across Wikipedia and it should be blacklisted. DegenFarang (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point some evidence (diffs) towards the site being "spammed aggressively"? Also you're the only one removing the references since this discussion started on WP:ANI (with exception of User:2005, who reverted your edits a couple of hours later because he wasn't yet informed of this discussion). No one has been adding new references since then as far as I can see. Rymatz (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The mere presence of the site in so many articles is evidence of aggressive spamming. This is not a well known or reputable poker resource. Much of the spamming was done long ago and over the last year or two I have personally removed well over 100 links to the site on many languages of Wikipedia. It was originally used as an external link on practically every notable professional poker player. I went through this process before to remove those and user:2005 finally gave up. Now I'd like to finish the job and remove what is left. DegenFarang (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear to me is that nobody considers the site spam except you. I spent the better part of yesterday morning reading through the site to see if I could see your side of the argument. The only thing I concluded is that the content is even BETTER than I originally thought and I already thought it was great. Although at first glance, it looks like all of the articles are written by one person, there are a wide variety of writers who are experts in the field. TheTakeover (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly not the only one. I was able to remove all of the external links because they were deemed questionable/spammy. DegenFarang (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a previous reliable source discussion on this where no one agreed with you. Everyone agrees it should not be used as a reference for people articles, which is why you could remove some links from bio articles. The ironic thing in your obsession that only you are right and the New York Times, Times of London and Associated Press are wrong is that in all your disruptive actions you have never once even said any information is wrong. Instead you make yourself look foolish by making up stuff that anyone can check in edit histories, and assert that all these other editor's opinions don't matter. We already know no matter what any admin says you do not believe you are bound by any rules of the Wikipedia. And you will just insult the intelligence of any admin who doesn't do exactly what you want. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I will weigh in here just to say that I find this site to be a reliable and trusted source for poker information. In fact, the glossary on this site is the most comprehensive and detailed dictionary of poker terms I've seen on the web. I just don't see how this site can be challenged here. Paige Barbeau (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Previous history

When I first saw DegenFarang's name here I couldn't quite remember why it rang a bell but it did and with a quick bit of digging I found out why.
In January 2010 I warned Degen with regard to having an apparent conflict of interest vis-a-vis internet poker. His response to being made aware of this site's core policies was this[156]. Today DegenFarang made the same edit[157]. While it is absolutely fine for users to blank their talk pages they must also abide by site policy in full.
This user was also previously warned for add unreferenced material to BLPs in May 2011[158] and has been warned repeatedly for disruptive edits to BLPs for a long time[159][160].
Furthermore as noted above DegenFarang has proceeded to remove references (while this thread is open) using the edit summary: "admin noticeboard recommended this site[Poker babes] be blocked"[161]. This has not happened, as yet.
These comments, to User:2005, are also deeply problematic and displays a battleground mentality on DegenFarang's part[162][163] and may indeed constitute harassment--Cailil ^talk 16:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If that stuff hasn't happened for a long time I think that is evidence I have learned from my mistakes. I don't think it is fair to shout down anything I ever say because of something I did when I was brand new here and didn't know the rules. User:2005 for example simply issues a bunch of vague character assassinations whenever reverting my edits instead of examining them on their merits. Isn't there some kind of policy about attacking the argument not the person making it? If there isn't, there should be. DegenFarang (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really "bringing up beefs from 2 years ago" if you've just blanked your talk page [164] to reinstate your statement about ignoring all of Wikipedia's rules. Whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, you do have to work within their framework here at Wikipedia. Making that statement on your talk page doesn't exactly endear a lot of good faith. Dayewalker (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no discussion taking place on my talk page and there hasn't been for a long time - and that statement has always been there. All I did was remove a bunch of random notices that have been there for ages. DegenFarang (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The only lesson DegenFarang has learned is he can get multiple final warnings for his behavoir and then just continue to act disruptively, most specifically by blatantly not telling the truth to mislead both other editors and administrators. The sensible resolution here is to finally permanently ban him and his IP, as should have been done three years ago when he repeatedly vandalized the John Roberts article. Bullying, misrepresentation, threats, stalking, spamming, he's covered all the bases to get banned many times. No more "final warnings" or one day bannings. It's time to block his IP. 2005 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DegenFarang blocked

After attempting to "out" another editor in breach of the guidelines of accusing other editors for conflicts of interest DegenFarang has been blocked indefinitely and the edit has been rev deleted--Cailil ^talk 12:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Starcade

User has been edit warned/vandalized warned in the past about edit to wrestling articles, user has clearly no understanding about WP:Crystal or WP:OR. A talk page discussion was opened on the wrestlemania 28 page and this user has called me and another user dense for quoting wikipedia policy about a potential match that clearly breaches wp:or and wp:crystal. Another user has agreed with my findings on the match which can be seen on the talk page. At this stage I think this user is trying to troll wikipedia wrestling articles. To make an admin aware as well, I reverted two of my own edits with my rollback tool because I made a mistake this was on the talk page. I understand this is one of the genuine uses for it. I had in error removed another users comment at the same time as adding my own hence the need to rollback so that users comment can be seen. I then reposted on the page afterwards. If you look at the edits I did not use this tool to further my possession in this mess and only used it because of accidentally removing another users comments, what this did was put that users comments back on the page which is from the user I have reported. The user has now added I am full of crap in his edit description. He is clearly not here to improve wikipedia. I would like to see this user banned due to lack of knowledge on wikipedia policies which I have asked him to read more then once and has still shown no understanding on them, his problematic edits and has name calling of other users. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

(Notified the user.) - SudoGhost 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's on. You want it to go this far, fine. You are openly asking people to accept inaccurate, prejudicially-biased and selective information, and this is NOT the first time I've been so accused, on not only wrestling sites, but on sites like BCS National Championship Game, where Wikipedia's practice of "no damnatio memoriae has now left some of the information on the page completely non-verifiable and, in fact, by the rules of the sanctioning bodies, FALSE! You are attempting, time and again, though I demonstrated your farcical use of WP:Crystal, to rewrite the storyline to suit that you do not wish to see Daniel Bryan placed in Wrestlemania for means which I can only believe are prejudicial to your views of Mr. Bryan as a character and a member of the WWE roster. I, likewise, then call for YOUR banishment from Wikipedia, Ruth-2013, because of your continued efforts to openly LIE to the community, and use the community's backing to force inaccurate, non-verifiable, and prejudicially-biased, misleading, and selective information to be on the site.

What I said to you stands. You no longer get the assumption of good faith in my eyes. --Starcade (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not lying to the community the information you want adding is a breach of WP:Crystal and WP:OR as the wwe has not offically announced the match, bryan comments of his INTENTION to cash in does not count because that all it is an intention. I am not the only one that thinks so either, I will repost comments from other users on the talk page who agree with me.

Reposting of comment by Dcheagle: The Bryan match fails WP:Crystal no matter what as its not officially announced by WWE to take place plus there also isn't any main stream media coverage, there's also no way it can be added as what you said Ruth is classified as Original research--Dcheagle 02:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You then called me and Dcheagle dense which is not on your supposed to remain civil at all times.

Reposting of comment by Evil Maldini: It makes no real sense to add the Bryan match right now. In addition to all that's been said here, we don't know anything about the nature of the match, who's to say the Royal Rumble winner might also compete for the World Title, making it a Triple Threat? Who's to say that Bryan might not change his mind (in story of course)? The only thing KNOWN at this point is the character of Daniel Bryan, in story, has announced his INTENTION to cash in at Wrestlemania 28. The difference with Rock-Cena, is that the WWE itself has announced the intention to have Rock-Cena happen at this event, OUT OF STORY and that is the difference here.--Evil Maldini (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Second comment by Dcheagle: I'm going to explain this as simple as I can, No match has been officially announced by the WWE between Bryan and who ever holds the WHC as such if the match is added again I and many others will remove it as it fails WP:Cyrstal--Dcheagle 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to all comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WrestleMania_XXVIII#If_Bryan.27s_cash-in_is_not_100.25.2C_then_neither_is_Rock-Cena.21

I have broken no rules here so there is no reason I should be banished. You in the past have been edit warned for disruptive editing of wikipedia which can be seen on your talk page. You information breaches wikipedia policy and even if policy was put to one side for a second there is a 3 to 1 consensus not to add this information and if admin will review the talk page they will see the issue is with you as I have tried loads of times to explain the policy, you don't listen to me. Another user Dcheagle has then said wp:crystal applies here as I have said. You don't listen. Then lastly a thrid user has also said the match should not be added as its not been advertised officially by wwe. Bryans comments do not count as wwe have not advertised it themselves officially. It has also been seen before that a superstar say he will cash in at wrestlemania, the superstar loses briefcase and lastly leaves the company before that years wrestlemania. Hence there is too many possible outcomes to make it pass wp:Crystal. The only one here that has caused trouble here is yourself. Even if policy did not apply there is clear consensus not to add the potential match and that all its is potential at this moment and time. You have shown no understanding of wikipedia polices or that you even know how the consensus system works here. And the long and short of it is even if there was no polices at play here there is a clear consensus on the talk page(Ruth-2013 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

STOP. LYING. TO. ME. AND. STOP. LYING. TO. WIKIPEDIA.

That damned simple, Ruth. It's not just on this, it's on WWE Championship, BCS National Championship Game, the Final Fantasy preferred sites, etc. The only reason you may not have broken any rules is because of the fact that you have a consensus on your side. A consensus which is prejudicial, incorrect, and not verifiable. I have repeatedly stated (and you have repeatedly ignored) why, at this time, Bryan should be included. I even quoted your precious WP:Crystal baloney. You are, again and again and again, WRONG and having a consensus being just as wrong as you are makes it right as far as Wikipedia is concerned? Then cease my ability to edit. NOW.

You have also continually refused to reference the main "evidence" you claim to have to support your stand Rock-Cena is on the card and Bryan is not -- the "travel packages" you talked about on the Talk page (which almost certainly have the disclaimer "CARD SUBJECT TO CHANGE". Face it, Ruth: You don't want a 192-pound Vegan with no WWE-ish personality to soil Wrestlemania -- you were perfectly happy to watch his match be relegated off the PPV card to a dark match which was turned into a battle royal. It is prejudicially biased and not encyclopedically verifiable.

What you are effectively saying is that "I can make whatever I want to make WP:Crystal and have it removed because I have enough people behind me." If that's the case, I have no place editing Wikipedia anymore. Because, at that moment, I can tell you one more thing Wikipedia is not: A valid information source. If I want to be lied to, I don't need Wikipedia for that. I have the mainstream media! --Starcade (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have two things to say then I will refuse to comment any further till an admin reviews this case, WP:crystal and wp:or applies as well as the consensus on talk page. Second this user has called official wikipedia policy bullshit on there talk page when another user issued an edit warning, incase the user removed there comments I would advise you to check there edit history. I don't think official policy of wikipedia is what he called it and I am sure no one else on the talk page does either. I am not lying your edits breach policy and there is plenty of evidence of your disruptive behavior here. Please can an admin review an edit on his talk page that he has since removed, the edit version is Revision as of 06:30, 25 July 2011 he called me an inaccurate bitch. I will now be not responding to the discussion till an admin has reviewed all the evidence provided as this is just going round in circles I will be happy to respond once I hear from admin (Ruth-2013 (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

I don't agree with the match's inclusion on the page and I consider myself a huge fan of Daniel Bryan. So that argument is out the window. As somebody who recently had a brief disagreement with Ruth-2013 here on Wikipedia, I have to totally agree with her on this. Besides that Starcade, your frequent accusations and incivility toward Ruth, myself (in another article) and other users is unacceptable, no matter how correct you think you are. Disagreements on edits are one thing and can eventually be worked out but the incivility is totally uncalled for. NJZombie (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we have some admin attention on this please? I know nothing about wrestling, and could care less, so the content dispute here is not my concern -- but Starcade's behavior, both in this thread and throughout his talk page is pretty much a constant violation of civility policy and complete unwillingness to accept Wikipedia's process and policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to explain civility and NPA to this user. SQL^{Query me!} 07:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, there is an open report at WP:AIV that could probably use a second set of eyes, regarding this user. SQL^{Query me!} 07:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not really working though is it, if no one sees his POV he become hostile. I have attempted to talk to him on more then one occasion on this issue but he just don't listen. He has had ample talk page edit warnings on his page. As NJZombie said I have had a dispute with him also which we sorted out in an amicable fashion on his talk page without the need for admin involvement witch proves I am willing to discuss issues on here. I am recommending the user causing the disruption by put to a vote in the community banning system due to all the problems he has caused. He seams to target wrestling articles and all the edit warnings relate to that. In my opinion he is not here to improve wikipedia. I have been here a while and perfectly understand wp:crystal and another user who edit wrestling articles has mentioned Starcade's edit also don't meet wp:crystal. I am by no means a new editor here as mentiond on the users talk page.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Ruth, new or old, it doesn't warrant the behavior you and others have received in return. NJZombie (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I am more then happy for admin to look over my edits, not once have I been abusive or used bad language towards Starcade. I am recommending a community ban vote due to his bad attitude towards members. Also I will say I have watched wrestling for years and am also I fan of daniel bryan. I have followed his career for a wile I have based my comments on policy not my like or dislike of bryan(Ruth-2013 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

I vote that we should ban him due to abusive language and false info --Christianandjericho (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have something to add on the discussion of wrestlemania, wwe's official site for factual information is wwe corporate here is a link to a press release about cena V rock which proves this should be on the article as it currently is http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2011/2011_04_04.jsp (Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

WWE.com has referenced a storyline only which of course is fake that says in the storylines of bryans intention to cash in, but that is all it is an intention. No opponent of the match is announced, in fact wwe have not officially confirmed it outside storylines and in the story lines there is only brayn saying he intends to cash in then. So this means wp:crystal is correct for the bryan match and not rock cena as per the link above (Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Also yet another user has posted on the wrestle mania 28 talk page supporting my position on wrestlemania 28(Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Can we now have admin look at this issue please?(Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

• I have blocked Starcade for a week. There was a consensus against his edits, and his response was to go off on one, including some personal insults. He can reflect on his behaviour during his time off. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll be nice weather. He can definitely wrestle with his behaviour. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you response Elen of the Roads, however as there was a consensus against his edits to wrestlemania 28 page I have to say if he edits the page again with his edits upon his return I intend to use the edit warning system/report to admin if any of this editing behavior/personal attacks continue. Will let this be closed off for the time been though and see what things are like upon his return.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

If he keeps going after the block, that would be absolutely the right approach. This block wasn't longer only because he has never been blocked before. He won't have that get-out again, but hopefully he will be more willing to co-operate in future. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin may wish to take a look at this, I have provided a source on here for rock cena so please don't read too much into his posting saying its not valid, We also attempted to explain the bryan match is a breach of policy but he won't listen and now while he is banned he is posting on his own talk page and what is clear is his attitude will not change in my opinion link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starcade#Then_the_ban_will_probably_have_to_be_made_permanent._Your_decision.2C_admins. From the way he is posting and his attitude I don't believe this will be the end of it once he comes back from his 1 week off(Ruth-2013 (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Also the user personal attacked me on the post --Christianandjericho (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Look I consider it an insult to me to, it refers to us as the collective. However I try to keep a level head in these matters and this is from someone who has had the most abuse of this user in the past few days. I have been called dense and also a bitch in an edit he has since removed. I reverted the removal of the edits you did for two reasons 1 because if he sees them removed it may anger him some more, we can do without this and 2 because I really think the blocking admin from yesterday should see them. I have left a message on the talk page of the blocking admin so they can review this users talk page but as the blocking admin is not online at the minute my suggestion is to not approach the user no matter what is said by him on his talk page and let admin handle it. We don't want to make him more angry and that may be the best way for now. Just ignore what was said on talk page as from now and let admin deal with it when they are online. I know its tough but there is no point getting in a heated debate with this user as he don't listen to reason and policy based arguments. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

I have seen them. The user is trying the "it's your choice Wikipedia - do what I want (because I'm right) or ban me (and prove that you are (biased, corrupt or a dick is usually what goes in here)" move. Of course, it's actually his choice, he can edit according to the rules, or he can cease from editing (voluntary or otherwise). I have asked him to redact the personal attacks. If (as I sadly suspect) he does not, then I fear he will not have a long editing history. Given that he cannot understand the difference between something being voided and something not taking place at all, and is trying to use "the XYZ sports org have stripped Team Foo of the championship when it was found that they bribed the ref" to justify removing all record of the game from Wikipedia, and getting very very angry when anyone challenges this, I fear that he's not suited to editing here. WP:COMPETENCE is required for editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

... is backlogged to a constipated maximum. Any assistance would be appreciated. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, looky at that. Don't worry, admins will be noticed about that soon. Bryce53 | talk 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Asdfakj obvious sock/committing vandalism and personal attacks

Resolved

 – Account blocked, blocked a proxy. TNXMan 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Asdfakj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account that has picked up where his old account prideful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left off. After Prideful was banned, he left a comment saying:

"Very well, I see that Wikipedia administrators are irreversibly anti-Semitic and will not listen to reason. Therefore, I will be forced to create more accounts in order to combat Wikipedia's inherent anti-Semitism." [165]

The two accounts contributions are nearly identical, and it goes without saying (the user admitting they intend to sock), that they should be blocked. This is also taking into account the personal and racists attacks that have been directed towards me and the other users on their own talk page and in edit summaries.

I am not sure if this sock has more accounts so far, but this one seems pretty clear. -asad (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Chronicle of a Duck Foretold. Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from History of Islam for User:Misconceptions2 and User:Al-Andalusi

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – I attempted to be lenient with a topic ban. Both users are now blocked. One indef, one for 24 hours I was asked by Misconceptions2 to mediate a dispute between themselves and user Al-andalusi. However, looking over their conduct on various talk pages (mine included) and the fact that they have been edit warring on at least five articles in the last week; I consider this problem to be intractable. However, rather than block either party for disruptive editing, I feel it would be a better solution to topic ban the both of them. Misconceptions2 has asked for a topic ban - and has asked the community to make it a year-long ban. I'm not sure about the feasibility of this but I promised I'd let people know. Al-Andalusi has said nothing either way. Full Disclosure: I have never done this before in my life. If I've handled the situation incorrectly please, please, please tell me how to do a better job next time. Evidence of edit warring within the last week: Revision history of Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan) Revision history of Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) Revision history of Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar Revision history of Invasion of Banu Nadir PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by Misconceptions2 I was saying here that i dont mind if were both banned for a maximum of 1 year to calm us down (so long as were both banned for same length). But was not asking for a topic ban, rather an actual ban on all edits, except talk page.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Oh! That's a block. I am actually trying to avoid that. And a year-long block, even for persistant edit-warring, seems a little missing the point. Can you honestly not trust yourself not to edit History of Islam articles? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Can you honestly not trust yourself not to edit History of Islam articles , i can trust myself. But when discussing in the talk page does not bring any resolution or compromise, i didnt know what to do and a lot happened before we got here. i did many things, first I opened an Admin incidents noticeboard against the user for help, and the admins told me to talk it out in the talk page. Then he opened an admin incident post against me, the admin said same thing. So we tried to come to a compromise on talk page, but nothing came of it. The user kept adding back tags at Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)] and was reverted by me and another user. Thus, this is where we are now. P.S if possible, i prefer the block on both of us to be less than a year or exactly 9 months. Also, i dont want to be banned if al-Andalusi is not also banned.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by Al-Andalusi I'll have to disagree :) Afterall, I'm the one who created the talk pages of the first 3 articles: Talk:Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan) here Talk:Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) here Talk:Demolition Masjid al-Dirar here As for the last article, Invasion of Banu Nadir, I did explain in details the errors I saw in the article before adding the tags as seen Talk:Invasion of Banu Nadir#POV fork. Other editors have expressed similar problems with the article here. Misconceptions2 kept on removing the tags (disputed, POV and OR) claiming I did not understand what OR meant. I myself own a copy of the primary source, Al-Tabari, and I explained why it wasn't quoted accurately. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I have provided below a summary of my participation in each article: Invasion of Banu Nadir: I believe I made my case clear on the talk page here, but I will demonstrate here one of the many issues with Misconceptions2's article. He quotes the primary source by Al-Tabari (d. 923 CE), problem #3 on the talk page, as saying: "Abu Salmah gave the ultimatum to the Banu Nadir on the orders of Muhammad. Tabari claims that he (Abu Salmah) said: "Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants". This is understood as Muhammad betraying a previous treaty between him and Banu Nadir (alludes to the Constitution of Medina which Muhammad drafted to grant protection for the tribes and individuals present in Medina, including Muslims, Jews, Christians and pagans). That's not what the source states however. The source says that Abu Salmah was a member of a tribe with whom the Banu Nadir had formerly had a covenant with during the pre-Islamic era and when Abu Salmah went to Banu Nadir to deliver Muhammad's ultimatum to leave their territories within days for "treachery" (assasination attempt), the members of Banu Nadir were surprised that the ultimatum was delivered by Abu Salamah, who was a previous ally. That's where Abu Salmah replied: "Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants". Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan): I removed the parent categories (Category:History of Islam and Category:7th-century conflicts) of the existing Category:Battles of Muhammad from the article. It seems that the lack of verification that it is indeed a parent (and perhaps AGF) by Misconceptions2 and William resulted in the dispute. On William's talk page, Misconceptions2 threatened to take the issue to ANI, while William insisted that my claim was "false" because I said "parent", and not "parent-of-parent..." ! So clearly no verification was made by the 2 editors. Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid): Misconceptions2 is opposed to the following guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Hadith regarding the inclusion of a hadith authenticity tag. He is not opposed to its application, but rather opposed to the guideline itself (in fact he has repeatedly suggested its deletion), so I didn't see any reason to follow his opinions when the guideline hasn't changed and is still valid. Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar: Removed 1850 antique reference (which was used heavily btw). That said, I admit that I was edit-warring and I believe that it was a mistake that I shouldn't have done, even when Misconceptions2 was refusing to listen. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You tried to delete the article (which angered me very much), and its still pending here. So far all users are against the deletion--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC) No WP policy was violated in proposing the article for deletion. But what is certainly wrong is your removal of the deletion tag 5 times within 15 minutes (here, here, here, here, here). I mistakenly used the speedy deletion tag with custom criteria instead of the AfD in the beginning, either case, the header clearly stated that the creator of the article should not remove the tag. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) What is also wrong is the mass tagging you did at all the "Expedition of Muhammad" articles. You added tags such as OR and POV without discussion first. At Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) you added it back despite the objection of me and William M. Connolley, and were reverted at a total of at least 10 times over a week.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Misconceptions2, the issue of tagging several articles (which I explained on the talk page here) was resolved by an admin who said that each article should be discussed individually, and I complied: I started with Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) and I raised my objections on the talk page here, from which I learned that you were opposed to the idea of "proving the authenticity" of what is being quoted. So I don't see why you're correlating the two events. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Also, dont you agree that if were both blocked for 9 months, it will help calm us down? i think you should support a 9 month ban on both of us. As by talking we did not reach anything--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Neither bans nor blocks are to be used for cooling down. That is what puppies and cold showers are for. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) puppies and cold showers are something i dont have :( If both of us are not going to be blocked at the end of this. i request some help in coming to a compromise with the user, as i am essentially invovled in a content disagreement which i dont want to discuss/argue here--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by others I've fell into the same trap before and I was blocked, for the first time, for edit-warring. I agree that both editors have badly mistaken. This DRN shows that User:Misconceptions2 doesn't listen to the community, where he still didn't get the point and took it to the RSN with his same denial. He did the same thing on this RSN, where he didn't get-it until RSN had to repeat the same statements again. I've finally pulled-out of articles he edits to save my life :p. Being a WikiWizard with no spells kinda sucks!!! These articles are related to WikiProject Islam but Misconceptions2 seems-to-be avoiding editing articles related to each tribe (having many watchers) and creates new separate articles with "invasion" or "expeditions" (having minimum watchers), where the project doesn't have enough editors to correct all that WP:OR. Something needs to be done, so I hope any solution can be given to save all of our time (for the benefit of Wikipedia). Good luck to you both. ~ AdvertAdam talk 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) sigh...i dont have time for this. you know when someone says something like "if you dont believe me, i can prove it" , then a person replies "no need" as they assume they are telling the truth , when they are actually not telling the truth. Well this is a case, people should check all the admin noticeboard and DRN links that the user above has provided, all are against him. He probably thinks no one will check the links. See also: Admin incident 1 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yep, anyone interested is welcome to take a look at the links. This is about you, not me. Good luck... ~ AdvertAdam talk 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) comment if you look at the talk pages surrounding this dispute - or at User_talk:Panyd#Demolition_of_Masjid_al-Dirar_edit_war - you'll see two editors who are really making no efforts at all to agree; they just talk past each other. But, they both make useful contributions. I would suggest some action against them, but a long topic ban doesn't seem at all helpful. Probably blocking them both for a while - 24h, a week - for edit warring would do; they have certainly justified that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yes but they're not currently edit warring as I've protected the pages. We'll see what happens when they become unprotected but any block at the moment would have be for long-term abuse, otherwise it would be punative, and we don't want that. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Comment If either or both of you are capable of contributing constructively eslewhere, then a block is not the way to go. You could both mutually agree to stay clear of this particular area for a certain amount of time, or this could be imposed via a topic ban if that's the way you want it. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) They don't want it, and as far as I can see neither will agree to stop editing these pages, but I'm still throwing in my support for a topic ban. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC) In which case, I too support a topic ban on the pair of them. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Misconceptions2 was blocked for an indefinite period for edit warring, block evasion and socking in January last year. In February this year they asked to have the block lifted, and it was granted following this discussion at WP:AN, though most of the reviewing admins noted that the unblock was conditional on Misconceptions2 behaving appropriately. As part of this process, Misconceptions2 gave this commitment to edit productively and avoid conflicts with others. Given that he or she has returned to edit warring, I see no reason to not reinstate their indefinite block. I don't have an opinion on Al-Andalusi. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I said If their is an argument with a wikipedia user, i will contact an admin to mediate. i will not use sock puppets, , this is what i did. I certainly did not say i will 100% stay out of conflicts per my unblocking, that could not be helped (i did not make such a commitment, please kindly understand that that would be almost impossible). I now request more mediation, if after the page protection is lifted and we both continue to edit war, then i request you ban us both for 9 months, but not indefinite as i have edited constructively on Wikipedia and created 4 DYK articles. Recently i have been fixing all the bare links in the "Expedition of Muhammad" articles, the edit war is related to tagging of articles.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with Nick-D on the point that it's not a new debate that's going on for the first time. According to what I've been through, and many many others (which I'm willing to list), the only solution to avoid a head-ache is to avoid editing something Misconceptions2 is involved in. Although, that ain't benefiting Wikipedia. Others told me it's just useless to file any claims, because he'll get unblocked just like the last time. Edit-warring is not the only problem, but endless discussions with POV-pushing and WP:DUE violations that mediators have a hard time to verify (caused by WP:Systemic bias). I gave above a tiny example, out of a history of many others. ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Proposal I think a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should be opened to help facilitate a compromise, i would like the support of al-Andalusi on this. I also think that after the page protection is lifted, and we continue to edit war, i request that we both be blocked for 9 months to 1 year. Does anyone support this?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Given the length of the issue and the number of circular arguments (not to mention rhetoric like I will never accept x that dispute resolution will not work. You have quite obviously violated the terms of your unblock and although I still think that if you move on to other topics, you can be a constructive editor, I wouldn't be surprised if others disagree with me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Given the length of the issue, what do you mean by that? Also, I have never tried Wikipedia:Dispute resolution with the user before. I should at least try. I also think i can make constructive edits, and i believe i have, that is why 4 articles i created where approved for "Did you know"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You appear to have been engaging in this behaviour, with multiple editors, on similar topics for quite a few months. This particular issue has lastest at least a week, which is a completely unacceptable length to be edit-warring. And yes, that's exactly why I'm arguing for you to not be blocked. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) if you support a topic ban, rather than actual ban or block. Can you please kindly ban me and him if we edit war again, after the protection on the article expires. Rather than a immediate ban now. As i wanted to fix some ref format errors. Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) article and many others have lot of bare links, and i am trying to fix it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Almost all the articles you created have the same problem, while many of them already have another article including the same topic neutrally. However, the community doesn't have enough experience in-the-field, so the duplicated articles fail deletions: like this one. ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose: As some admins have pointed out, you've already violated the terms of your unblock and that means there is no guarantee you won't be doing it again and again. In fact, your "compromise" message on my talk page is very misleading and that's not a good sign. You claimed that you will permit the tags given that I discuss it first. You don't think the admins know that I created the talk pages of the first 3 disputed articles, and created a new talk page section on the 4th before tagging the articles ? In addition, your two-way-discussion-before-tagging proposal is even more restrictive than the existing guideline set by Template:POV where one tags the article and then immediately explains on the article's talk page why the tag was added. The removal of the tag needs concensus and that's where your problem is, you never resolved any of the addressed issues and instead resorted to reverting tag inclusion. In short, you haven't offered anything that can actually be called a proposal. You edit-warred claiming that I did not grasp what OR meant. So go ahead and explain to the admins why the above citation of Al-Tabari is not OR or misrepresented, this time without the disruptive canvassing you did @William's talk page with the 1st disputed article (here), 3rd disputed article (here and here), and 4th disputed article (here) and another here and here, to which William responded quickly, siding with you all the way. I'd like to say to the admins that my only work area in Wikipedia has been the History of Medieval Islamic civilization (culture, religion and science). A topic ban would essentially mean a ban for me, and I would find that to be unfair; I don't understand why I'm even considered to be in the same boat as another editor notorious for edit-warring and questionable editing ? Apparently, he has given up already and now asking for a ban. To him, WP has been a "gaming" experience where he could end it (or restart it ?) whenever he fails or gets caught. His insistence on getting himself banned is really bizarre, and I really don't see myself going down with him after all the time and effort I've spent here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I find it disappointing that Al-A is unable to make any positive response to M2's attempt at compromise. The above says "No Compromise", and shows no acknowledgement of Al-A's part in the tagging mini-edit-war William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I know no one else is interested in this, but could we try and reach consensus here soon? My talk page is becoming a quagmire and I really think a simple topic ban will fix it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Misconceptions2's proposal can be hardly called a "compromise". He is suggesting that any OR, POV tag be added only after a concensus is reached on the talk page (my understanding of his "two-way discussion" statement) which not only violates that existing Template:OR and Template:POV policies that already allow one to tag as long as an explanation is provided immediately on the TP, but it also unrealistic and defeats the purpose of using those OR and POV tags; these tags were created to indicate DISAGREEMENT over content's accuracy, so how does it makes sense to add those "disagreement tags" only when an agreement is reached ! Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Misconceptions2 blocked I've just blocked Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs) for the reasons given on their talk page. In short, the decision to unblock Misconceptions2 was conditional on him or her not edit warring. They've obviously breached this condition and the above discussion seems to be an attempt to continue the dispute and set their own conditions for remaining unblocked while playing word games with the commitments they gave when asking to be unblocked. I'm (of course) happy for other admins to review this decision, but I think that it's pretty clear cut given the history and the way this discussion is going. I haven't examined the conduct of Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs), though they've obviously also been edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User Tarc and WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

Tarc's original AFD comment included the remark "Despite my own leftist leanings, I will not sit by and watch this project be used as a political tool for any side..." Tarc's view was that the AFD article was being used to target a conservative politician; in the light of his own political views, these and related comments, whilst intemperate, are indicative of the exact opposite of WP:BATTLEGROUND (at least in relation to the core "[do not]... carry on ideological battles"). Users who have not recently visited the destination of that shortcut might like to do so now (as might Tarc, since it has points about civility he might benefit from being reminded of). Any other issues about civility and whatnot would be issues for elsewhere (possibly WP:RFC/U). Otherwise, I'm sure everyone here has better things to do. Rd232 ^talk 16:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Normally, this would just be something for WP:WQA, if not for the fact that Tarc has explicitly stated that he has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in terms of this subject. The AfD for Marcus Bachmann closed as Delete not too long ago. A few users, including myself, were discussing on the talk page improvements that could be made to a userspace draft on the subject by focusing on sources that are separate from his wife. Then Tarc went and created a section here at the bottom. Statements he made include, "I will do my damn best to ensure that this sham of an article never again sees the light of day. You want a war? Game on." After A Quest for Knowledge pointed out the BATTLEGROUND policy, Tarc's response included, "The battleground was formed the moment the article was created, it is a gun-fight, and I'm making damn sure to bring something bigger than a knife. I didn't create it." You can read his full comments by going to the link I gave above. Tarc then hatted the discussion, saying, "Y'know, you're right, this serves no purpose. Actions will speak louder than words in the end. Mea culpa", but I don't believe this non-apology apology is rather sincere and it is likely he still plans on going on with his Battleground actions.

If I may quote something from offsite, from Wikipedia Review specifically, Tarc made a comment to me a few minutes ago here, after he made the comments above, where he said,

"I just put ta note on the AfD talk page, but here I can be a little more..colorful.

I will pull out as many stops as I need to to prevent you and your miserable cocksucking little cohorts from getting Bachmann back into article-space.

If this is the war you want to hang your little ARS beret on, then I guess we'll see which side has more clout. Maybe you will come out in the end, maybe not.

Either way, it will be costly.

You can interpret that however you like."

I think this shows quite clearly that he is intending to continue working in a Battleground manner. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here, perhaps a topic ban from the Marcus Bachmann and Michelle Bachmann articles? Silverseren^C 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have taken screenshots of Tarc's statements on WR, so that the originals are available if he attempts to edit and change his comments. Silverseren^C 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Both users notified. Silverseren^C 03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this an etiquette issue? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It normally would be, but not when a user expresses a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue. Silverseren^C 03:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. "Miserable cocksucking little cohorts"? It sounds like Tarc is unfit to edit on all gay-related articles; not just Bachmann articles. Quigley (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, wow. When I first saw that quote I was certainly ready to say Tarc crossed a big line. But apparently it's on another site. And regardless how I feel about the content of the statement, we really can't be making judgements based on what people say outside of Wikipedia (unless it's canvassing or something). If someone's choosing to watch or use another site, that's their choice, but we really can't be policing it here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Expressing an intent to push a battleground mentality though, which he also did on-wiki, is what i'm bringing this here to discuss. Silverseren^C 03:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just addressing that quote there. I've gotta look more into everything else before I'd feel comfortable giving a view on it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley - Please don't make standard curses into "hate speech." It's going to take more than just the use of the word cocksucking to convince me that Tarc's got any biases there. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a single circumstance on-wiki that would justify talking to other editors like that. Way, way over the line if he brings it here. And I agree with him on the basic issue. RxS (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I ignore anything that happens at WR. Generally speaking if you're posting over there, you're obviously already a big fan of conflict. It's a big barrel of bad over there, and I don't hold anything that happens against anyone because I couldn't possibly care less what they say there. WP shouldn't be affected by side battles on other websites, especially a sinkhole that exists for internet fistfights. Not a fan.

If Tarc has done sufficient BATTLEGROUND activities on-wiki to justify this, so be it. Outside, no. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UT:::C)

Tarc's on-wiki threats alone merit a block. "You want a war? Game on." and "The battleground was formed the moment the article was created, it is a gun-fight, and I'm making damn sure to bring something bigger than a knife." are more than battleground mentality: they're harassment and threats of violence. Quigley (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I complained to Tarc about his incivility a few weeks ago. He was very dismisive, and engaged in more name calling and personal attacks.[166]   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Review is a goldmine for "what people really think", particularly editors on this site. I'm often surprised at how many regular editors in good standing vent their frustrations over there and sit on both sides of the fence (CU's, admins, etc.). Of course, my mole over there is unconnected to me, but I'm just a small fry. If you're "bold" enough to use your real WP identity over there, and you know people are watching: tough crap if it comes back to haunt you. Yeah... Doc talk 04:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc's comments on WP Review were out of line, but so were his comments on wiki. Quigley (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc thinks it's wrong for editors to use this project as a billboard for their political tendencies. "Defending" the project against "campaigners" is analogous to a battle. Personally, I think his language has been remarkably restrained, under the circumstances. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing Silver seren of "using this project as a billboard for his political tendencies"? If so, you should provide some evidence. But even if you did, it wouldn't excuse Tarc's constant stream of threats and sexual invective. Maybe Tarc fancies himself a crusader for NPOV—just like every other POV warrior out there. To outsiders, though, his actions can look like thinly-veiled gay-bashing. Wikipedia's policies and code of conduct don't evaporate around contentious articles; they are more necessary in these places. Quigley (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Woah there, "constant stream" and 'thinly-veiled gay-bashing" seem over the top, and wildly so, based upon the evidence presented so far. Diffs or it didn't happen. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you been reading the discussion thus far? There are plenty of diffs and many more people than just me who are saying that Tarc has been extraordinarily uncivil and has made homophobic remarks. I don't believe you have any wiggle room to explain them away: as Tarc said about his own comments,

If this is the war you want to hang your little ARS beret on, then I guess we'll see which side has more clout. Maybe you will come out in the end, maybe not.

Either way, it will be costly.

You can interpret that however you like.

When something like "You can interpret that however you like" is said, the respondent is made to think of the most threatening interpretation of (Tarc's already threatening) messages. Quigley (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have indeed been reading the discussion so far, and (to date) I've not seen a "constant stream of threats and sexual invective." I've seen some fairly outragous statements, but this characterisation of homophobia I've seen zero evidence for. When someone insults us with "fucker" we don't think they are anti-sex, for instance. So far it seems to me that you're waving your arms a lot. that being said, David has provided some links below that I've not seen yet. I'm not defending anyone, just asking for better evidence than (had) been presented. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but "cocksucker" is nothing like "fucker". "Cocksucker" is well-attested to as an antigay slur,[167][168][169][170][171] and it cannot be taken in any other way in this context, given that (1) Tarc was accusing the Keep voters at the Bachmann AfD of being gay activists (2) Silver seren is openly gay (3) Tarc also called Silver seren a "furfag". All this in addition to what David Shankbone has said below shows a pattern of antigay animus that seems to be a bigger motivator for Tarc's recent Wikipedia actions than any other abstract ideal. Quigley (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also had a problem with User:Tarc on the Barbara Boxer article. He's been rude and dismissive. He also refuses to discuss his actions rationally. He seems to think all he needs to justify his actions is his own opinion. --BETA 05:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I too have had problems with Tarc, but I am going to try to put my statement impartially. One, I do believe the "cocksucking" comment to be homophobic, you cant go around on Wikipedia (and yes, I realize that the comment was not on Wikipedia) using the N**** word and say the person wasnt being racist; even if they had no intention of it being racist, a bigoted comment is a bigoted comment regardless of intent. Two- editing when you have shown you cant be impartial or compromise, you have lost all rights to be granted AGF by others and you should be treated as such and your edits under particular scrutiny. Three- kinda in defence of Tarc's attitude, regardless of what the literal word of policy is (which gets nullified by how Wikipedia actually WORKS), Wikipedia IS a battleground. There are two (or more) sides to every discussion and in some cases the outcome is very important (maybe not to YOU, but to someone yes, it can be the very heart and future of Wikipedia). Insults, rude comments, dismissive behavior is NOT acceptable under any circumstances, so dont get me wrong. BUT, this "battleground mentality" issue is a non-starter; it is a battleground and while Tarc should be blocked for alot of things, believing that Wikipedia is a battleground is not one of them.Camelbinky (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tarc assumed from the get-go that because I am gay I created Marcus Bachmann with a political ax to grind. It was the basis of his nomination (and the basis of many deletes). He calls Wikipedia a cesspool[172] and his comments on WR and in the AfD show a real problem when it comes to gay-related topics[173][174]. He does not think gay people can be neutral on gay topics. It's the same argument that was raised by Christian fundamentalists in challenging Judge Vaughn Walker, who wrote a bulletproof legal opinion sinking Proposition 8, and happened to be gay. Their argument? You're gay, so you must have an agenda and can't be neutral and should excuse yourself. Without any evidence Tarc said I was agenda editing[175][176][177]. It's textbook homophobia, with a dash of 'I am the true Defender of the Wiki' thrown in (Tarc considers himself part of a revolution, he has declared war). After multiple requests[178][179] for him to name the slurs and bias in the article, the only thing he could come up with was: 'You wrote it'. The diffs--Tarc's own battlecry--speak for themselves. --David Shankbone 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Both Jimbo and ArbCom have stated that it is unacceptable to state that an editor of a certain group can not edit articles of that same group. ArbCom decided that and topic banned User:Noleander for, among other things, stating that (certain editors I wont mention, including myself) "are obviously Jewish and therefore have a COI in editing Jewish-related topics". Such language that Tarc has stated and are quoted above by David are reasons enough to not just block for a length of time Tarc for being uncivil but also to topic ban him from gay-related articles.Camelbinky (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• This appears to be tonight's topic of interest (well, the GNAA thing seems pretty popular too, but I ain't touchin' that one). Personally, I could care less about what people say on WR, and I don't find "incivility" to be particularly troublesome (unless is gets to absolutely ridiculous levels). However, I do think that the "battlefield mentality" issue is fairly serious, and worthy of consideration towards administrative action or community sanctions, unless and until the user (Tarc, in this case) renounces their desire to pick fights with people.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Tarc's discourse during the AfD discussion was hostile and judgmental:

• to slur Bachmann's name,
• calling people supporting a keep "Dan Savage standard-bearers" and convinced that this is part of someone's personal crusade,
• judging everyone who votes to keep as acting in bad faith (summary reads: the BS continues), and
• failure to respond constructively to comments about the tone of his comments.
• a basic dismissal of WP:RS as not sufficient for keeping the article

Tarc also seemed to convince that people voting keep were united around some common cause of attacking a politician, and very much bludgeoned this accusation during the AfD. I have scarcely seen less appropriate behavior in an AfD. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc revels in his incivility. He highlights that the mainstream media talk about how uncivil he is. "[Tarc], whose combative tone is par for the course, draws on the conservative ideology..." - Columbia Journalism Review I'm not sure this picture of discourse serves wp:ENC well. --David Shankbone 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I interact regularly with the incorrigible $%#&, and I strongly support repeated whacking with an alderwood smoked trout, unless Wikipedia's esteemed administrators feel strongly about salmon, whitefish, or even pike. With appropriate condiments. I don't want to encourage this kind of thing but as provocative as it is, it's harmless. It would be far preferable if Tarc could tone it down a lot, as he tends to scare the pets, newbies, process wonks, and small children. There have been a few other sincere, well meaning, Wikipedia-loving editors who got banned from the encyclopedia because they had a showdown with the community over their refusal to back down on civility issues. I don't think Tarc will back down either, but on balance his peculiar form of social breaching isn't particularly detrimental to the functioning of the encyclopedia, at least, it won't be if everyone could take a chill pill about it. He's not battling for one thing or another, he's an equal opportunity offender against conservative and liberal positions, gays and straights. He's just got a strong on-Wiki personality. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• As a long term editor who has given this project countless value, I can tell you that I don't find being called a "cocksucker" as it relates to this particular article AfD, along with the diffs I already provided, "as harmless as it is provocative". Nobody on Wikipedia wants an "equal opportunity offender". Nobody wants that from the drunk bloke at the end of the bar, and even less on an intellectual, educational project. It's a bizarre way to defend his behavior. --David Shankbone 06:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Equal opportunity offender"? I haven't seen it thus far, but even if Tarc were to attack, to extend this example, both Jews and Gentiles (as Noleander argued), there is a crucial difference between attacking oppressed minorities with charged prejudicial language and attacking people in an ordinary dispute. Quigley (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Like others, I've had my share of differences with Tarc, but I respect his desire to rid wikipedia of agenda-pushers (though I opt to remain neutral on this dispute). Perhaps one should assess why Tarc believes one may have a conflict of interest. It's not adequate for one to simply say it's because one is gay or one is black. The allegations of homophobia here are very much out of line. Like WikiDemon says above, Tarc has a humorous and peculiar manner that is not detrimental to the project. You shouldn't take it personal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps one should assess why Tarc believes one may have a conflict of interest." It's already been assessed why he believes that; the problem is that Tarc, nor anybody else, has the diffs or policy to back that belief. So, homophobia is completely in line. --David Shankbone 06:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the humor or the agenda-pushing; in fact, Tarc seemed to be pretty isolated and embattled in his talking about people having COIs or agendas just because they were gay. Quigley (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, let me ask the drunk bloke at the other end of the bar what he thinks of all this... - Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, after a spirited discussion of the merits of Pliny the Younger versus Pliny the Elder, he says Tarc doth protest too much about gay things. I hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So far, I see plenty of diffs of Tarc being rude, but not homophobic. Better diffs? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness and battleground behavior on Wikipedia are significant problems of their own. However I'm not sure about what kind of administrative or community action is being sought. SilverSeren has suggested a topic ban on Bachmann articles. However Tarc's poor behavior does not seem limited to that topic. Something more a like a general civility probation, with a warning that he may be blocked if he continues to treat other editors poorly, might be more appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  09:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility paroles have, in my experience, nearly never worked. Putting a user on civility parole shifts the limit of acceptable behavior by a small amount. However, that line is so blurry that the difference is usually not worth it, and people on different sides of an issue seem to keep disagreeing if any given act falls on the acceptable or inacceptable side of that line. A topic ban ("gay politics, broadly interpreted") would be easier and likely more useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of Tarc's "unacceptable" language is off-wiki, and if we started handing out blocks for people using potty words on Wikipedia Review we'd be rather short of editors. I've got to hand it to the folk suggesting that Tarc is a homophobe, though: more inventive than the usual casual allegations of antisemitism which get thrown around here. This is just another inclusionist-deletionist battle, and it is far better if people vent their outrage on that particular issue off-wiki than on here. Of course silverseren proposing that an opponent in that struggle be topic banned for battlegrounding would be good material for an Alanis Morissette filk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm no fan of Tarc's combative attitude and use of foul language, and am often frustrated by it because I'm more likely than not arguing the same side of an issue as he is. However the allegations of homophobia seem completely unwarranted to me based on what has been presented here, and the suggestion of "[a] topic ban ('gay politics, broadly interpreted')" based on those allegations looks quite like an attempt to gain advantage. Outside of anything that Tarc may have said, it should be obvious to people here that when editors who identify with a certain group of people (be it religious, ethnic, gender based, of a certain sexual orientation, etc.) engage in topics that fall within the sphere of group related politics that they are quite naturally going to be seen by others as having personal stakes in the situation. There is nothing nefarious about thinking that such a person might be more biased than your average Joe. The line is not drawn there it is drawn when people start suggesting that editors who are part of a certain group should not be allowed to participate, or should be completely disregarded.Griswaldo (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is nefarious is assuming, repeatedly, over and over, that because someone is gay that this is evidence on its face of their bias, while providing no links, no diffs, and no other evidence to back that up. It's the reason why we have NPA: focus on the edits and not on the editor. Saying, "Aw, come on! He's gay! Of course he's got an anti-Bachmann agenda!" isn't right, and you were one of the worst offenders, Griswaldo, attempting to haul me to ArbCom and make me part of the 'Santorum' case (which I had no active role in and didn't even follow) for this exact reason. You and Tarc said this over and over on the AfD with no other evidence despite repeated requests. It's offensive, and it shouldn't surprise you that I consider it homophobic. --David Shankbone 11:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Now that I consider slander pure and simple. I get where you are interpreting Tarc's language as being anti-gay. I do not agree with your conclusion but I get where that is coming from since it is actually connected to words that are attributed to Tarc. However, where have I ever suggested anything about your sexuality ever? You called me one of the "worst offenders" saying I tried to drag you to Arbcom "for this exact reason." I take offense to your claims and I ask you to please strike them.Griswaldo (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• And for everyone's information, I have never suggested that either this issue or the Santorum issue had anything to do with gay activism. In my view the activism problems on Wikipedia stem from a much broader political arena (liberal/conservative). I asked the committee if this issue was fair game for an arbitration case that is set to open about feuding and BLPs that is meant to address the Santorum issue, and others of its kind. I clarified when asked that I felt the committee should consider this case as evidence towards general principles but not in terms of sanctioning David Shankbone. It was never my intention to "drag" him to Arbitration. Do I think he created a political attack article? Yes I do. Do I think that is relevant to the arbitration case? Yes I do. Does he not like that fact? Clearly, but it is no reason to start slandering me.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that Tarc openly admitted to using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to carry out a political agenda,[180][181] I don't think it's a stretch to say that this account should lose its editing previlages regarding this article. As I said on the talk page, I have no interest in this topic and couldn't care less about the politics involved. If anyone can justify why I should be subject to Tarc's personal attacks, I'd love to hear it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility are one thing. Homophobia is quite another. I have no problem with Tarc being sanctioned somehow if it will prevent him from using the type of language he uses in these discussions, however removing him from editing a certain page implies that he cannot edit that topic area specifically. I see no evidence of that. Tarc gets this way in many different areas, and it clearly has nothing to do homosexuality specifically. Requesting he leave this specific discussion altogether, as opposed to being warned or sanctioned for generally uncivil remarks is what I object to.Griswaldo (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Having had one or two experiences of Tarc and seen him around generally, I think Griswaldo has it right. Tarc behaves obnoxiously most of the time anyway. He's one of those editors that believes "being right" entitles him to behave in whatever way he feels like. I don't think homophobia has anything to do with it - gay editors may just happened to be in the firing line this time. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

While this is under discussion - I want to say thank you to User:Aaron Brenneman for a well considered close of that AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann - Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not accusing Tarc of homophobia (either for or against, or anything related to that). I am accusing him of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Again, I have never even heard of this person prior to the AfD. Why he is accusing me of persuing a polical agenda about a topic I know nothing about is perplexing and bizarre to say the least. I am making a good faith attempt to address the issues brought up on the AfD. I seen no reason why I should be attacked for good faith efforts to improve the project. I understand that Tarc is a veteran editor and admins may be reluctant to take action against him, but can someone at least issue a warning? I don't see why I should be subjected to these attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia claims is undue imo - off wiki insults are better ignored. Its a partisan issue - divided right down the middle just as in real life, no chance of a decision, only chance was of increased tension with no benefit to the readers of the encyclopedia - the end result was back to square one (minimal merge/redirect) and all back to your corners to cool off. Perhaps an apology for any unduely personal comments would resolve this. Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course you should not have to suffer incivility A Quest For Knowledge, but if he is not a homophobe there is no reason to topic ban him specifically from this page and/or related ones. If incivility is ongoing a preventative block might have been in order. If there is a larger issue with his civility then an RfC/U is in order, but for heavens sake banning him from specific entries for a general pattern of rude behavior is completely uncalled for. That's all I'm saying.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Given the fact that Tarc openly admitted to using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to carry out a political agenda..."? Uh, no, the quotes you provide says exactly the opposite. In the first one, he says "Despite my own leftist leanings, I will not sit by and watch this project be used as a political tool for any side..." and in the second one he says "I seem to be one of the few who hasn't actually lost perspective as to what an encyclopedia is. It isn't TMZ. It isn't a publishing arm for the Democratic Party. it isn't for taking potshots at politicians we don't like. " How exactly is fighting BLP violations against someone that is on the opposite end of your own political beliefs "carrying out a political agenda?" Reading through your interactions on the AfD, the talk page and now this (where you misrepresent his statements 180°), honestly, it's starting to sound more like a personal grudge on your part. Calling for sanctions in those circumstances is a bit questionable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, Wikipedia

Nothing like a raging conversation going on while one is sound asleep, eh. A few points;

• I am personally quite liberal, and if one really must know, a literal red diaper baby; dad was full-blown red, though I will politely decline to say where. Anti-war, pro-choice, loves me that government cheese, and most assuredly supportive of gay rights. Get married, adopt, serve in the military... Nothing afforded heteros should be banned or anyone else. So the idea that any of this is tinged by homophobia is on its face absurd. I do find it deplorable that gay people are very quick to play this card when it comes to combating opposing points of view. But they aren't the only ones...pro-Israeli editors pull the antisemitism card, blacks the racist card, for examples.

• When I have alleged editing because of personal bias, I have clearly meant liberal bias. Anyone that reads anything else, i.e. "gay-bashing", into it is quite frankly not being very honest here at ANI.

• I do not generally comment on Wikipedia review activities here. People that go there have an expectation that some of the edges will be a little rough and thagt not everyone plays nice. Hell, they welcome and shelter the likes of Joehazelton over there. Ask Gamaliel or Gothean who he is, interaction with that sort of wiki-troll is ugly. Seren's a big boy, and if he wants to engage in discussions outside the "tut-tut, AGF my good sir!" protection of the Wikipedia, then he accepts what comes with it.

• Are there any other specific points to address? Y'all generated quite a lot to slog through overnight. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I want to know why you are accusing me of wanting to "humiliate"[182] someone I've never heard of. Where do you get off knowing what my intentions are? Again, I've never heard of this person prior to the AfD. Just because someone disagrees with your interpretation of WP:NOTABILITY doesn't necessarily mean that they are motivated by some political agenda. Your accusations against me are wrong and completely uncalled for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this be something in the AfD talk page I retracted and hatted ? If so why are you still going on about it? Tarc (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc—your participation in this thread is illustrative of a style of argumentation which seems to me to be designed to "win" whether right or wrong. You posted here and here and then you droped out of the dialogue. I asked you a followup question here but you had nothing further to say. In case you don't know, WP:BLP does not require "self-identification" for the inclusion of the material under discussion in that conversation, in the body of the article. If you are going to enter a conversation, try to do so in an open and constructive way—not by posting irrelevant and misleading inquiries without any follow-up dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not address piling on from random people with months or years-old beefs. If you think you have a case to make, then file your own report. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I crossed out "irrelevant" in my above post as that may not be entirely true. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a presumption that the articles are not simply a suckage of anything that anyone has ever said about the person, right or wrong, or for whatever ulterior reason the source may have. As I recall the argument there was your insistence of the emphatic "She is Jewish" over "raised in a Jewish household". John lilburne (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—reliable sources asserting such information concerning religion tends to provide justification for inclusion of such material in the body of an article. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arguing that if a reliable sources quote it, or say it, then it should automatically be added to a BLP is not something you really want to do. John lilburne (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—I presented no such argument. I did not say that "…if a reliable sources quote it, or say it, then it should automatically be added to a BLP…"[183] We are talking about writing an article. Something has to be added. Somehow the added material has to be justified. What I said was that reliable sources "tend" to provide justification for the inclusion of material. I said nothing about automatic inclusion. By the way, this conversation between you and I should be ended in this space as it is off-topic. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to know why you think it's justifiable to refer to someone and a group of unnamed people as "...you and your miserable cocksucking little cohorts". This is appalling behaviour and should merit a permanent block in my view. CycloneGU (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

CycloneGU, that comment was made to Silver Siren off-wiki. We do not block people for using offensive language off-wiki. Much of Silver's evidence above, in fact, comes from this off-wiki venue - Wikipedia Review, where both Tarc and Silver are engaging each other.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, hence why I am not pushing for any blocks - merely noting it would be worthy of one. However, his reference to planned on-wiki activities is worrisome in the rest of that quote. CycloneGU (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc—you inquired if there were "any other specific points to address." Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I am personally quite liberal,[...] - Tarc, how does your fathers politics (whether red or supportive of gay rights) have any bearing on your politics? Your own position seems to be somewhat different ("loves me that government cheese" certainly does not seem to indicate agreement with this position). I'll have to say that I find the frame of mind classifying people as "gay", "pro-Israel", and "black", and making statements about them based on that classification to be deeply troubling. Not to mention that it's fairly hard to recognize gays and blacks on Wikipedia... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • And now we have the more general "bigot card," in play. Any others? I agree that Tarc made very unsavory comments at Wikipedia Review and that he is down right rude on Wikipedia but when is this game going to stop? And yes I think it is a dirty game to start nit picking at people's comments and suggesting nefarious intentions or biased mind-frames when those comments were clearly much more innocent than that. But Stephan, if you want to keep playing by all means do. It says much more about the player than the game piece. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • And FYI Stephan, political socialization is not a myth.Griswaldo (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Stephan, I think you're smart enough to figure out that I posted that personal tale to specifically refute the specious "tarc is a homophobe" accusation. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Assuming "spart" is a typo for smart (or is it a contraction of "ex[s]p[e]art"?), yes, I figured out that that was your intention. I took the liberty to point out that it does not achieve this goal at all, and hence at best is a distraction. I also pointed out that your tendency to make blanket statements about "gays", "pro-Israel editors", and "blacks" is of some concern. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc: fine. Please address my complaint.[184][185] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I view you, by being an admitted inclusiuonist, as a simple enabler of other agenda-driven editors, if you want to put it that way. The "everything must be kept if it appears in RS" mindset is harmful to the project when it is applied to bad BLPs such as this one. Stop and consider the end product of what you're working on. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I support the suggestion that Tarc should be banned from further discussion of Marcus Bachmann or his recent AfD discussion. Tarc has frankly declared outright war on this subject. He has done that both on Wikipedia and off. He has made it clear that he is not interested in Wikipedia policies, just in pushing his agenda. In the AfD discussion he insisted that everyone - EVERYONE - who argued "keep" was pushing a politicial agenda, even though he knew nothing about the politics or policies of the people he was accusing and it was clear that he was the one with the agenda. The Bachmann article was quite neutral, but Tarc insisted that the mere existence of an article about the man constituted an "attack" (which is a heck of a thing to say Dr. Bachmann, and in fact is far more insulting than anything in the article). Let's forget about the name-calling and the off-wiki comments, and focus on the issue at hand: Tarc has unilaterally declared his Battleground attitude on the subject of Marcus Bachmann, and if there is ever to be a calm and policy-oriented discussion about Bachmann, Tarc cannot be a part of it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That is a lie. I am interested in upholding the simplest and most crucial of Wikipedia polices, which is WP:BLP. A non-notable, non-public figure has recieved some press because of who he is married to. Who he happens to be married to is one of the most conservative political candidates to have a serious shot at the White House in recent memory, perhaps ever. An article was created on a non-notable, non-public figure to embarrass him and by extension his political spouse, this was done by making the article focus on the "controversies" that some attach to the man regarding his religious beliefs, his therapy practices. There are other salacious rumours circulating out there that would worm their way into the article if recreation were allowed, simply because they too appear in a reliable source.
  • I am doing what I can to protect a living person from harm by a baseless Wikipedia article existing on him. I am doing what I can to prevent the Wikipedia from turning away from a mission as an online encyclopedia and towards a propaganda arm for a segment of the political sphere. If some egos get punctured, some toes get stepped on, and some pride wounded along the way, that is a good price to pay to do the right thing here. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Intent does not matter when making comments or actions that can to a reasonable outsider appear homophobic or racist. Let's stop this crap of "I'm a liberal, I had no intention". Plenty of "liberals" out there with ideology they "think" is liberal because they have no idea. And again- this battleground crap is ridiculous. A "policy-oriented discussion"? Oh, so we're back to lists of "who can quote policy better" when policy is simply a description of PAST consensus; apparently that's what we want and not NEW consensus based on WELL THOUGHT OUT PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. If you cant back up your argument with something original and all you have to say is "Support per" and "Policy says" then your !vote doesnt matter. But I digress. There's plenty of incivility to topic ban and block Tarc. And to those that say incivility doesnt matter- do you work at a high school as a principal? Because then you are why children commit suicide because of bullies, and YOU are more of a problem to Wikipedia than the bullies like Tarc around here because you are an enabler.Camelbinky (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And to those that say incivility doesnt matter- do you work at a high school as a principal? Because then you are why children commit suicide because of bullies, and YOU are more of a problem to Wikipedia than the bullies like Tarc around here because you are an enabler. Excuse me? You are saying that people who think this is overblown can be liked to people who enable activities that lead to the suicides of children? So because I don't want Tarc topic banned (short block for incivility perhaps but topic ban no) I'm enabling teen suicide? Wow what has this come to?Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• While I normally view bun-fights of this type from a safe distance, I'm certainly seeing more calls for topic bans than I am comfortable with. The histrionics are making it hard for us (collectively) to deal with the actual issue, which everyone agrees is the issue, that Tarc's got a mouth on him. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be the root of the problem, but the discussion here is about his declaration of war specifically on the issue of Marcus Bachmann. The original complaint here was WP:BATTLEGROUND, not "having a mouth on him." --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc blatantly declared battle, and that was clearly inappropriate. But he is not the only editor displaying a battleground mentality when it comes to Marcus Bachmann and to these sort of controversial BLP articles in general. We all know damn well that this is one of the most battlegroundish parts of the project and has been for ages. I'm not excusing Tarc's attitude, but some of the folks on the "other side" evince the same sort of attitude in terms of their behavior, they just don't outright declare it.

I might add some other thoughts on the overall issues raised here a bit later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MelanieN, accusing the closing admin of bad faith for defending Tarc seems way over the line. That seems to add to the evidence that this is all just spillover from the AfD fight with bad behavior all around. I see a lot of piling on here by people with an obvious personal grudge, but I haven't seen anything to justify the level of sanctions that are being demanded. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I had already deleted that comment when you responded to it. You are right, it was a violation of AGF and I was wrong to say it. As for the "level of sanctions being demanded," it is simple cause and effect: Tarc has declared that he will wage unrelenting war on this particular subject, and so he should be banned from this particular subject so that a reasoned discussion can occur. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Again, this is mostly just another round of inclusionism-deletionism. Both sides are "warring": Silverseren is playing the same role here as Childofmidnight did when his inclusionism got deeper than articles on Pokemon and Transformers and took him into Hawaiian birth certificates. That Tarc has made his "warring" explicit doesn't mean that, so long as he acts within community boundaries, he is acting particularly differently from the other side. Policy rather requires vigilance here, for the good reason that faliure to be vigilant has caused a great deal of external drama before regarding BLPs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to tit-for-tat with every single person that has a beef here, as it is unproductive, exhausting, and just devolves ANI topics like this into gargantuan TL;DRs. So I will summarize a few general things here;
  • 'Declaring war' is being reacted to a wee bit too hysterically. What I will do from here on out is simply vigorously oppose the article's recreation. I do not believe that any amount of editing or re-editing or reorganizing can address the fundamental flaw, which is an article on a non-notable person who has gained some degree of notoriety because of who he is married to. If we celebrate (or lament, as the case may be) President Bachmann's inauguration in January 2013, I will personally and gladly recreate the article myself, as a First Man will be in itself inherently notable. But as it stands right now, its very existence is an attack on the subject. So the "war" will be simply speaking, and speaking often, in whatever venue others choose to continue this. I retracted and hatted an inflammatory discussion (of my own creation) at the AfD talk page. There's rally nothing more to be done on that angle.

• • I skimmed something above about principals and this being akin to abetting teen suicide, but quite frankly it was too absurd to even bother with. People who are working themselves to that level of histrionics should be punished by requiring them to work on something cuddly, like getting a 4th-tier Pokemon article upto FA, honestly.

• • WP:BLP is paramount in this project. many editors here simply do not consider what the consequences of their actions are here as they strenuously argue over which wiki-acronym guideline they believe they have met. We cannot create articles on people where much of the content is simply criticism. Period. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh

I go to bed for the night and wake up and see this. Maybe I should have just stayed up so I could make sure people actually focused on the subject I brought to ANI. I never once said anything about conservatism or liberalism or homophobia. None of those were the purpose of my report. I already know full well that Tarc is liberal, in fact, I probably know more about his past history than any of you. I brought this report here to discuss this single issue, his comments in relation to the Marcus Bachmann article. I did not bring this here to discuss past issues with Tarc or other incivility that he had done in the past as, for the most part, this report was not about incivility, but WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'm quite sure that it would be easy for anyone to create an RFC/U around Tarc's incivility if they wanted to and I wish them luck in that regard, I would have a few things to contribute on my own to it.

But very little of you actually focused on the point of my report. For those that tried to get it focused back onto the issues at hand, I thank you, and i'm sorry it didn't work. Maybe I shouldn't have quoted the off-wiki stuff, as I wasn't doing it to show Tarc's incivility, I was doing it to show how very extensive his Battleground mentality is and how little i'd trust anything he says here in trying to mollify it. The issue is that, for those of us trying to fix the article and remove the BLP issues in it, Tarc has stated that he will be a hindrance to this and will "vigorously oppose" us every step of the way. This is not conducive to a proper editing environment, nor is it helpful in regards to creating proper content. Silverseren^C 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not using Wikipedia as a battleground for pursing ideological battles, he's declared war on those he believes are doing so. Big difference. Now how about ignoring what sounds vaguely like a threat to be disruptive and come back if actual problems emerge? It's hard to see what good come of discussing this further here. If there are real arguments to be made of substantial and ongoing behavioural problems, WP:RFC/U is that way. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue isn't as clear-cut as that. WP:BATTLEGROUND says "In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree." That's the standard that Tarc is accused of violating, and his own politics aren't really decisive here. There was a small clique of self-proclaimed LGBT-friendly editors who threw around groundless accusations of homophobia, etc. at other editors a while back (see this charming example thrown in my direction, for example [186]), but that pretty much turned out to be smoke-screening for some heavy-duty promotional editing, primarily associated with Benjeboi and his legion of socks. For Tarc to insist that these legitimate editing disputes fall into that category is not at all appropriate (and a bit curious, given the commentary in the mainstream press that many of the disclosures concerning Bachmann and her family come from disaffected Republicans who believe that her candidacy will be even more damaging to their party than Christine O'Donnell's was). Most of the argument here (not all, even in the instant discussion, but most) represents good faith differences, unlike, say, the Paul Revere/Sarah Palin silliness, and Tarc's polarizing behavior is clearly not helpful. He's not alone, but lately he's an order of magnitude beyond other involved editors, and the matter has been let simmer for so long it's boiling over. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the only way to do anything around here is ArbCom because at AN/I where everyone, even those that are blatantly lying to help out a "friend" get to have a say and muddy the waters. AN/I has become a sad joke and those that defended Tarc should be ashamed of yourselves and I find it extremely sad and disheartening that no admin exists to stand up and say "I'll do it, Tarc is blocked for 24 hours" and at least he then knows, shit something WILL happen. Now, all he and others like him learn is "Eh, just keep hammering away and learn nothing, dont apologize, keep doing what I'm doing, nothing will happen." Lovely. And, the disregard about someone possibly committing suicide regarding on-wiki harrassment is sad and I'll make sure every news outlet has that quote when one day (and it will one day happen) someone commits suicide regarding Wiki-harrassment. I'm sure Myspace and Facebook never thought it was a serious problem until someone did actually do it. And because a young girl in Missouri DID commit suicide due to online harrassment many states and localities (Albany County, NY and the state of Missouri) have strict laws that DO hold online sites responsible now (and they apply to Wikipedia). No this is not a legal or otherwise threat to Wikipedia. It is stating that eventually either Tarc or someone else with their attitude and rudeness will push someone over the edge, we can either keep these bad editors under leash and make an effort to delay the inevitable or even keep it from ever happening; or we can deny that his rudeness and bad behavior causes our editors discomfort and some editors are not equipped to handle it. And no it is not their responsibility to then "just not be here" if they cant handle it; Wikipedia policy is clear that an editor who causes the joy of editing to leave another Wikipedian is at fault and can be blocked. Too bad it isnt enforced. Except by ArbCom. So why does AN/I exist? Oh, yea, to defend the guilty. I forgot.Camelbinky (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this has developed into this type of handwaving and vague threats it is probably best that it is closed up into the above discussion, so I have done so. WP:RFC/U is thataway, should you wish to attempt to form that wall of text into something coherent. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (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.

London School of Economics

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

Resolved

 – User:Bentheadvocate blocked as a sock

We're having a minor edit war on London School of Economics and Kingston University. I don't know how to proceed because my sourced edits are being reverted because another editor doesn't like me. If someone could weigh in I'd be grateful. It almost seems like he'll keep reverting even if he has no real reason to. BETA 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything beyond a content dispute here - AN/I is for issues that require administrator intervention. If you have a dispute that cannot be resolved easily on the talk page of the article, take a look at the other steps in the dispute resolution process. Looking at some of the edits involved, I also kind of have the feeling that a wp:boomerang may be involved here pretty soon... Kevin (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to report this here, but see that I've been beaten to it. BETA, who has been heavily involved in a contentious dispute over our Kingston University article, and stated on the talk page that he "believe[s] that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk" [187], has chosen to add a new section to our article on the London School of Economics, where he writes: "London School of Economics' Academic Board has voted for a self-imposed maximum of ₤8000 per year in tuition fees per course. The regulation is applicable to all courses. The school's Council Will firm up the final figures on a course by course basis, provided they fall withing this ruling. School President Charlotte Gerada stated that she is both "grateful and proud", considering their rank in the top 5th of universities in UK. Other UK universities, including Kingston University, have decided to opt for the maximium". [188] Note also the misleading edit summary "new section, looking to nominate for good article". As the article history shows [189] after I removed the gratuitous reference to Kingston University, he has reverted it. I had made clear to him that this will lead to the matter being reported here.

Given his stated POV, and his disregard for the integrity of other articles, I consider at minimum a topic ban on any matters concerning British universities is entirely justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And when he mentions this POV problem, I promptly reassure him that my edits reflect the sources(though my most recent one had a minor accidental misinterpretation that was quickly corrected), my admitted bias about one particular university, created by the information I looked up for my contribution to the article, isn't relevant to my sourced edits. BETA 01:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:Boomerang. I mean this has been going on for a while on Kingston University before I even got to it. I might have gotten a little frustrated, I don't know. :0) BETA 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You add a couple of contributions and both of them are ripped to shreds, over minor things, it's bound to make you a little upset right?BETA 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "minor" isn't really in line with popular opinion. Even so, that doesn't excuse trying to make a point by going to another article and take the fight there. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if I were making a point, Notpointy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it". Showing readers a contextual distinction is not disruptive. BETA 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A "contextual distinction" between what and what? You edited the LSE article to assert your POV regarding KU. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Show me how my edit slanted the point of view of the article. I didn't say anything that was more positive or negative than the sources I supplied, despite the misunderstanding about the final decision. BETA —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Did you edit the LSE article (a) because you were "looking to nominate for good article" as you claimed in the edit summary, or (b) so as to include an off-topic comment about KU? Given your recent editing history, and your self-proclaimed low opinion of KU, it seems hard to believe the former. Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page, or to find some other way to make a general point about fees without naming one specific university? I think you are stretching credulity beyond reasonable grounds here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page" - again, double standard, isn't it the "logical response" before removing something to discuss it on the talk page. WP:NPOVFAQ:"Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." BETA 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You haven't answered the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Essay trumps policy? BETA 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing trumps anything. The two most important principles you can have for how to behave at Wikipedia are WP:UCS and WP:DBAD. Other policies, guidelines, and essays only exist for people who lack the ability to obey those principles. --Jayron32 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Wikilawyering isn't going to help, BTA. Taking a failed argument from one article to another unrelated one is pretty clearly a violation of WP:POINT. Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT is mostly about attempts to sway consensus, I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. --BETA 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't going to tell us why you decided to edit the LSE article to include a gratuitous comment about Kingston University? I can't see any point in discussing this further then. You are clearly more concerned with pushing your personal agenda than with contributing towards Wikipedia, and as such, I'd suggest that maybe you would best direct your efforts elsewhere. If you continue in this vein, you may soon have no choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What ever you think your motives were, they look and feel like an attempt to bring your issues about KU (which is under full protection atm) to an article you could edit, you may think that was not to prove a point, others (including me BTW) think it was. As others have already made clear to you both here and at your talk page, if you carry on in this way you are likely to attract a block or topic ban.

(edit conflict)If you want some advice, before you make any changes to university articles think, is, or could this be, a contentious change and if the answer is "Yes" post a note on the Talk page and leave it 48hrs to see what others think. This is after all a collaborative encyclopaedia and not a web based university guide or review forum. Oh and least you are in doubt any edit involving either "fees" or, in your case, given your comments, "Kingston University" is going to fall into the category of "a contentious change". Mtking ^(edits) 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Bentheadvocate for obvious reasons. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Whatever his problem is with Kingston University, it shouldn't be allow to spill over to other articles as this behaviour is evidence of. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Can the exact nature of any proposed topic ban be made clear, for example is it Universities, UK Universities, UK University Fees, Kingston University ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Edits related to Kingston University" would be plenty for me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Edits related in any way to Kingston University" might be better, given BETA's predilection for nit-picking over semantics. I did however suggest a ban on edits related to British universities in general: my thinking was that if he has a strong POV on one, he is unlikely to be neutral regarding others, and a general ban is easier to define. Still if the ban is confined to KU, and enforced, it'll probably do the job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Ben has been problematic in a number of places since he recently became active again, in particular he enjoys playing semantic games with people, pushing the lawyer talk to absurd heights. At WP:COIN, for instance, he has made arguments like this one which raise the likelihood that his goal is to get under people's skin and cause disruption, not actually improve the encyclopedia. I wish I could believe that a topic ban from KU-related articles would resolve the issue, but I doubt that it will, I feel that this just happens to be where he's currently active, and a topic ban will just lead him to disrupt elsewhere. I considered the possibility that the account was compromised, as is often the case when an editor returns after a long absence to cause disruption, but then I saw this comment from 2008 (before his previous absence), so I think this is just how he has always been. -- Atama頭 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Bans for Bentheadvocate and Cameron Scott. Such bans, absent threats or totally off-topic edits/vandalism generally should not be enacted, as this amounts to censorship, particularly when they are phrased so broadly as a ban on "anything related to" x.--Lorifredrics (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would agree with Atama's analysis. The problem (to the extent that there is one) is not specific to Kingston University. I don't think he'd even heard of the place until he saw the kerfuffle and one of the editors being topic banned. His first appearance on Wikipedia was a very similar situation.

  1. User:Magnonimous had been edit warring at Coral calcium was eventually blocked indefinitely on 31 December 2007. [190]

  2. Bentheadvocate (BETA) registers new account one day later [191] and writes on his user page am not a new user, I have had some experience on wikipedia in the past. So don't be surprised if I seem to know more than I should.

  3. BETA then Proposes a new Wikiproject "CCE : Commission for Collaborative Editing" [192] (never enacted, no one signs up apart from him) but decides that Coral Calcium will be its first "case". [193] and sets about "advocating" for the blocked user's approach to the subject. Then appears to lose interest, moves on and stops editing altogether in May 2008.

  4. BETA returns three years later and heads for Samatha first as an IP [194] then as himself to edit war over external links with his previous antagonist at Coral calcium.

  5. BETA jumps in with both feet at Kingston University using similar tactics/arguments/alphabet soup to Coral calcium and Samatha kerfuffles.

  So no, topic bans are pretty pointless in the face of these kinds of shenanigans. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Shenanigan #6. BETA starts and perpetuates an edit war at London School of Economics and then procedes to nominate for GA [195], despite one of the basic critera being "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily re-opening file. In reply. Yes, If I recall correctly I had been editing via IP at the time, until I came across the notice board's record of the controversial gang-up that occured on Coral Calcium, by proponents of now defrocked Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch fame. And while I don't agree with the victim's response to the antics, I nevertheless felt compelled to intervene based on the slanted state of the article at that time, and the injustice of it all. I realized that if I were to take this on I would have to establish myself as a regular fixture on this site, at which point I created my User status. And from time to time I do try to make sure that the quote unquote enforcers and deletionists don't overstep their bounds, at the expense of encyclopedic quality, and the dignity of other editors. Thank you. Resealing file; July 23rd 2011 --BETA 08:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

??? In what way has Stephen Barrett been "defrocked"? Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Following this mornings reverting at Barbara Boxer, I am starting to think a 3 month "1RR" probation may be a better idea - comments ? Mtking ^(edits) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Registering relevant 3RR against Cameron Scott

Since it pertains to this discussion, an assertion of 3RR violation has been made regarding edits to Kingston University, by User:Cameron Scott. Request that his vote be tagged as conflicted. Thank You. BETA 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Object to striking Cameron Scott's !vote. He is not an admin, so WP:INVOLVED does not apply. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Given that BETA posted the supposed (stale, and highly dubious) 3RR violation in response to Cameron Scott participating in this AN/I debate, I suggest that additional sanctions be taken against BETA for misusing the edit warring noticeboard. I think we've seen quite enough crap by now to tell that he isn't interested in Wikipedia, except as a place to push a POV, and to attack those who disagree. I think a block is now in order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm choosing not to rise to the bait. Look at me I'm growing(a la chandler) :o] ...... p.s. This thread is pretty much done for me except for the 3RR. -BETA 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban broadly construed. That's arbcomspeak for "BETA will be in trouble if he tries to wikilawyer this ban." Bishonen | talk 15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

User:Bentheadvocate/"BETA", redux

I have reinstated this section, as this editor has waited until the week's protection on the article has expired and immediately reverted it back to his preferred version, totally against consensus on the talk page, and with an edit summary of "reverting vandalism". I have reverted his edit (and previously commented on the talkpage) so I am wary of taking any admin action here but I think either a block or an actual enforcing of the topic ban which was discussed above is now necessary. This is clearly a user who is not prepared to edit collegially. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit [196] is not, despite its edit summary, reverting vandalism. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, quite the opposite - it is introducing POV material that the talkpage consensus was to leave out (not to mention that some of it is actually factually inaccurate, but that's another issue). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu's edit, because it removes properly sourced information, to further his POV, and because he did not discuss it beforehand, constitutes vandalism. If he thought he had good arguments he should have raised them on the talk page, instead of sniping.--BETA 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BETA, please see WP:NOTVAND. I don't believe there is a valid way to characterize the edit you reverted as WP:VANDALISM. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring on Kingston University. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The actual subjects of the articles seems to be irrelevant to him. From his very first edits in 2008, he has shown a consistent pattern of finding an article where there is a disagreement over the addition of material and then to "advocate" for the minority view, often edit-warring in the process, and wikilawyering on the talk pages and multiple forums. He registered an account 24 hours after this editor was blocked, went straight to Coral calcium to take up the cudgels on his behalf. He returned in 2011 after a 3 year hiatus and proceeded to edit-war over the addition of an external link to Samatha [197]. He then went to Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) and edit-warred over the re-additon of material by an editor who had been topic banned from these articles. While Kingston University was locked down for a week, he proceeded to add material about Kingston to London School of Economics and again edit-warred [198]. He then apparently lost interest and stepped over to Christopher Walken in an unsuccessful attempt to re-add material about him being on the boat when Natalie Wood drowned. [199]. Then off to Barbara Boxer for another bash at re-adding a "controversy" against a clear consensus on the talk page. (He's now tried to bring it ArbCom [200].) This is becoming a rather disruptive and time-wasting hobby. When he comes off his block, a "1RR" probation might be in order. Voceditenore (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've only encountered this person in regards to the Boxer article, but it does seem there is a larger issue here. Does this person just look for wiki hotspots and dive in for the sake of argument? Are there any other editors common to all of the places he has visited? Perhaps there's an issue of wiki-stalking/hounding here. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be simpler than that. There was a report on the conflict of interest noticeboard that mentioned troubles with Kingston University as well as similar schools (see here). That report was placed on July 15. Ben's first edit to Kingston University was on the very next day. Ben's first edit to London School of Economics was 5 days later. I know that Ben was aware of that noticeboard, because he commented on a report just below it around the same time (see here). So he may have just found it that way. There was also a pretty public discussion of issues with those articles on ANI that was opened on July 14, so he might have also seen it there (although he didn't comment in that discussion at all, not until July 19 in this discussion did he involve himself with ANI discussion of the articles). So I don't believe there is any stalking, he just saw a couple of public disputes that drew his attention. -- Atama頭 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to sound paranoid about this sort of thing, but when Beta went to the Kingston University article to continue that argument there for a COI editor, my first edit had been several days before on the talk page. I didn't think anything of it, but two more "random" articles he went after were Christopher Walken and Barbara Boxer. The Boxer article I've edited recently, it's had some problems in the last month, and he jumped right in making the exact same edit I was a part of the consensus opposing on the talk page. The Walken edit was very odd, though. I made an edit removing unsourced info all the way back on April 30 [201], he reinstated it a few days ago [202]. I don't see anyone else reinstating that edit in the interim. Can that be explained as coincidental, or does this editor returning after three years to reverse edits I made in three articles indicate something else? I'm assuming good faith, but now that his disruption has continued, I figured I'd bring it here for further eyes. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any history between you two that would prompt something like that? -- Atama頭 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, that's what makes this so strange. Beta is returning from a three-year hiatus, though. I suppose it's possible he's returning to an old identity, and we may have crossed paths in that three year span under an IP or different identity. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Based on the evidence presented above by Voceditenore, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here. I think it's pretty obvious that Ben is actually a sock of a known sockmaster, who was blocked years ago for similar behavior, and who returned to request an unblock just 3 days before Ben also returned. But I'm asking for CU to be safe on this. If a CU can confirm, or at least not rule out the connection, I'll block both accounts. -- Atama頭 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI closed as "Likely", but it's just one shy bit short of confirmed. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Magnominous was already blocked after the SPI resulted in what I guess can be called a "very likely" result. I've blocked Bentheadvocate as I said I would. -- Atama頭 07:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2011 (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.

Disruptive edits by IP 95.16.89.4

Resolved

 – IP blocked for one week by Ioeth. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Since this morning, this IP started a series of disruptive edits on some articles (can be seen on the User Contributions page), accusing of vandalism any opposition to the undiscussed edits.

Please intervene by a semi-protection on these articles: the previous vandalism on them was made by User:FAIZGUEVARRA and his multuple SP's, this time it is not him (I think) but (I suppose) a notorious POV-Pusher: User:Bokpasa ([203][204]), and I suppose that it is him since he was already blocked from editing (a few years ago?) for the same reasons... and on the same articles.

Thanks in advance.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ioeth blocked IP for 1 week. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that I was blocked as well since I was reported on the 3RR board (but not the IP)... even for previous reverts made under the quasi-approbation of this board [205][206][207] (the FAIZGUEVARRA issue)

Nothing more to say, I will let these articles as they are, even if they are not encyclopedic and that their current versions are the "vandalised"/undiscussed ones by the reported IP.

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposing block for disruptive new editor

Resolved

 – No admin. action required. CycloneGU (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The user ReliableCoaster has had at least three complaints in one day, on a talkpage and on his user-page. I propose a 48 hour block. Thanks Pass a Method talk 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User would have to receive a final warning in most cases before being blocked. I'm boldly closing this as resolved; there is nothing to do here at the moment as the user has not exhausted all warnings.

Also, you did not notify the user. Not sure if it's worth doing so since I'm closing this, but I'll do so. CycloneGU (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides all of that, the nature of the edits is important. Marking a non-minor edit as minor is worth a reminder but not something we sanction someone for (I've probably even done it by accident). The second warning was about an action that was questionable but not quite vandalism. The third warning (about the edit war) doesn't really even seem applicable, the editor isn't anywhere near 3RR. So there really wasn't enough disruption to warrant a report in the first place. My only real concern is that the editor doesn't violate WP:BLP in editing Anders Behring Breivik, but nobody has even brought that up with the editor yet. -- Atama頭 22:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive actions by JohnInDC

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

No action taken against JohnInDC: Ken keisel blocked for copyvio on the subejct article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

---

This problem centers around user JohnInDC's actions on the articles LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN and Washington D.C. JohnInDC has demonstrated a personal bias against both the subject of the article (this is his second attempt to get the article deleted), the band he conducted (he has removed virtually all information posted about the band from the article Washington D.C.), and the music LCDR Mitchell composed (he has challenged the accuracy of a 'Washington Post' article that states the piece is the official march of Washington D.C.). JohnInDC has stated that he questions the validity of the 'Washington Post' article describing the composer's work 'Our Nation's Capital' as the official march of the District of Columbia beacause neither he nor his friends have ever heard of it. His efforts to get the article on the piece's composer removed from Wikipedia by challanging the artist's notability were failing, so he has just "blanked" the article as a copywright infridgement. I have checked the user's "Talk" page and note that it has been repeatably been blanked by JohnInDC. This is usually an indication of a long history of derisive behaviour which has resulted in comments on his "Talk" page that he doesn't want anyone to see. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Point of information JohnInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has not "blanked" his User Talk page. He has, in fact, archived older conversations, as evidenced by the Archival box on that page and by the page history. This is common with active editors, and perfectly acceptable. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just removed large chunks of too-close paraphrasing that Ken keisel inserted into the Mitchell article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I think that, rather than my going into chapter and verse on these issues here, reviewing parties would be better served with links to the three or four places most pertinent to Ken's concerns. They are:

Washington DC Talk page, wherein I set forth my concerns about the material that Ken would like to add (it's not a matter of sourcing but of weight); the discussion reflects the agreement of other editors concerning the omission of the material, and the reasoning;

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LCDR_Anthony_A._Mitchell_USN, describing my concerns re the subject's notability;

LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN, reflecting my blanking of manifest copyright violations on that page; and

User talk:JohnInDC, my Talk page, showing the links to five pages of archived material.

I think that the foregoing speak for themselves. My edits and reasons for them have all been proper and undertaken in good faith. Of course I would be happy to discuss this at greater length here, if that seems necessary. Please let me know. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem can be understood in the following statement by JohnInDC; It is from the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN in which he states;

"Subject fails to meet the general notability requirements of WP:BIO or the more specific ones set forth at WP:Composer. The only third party coverage of the subject himself appears to be his Washington Post 2009 obituary. He did compose a march that one or perhaps two District Commissioners declared in 1961 to be the "official" march of the District of Columbia, but the force of that declaration is uncertain and march's notability is questionable. The march appears to be unknown to residents (or at least, unmentioned) and rarely if ever performed. It is not mentioned in the DC Government webpage and the only other references to it that I could find were the above obituary, two brief references in articles (which in fact appeared to play off its obscurity), here and here, and at the Navy Band's own website here." JohnInDC (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) JohnInDC has taken a POV approach to the relivance of the march in Washington D.C. history, despite the 'Washington Post' article having been written in 2009, and has carried this view over to both the march's composer and the significance of the Navy Band in D.C. history. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I note that Ken keisel is the originator of the LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN article. Reviewing the AfD discussion, it appears consensus is developing to delete the article. As much as I'd like to assume good faith in this report, I'm getting a strong whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the reporting editor. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the whole basis of this complaint is verging on (if not totally) a personal attack on JohnInDC. Essentially, the argument is, "you disagree with me and I see no reason for the disagreement so you must be biased". Accusations of misbehavior lacking evidence are generally not allowed. -- Atama頭 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with both N5iln and Atama. This is a content dispute has devolved into unfounded accusations of bias by the reporting editor. -epicAdam^(talk) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[[User:N5iln|Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)Not sure where you are seeing any consensus on deleting the article. The first vote was to keep it, and there have been several further statements in support. Atama if I wanted to wage a personal attack why would I bring my complaint here? User JohnInDC has stated that his objections to any mention on wikipedia of this composer and his works is because he and his friends had never heard of him. He states this clearly in the passage I re-posted above. The basis for my complaint is very simple; that JohnInDC's lack of awareness of the composer and his work does not justify his deletion of an article about the composer, or the mention of his extensive contribution to the Washington Area music scene. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA#WHATIS, which includes, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I'm not accusing you of wanting to wage a personal attack, I'm saying that your unsupported accusations are a personal attack by our definition, or at least close to it. If you have a disagreement with someone, you can't attack their character in an attempt to convince others that your point of view is the correct one. An accusation of bias with evidence to support it is allowed, but you haven't done so. And you're now saying that he stated, "his objections to any mention on wikipedia of this composer and his works is because he and his friends had never heard of him". None of JohnInDC's arguments in the deletion discussion are anywhere near to such a thing, his argument was that he could find no mentions in media sources or other reliable sources, so I can only conclude at this point that you've just made up that claim from whole cloth. Unless you can point out where any of what you've claimed is true, I'm going to have to ask you to stop your complaints about JohnInDC's "bias", or you risk being blocked. -- Atama頭 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I almost hesitate to raise the stakes any further here but I feel as though I need to point out that Ken appears to have largely reintroduced the copyvio text back into the Anthony A. Mitchell article. I don't know how to invoke the Duplicate Detector without adding a template to the page but there are several substantially identical passages, and various other tight paraphrases, in the article as it now stands. (If I'm off base here, someone please let me know gently, eh?) JohnInDC (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, and blocked for a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now - can the collective tell me how I can extricate myself from this ANI? I seem to be here because 1) I disagreed with an edit Ken wanted to make to Washington, DC (which edit he reinserted in one variation or another no fewer than 5 times after consensus began to emerge against it); 2) I took an article he created to AfD, supported by clearly and dispassionately stated reasons (even if they may not carry the day); and 3) I blanked several paragraphs of blatant copyvio in that same article. I don't always mind a bit of rough-and-tumble in the heat of things on Talk pages and in edit summaries, but it's a chore to have to defend perfectly routine and proper behavior (even if all I really needed to do was point people to the pertinent discussions) and it's a further chore to keep checking in to make sure that I haven't, through some quirk, been sanctioned anyhow. I'd like to take this off my watchlist. How can I do that? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just let this thread die of a natural death at this point. :) -- Atama頭 04:23, 27 July 2011 (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.