Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has made a !vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson AFD, regarding an article that he wrote; he is currently listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as not being allowed to edit the Wikipedia: namespace. I don't know what the exact rules are in editing restrictions — is this alone enough to breach his editing restriction? Never mind that he did falsely accuse me of having some sort of vendetta against him, and never mind that he did push his "speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" mantra on us again. And never mind that he clearly thinks that his restriction is a joke (just look at his userpage). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• ETA: It says "Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block." Hmm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So should that go in a seperate ANI post or do you want to just change the title of this one? Nefariousski (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to notify him on his Talk page. Woogee (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Notify him about a discussion in a namespace he can't edit, just so… oh never mind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU has blocked Kmweber indefinitely for the violation of editing restrictions. -- Atama頭 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, was in the process of blocking myself as well. Whether he felt it was valid or not is irrelevant - ANI is the most high-traffic page for that sort of thing, and if anyone wanted to speak against the ban, they could have, and in fact at least one someone did. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As ever, I invite review - if deemed appropriate - and do not need to be consulted should another admin decide to lift or vary the sanction. To be clear, I enacted the provisions of the community restrictions and have no opinion on them (unless I commented - in which case my opinion is irrelevant). LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Give the guy a break. Don't wiki-lawyer. The article was created by him and he is the major editor. So when there is an AFD, he is an expert in saying why he thought the article qualifies. So stop the drama, use IAR if you have to, and unblock the guy. After all, you want to encourage him to write articles so stop hounding him. Ipromise (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem awfully draconian. Commenting on an AfD for an article where he's been a major contributor hardly seems like trolling around for trouble. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of community block

Proposal: Current editing restrictions are lifted. In its place is a restriction to not allow Kmweber discussion in RFA, noticeboards, and ArbCom until December 31, 2010 and restrictions after that to be based on article edits between March 6, 2010 and December 31, 2010. Ipromise (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• We've given him way too many chances. Why does he keep slipping through? It's clear that he's not here to play by any of our rules, only to wikilawyer everything to death and force his "everything should have an article, sources are optional" mantra, which is not only wrong but destructive to the wiki. His comments in the AFD suggest that he doesn't believe in the policies that nearly everyone else believes in, and in fact wishes only to refute them — and he's been doing this for at least three years, if not longer. His contributions to article space are minimal; almost always two-sentence stubs with a stub template, no categories and no references. (I asked him about this once, and he said basically that he "can't be arsed" to learn the category tree; his comment in the AFD says that he honestly believes that ONLY contentious info should be sourced if at all.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)TenPound Hammer is the AFD nominator so there is a conflict of interest. He nominated the article for deletion then tried to get the article creator blocked for commenting on the AFD. If TenPound Hammer believes the current editing restrictions stays in place, that is a valid opinion which he is encouraged to express above. But to seek Kmweber's block because of an AFD that TenPound Hammer nominated and that Kmweber created is a very mean thing to do. Ipromise (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're making false accusations. I filed the AFD because I thought the article failed notability. In no way was I doing this just to "bait" Kmweber into getting indeffed. He seemed to be keeping with the promise not to edit WP: space (even though he still calls it out a joke), so I honestly didn't think he would even touch the AFD — after all, I also AFDed one of his other articles the same day and he never touched that AFD. You're awfully accusatory, Ipromise, you know that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the false accusation? Unomi (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Tenpoundhammer. And per Kmweber,[1] keep the indef too. It might have been reasonable to seek an exemption from a community restriction in order to participate in a discussion, but he didn't go that route. Instead he declared in big red letters that the restriction didn't exist and tested its boundaries. His lightweight mainspace history really doesn't merit additional chances. Let him wait on the sidelines and participate in other WMF sites. In half a year I'd consider a return if he pledges to refrain from past problems and hasn't socked. Durova⁴¹² 04:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and seek clarification. And generally support the notion that he is able to defend articles that he is a major contributor to. Unomi (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per Durova. There are reasonable means of asking for permission to violate ones restrictions. "Hey ArbCom, can I have a temporary pass for the sole purpose of discussing this one AFD, since I am a primary editor on the article" would have been the way to go. The attitude displayed by Kmweber over this shows that he is unwilling to work within the bounds of his restrictions, nor is he willing to calmly and reasonably seek amelioration. There's a big difference in approaches, and as with lots of his past actions, Kmweber shows here an utter disdain for the community and for expected behavioral norms. --Jayron32 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The expected behavioural norms are in no way those exhibited by tenpoundhammer. Seriously. Tenpoundhammer could have been slightly more diplomatic than, by his own words, nominate 2 articles which tph attributes to kmw for deletion. He could have gone to KMW first and ask for rationales for keeping it. TPH may actually have done so on the talk page of the article prior to nominating it, I don't know, because this has been brought up *after* the article was deleted, a week *after* kmwebers initial post to the afd. TPH should be ashamed of himself, and those supporting this should consider the circumstances carefully. Unomi (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• KMweber controls his behaviour. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to comment on those AfDs. He's been here long enough that he knew he could have sought a different route. If he actually felt so compelled to comment on those AfDs regardless of his restrictions than its probably further evidence he shouldn't be here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• To Unomi: Its not that he commented on AFDs about his articles, its how he went about it in light of his restrictions. Per Durova's link, his attitude was not "I am under restrictions, how may I work around them so I can still comment at the AFDs" it was "Fuck my restrictions, I will do whatever I want when I want." The former approach would have led to no block at all; indeed it may have led to a loosening of restrictions when he showed he was able to work with others. The latter approach merits a block. --Jayron32 00:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? — I missed the discussion that led to the unblock with restriction, and here we are are: It Didn't Work Out. Support the indef. Put a cherry on top. Jack Merridew 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• You don't see a problem with TPH nominating at least 1, 2, 3 of KMWs pages and articles for deletion on the same day, without having the courtesy decency to approach kmw for a venue of response? Right, It Didn't Work Out. However you may feel about the guy, you must admit that this is pretty low. Unomi (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. I don't know what to say. Not that I need to. The Block Log speaks for itself JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Err, what does that mean exactly? Should we indef everyone that has a block log? How about this guy? Unomi (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per Jayron32.  Sandstein  07:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Right, lets block him 1 week after he initially commented on an afd of an article he was the main contributor to. Ignoring that TPH offered up 2 of kmws user pages for deletion on the same day, even though he arguably should have known that nothing had changed since the last time he nominated them for deletion. You must know this can't be right. Unomi (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since the "no Wikipedia space" restriction was placed, notwithstanding that he disputes it, KMWeber has not edited in the Wikipedia namespace until this incident. The main reason for the restriction was, IIRC, to stop drama-mongering, I don't think a !vote on an AfD on an article to which you have significant contributions is a violation of the spirit of that, and AfDs have a timetable which means that a request to vary the restriction might well take you outside the timeframe. We should consider what can be done to allow people to participate in AfDs where they have prior interest when they are under some kind of restriction; I can see why you'd want to keep it to a single comment block with not more than a couple of hundred words. But ignoring restrictions is not the way to challenge them. Perhaps we can let Kurt off the hook this time, but with a clear message that this was not the right way of going about things. LHvU is not given to capricious blocks, I think this was in good faith and defensible, but I think we could probably take a collective deep breath and step back this time. I note that Luna Santin has unblocked him, it would be better if Luna had let LHvU do it based on this discussion. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Kmweber was already given a final warning in December, here. It was for the same reason than this block: Kurt participated in a wikipedia-space page. And he gave the same reason: that he could do it because it directly concerned him. If Kurt is unblocked, he shouldn't be allowed any exception from his wikipedia-space ban.

And, yes, a one week block would have been enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

support an indef. I'd seriously question the admin who unblocked without clear consensus to do so on the ultra super duper last chance.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any restrictions on Kurt from participating in AfDs and support his being unblocked. It is absurd that any article creator could not be permitted to defend the article he or she created. I also think this rather overthetop edit should be undone. Since when is commenting in an AfD, "illegal"?! We have all seen lame non-arguments in AfDs (pretty much any time someone says to delete something as "cruft") that should be discouraged, but even then, they are not "illegal". What law did Kurt break by commenting there? Even if Kurt was under any editing restrictions, he should at least be able to defend an article he created. He made two edits in the discussion, did not spam it, did not start tossing around swear words. What is so problematic there that it breaks a law or is even that big of a deal in Wikipedic rule terms? We should not toss around terms like "illegal" unless if it concerns something like actual libel or intentional copyright violations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked Kmweber at this time. As far as I can see, this is the first infraction of any kind on his topic ban, and multiple users above have expressed opinions that he should be entitled to comment in XfD discussions where he was a major contributor to the page under discussion. A warning might have sufficed, or a short block -- which he's already served -- but indef is a frankly ridiculous response here that I will not abide. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My Hero/Heroine :) Unomi (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what in this guy brings the most severe response from the system. I am disappointed by the response, especially from users whom I respect. I know he has a past and a mile-long block log but I am simply not comfortable with this latest round of his blocking cycle. He has edited sparsely since February and today when he edits to defend his article he gets indefed. I realise that he did this against his topic ban and that the article he was defending was borderline notable. But his was a human response. Please give this guy a comfort zone, on humanitarian grounds, to do something that most people take for granted: defend their own creations. Repeatedly nominating his articles for deletion is traumatic enough for him and at minimum would justifiably make him feel targeted. Getting multiple users, all at the same time trying to ban him after he reflexively ran to the AfD to defend his article simply does not pass any appearance of fairness test. Actions have to be fair and appear to be fair, in an analogous way to the virtues of Caesar's wife. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't see where you had the consensus to unblock. There certainly didn't seem to be it above.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not about editors being in agreement, it is regarding whether decisions are in-line with policy and with the 5 pillars(though generally one hopes they are one and the same), quite frankly the behavior and reactions seem to fall far short of both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, which remains a core principle. Unomi (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, KMWeber is in full control of his actions and if he isn't, he shouldn't be editing wikipedia. No one forced him to respond to that AfD. if he can't help but edit wikispace and knowingly invite drama then he doesn't belong here. If you have evidence of intent to bait, then provide it. Especially since after having his comment struck he came back a week later and did it again. That shows complete intent to disrupt.--Crossmr (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a discussion I find to be necessary or fruitful at the moment. Please reflect on this; are you holding kmweber to a different standard than tenpoundhammer? Unomi (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why because you can't argue against it? You brought it up. And yes, since he is under an editing restriction, he is held to a different standard. It is quite simple. He knowingly and without evidence of physical coercion violated his editing restrictions in an area that he had to know was going to cause drama. Can you say the same about tenpoundhammer?--Crossmr (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I find it a tad unfortunate that you didn't choose to redact your comment above or back it up with diffs on the back of kmwebers response to your comment. Editing restrictions are meant to ensure that an editor does not cause drama, it is not meant to take away a right to response(that would be against WP:CIVIL). Perhaps we should move this whole discussion to 'neutral ground'? WP:EQ refers to Ethic of reciprocity for good reason. Second of all, the standard that I was referring to was regarding presumption of intent or reasonable ability to foresee consequences. Do you believe that tph was was unable to foresee that drama and / or duress would be caused by nominating at least 3 pages attributed to kmw for deletion? Or do you believe that he was unable to control himself? Clearly tph welcomed the outcome, why else would he declare lhvu his hero? Clearly tph brought it to AN/I in order to facilitate such an outcome, as an experienced editor he would know that there was no urgency here, kmw responded to the afd 1 week ago. Consider that 20 mins after creating the issue here, having had no response, he adds: ETA: It says "Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block." Hmm.. Yet still stated I didn't explicitly ask for him to be blocked; I asked if he should be blocked.. Consider further that the 2 user pages he nommed for afd were previously closed as keep, and were stated by all involved to be within policy, why would he have imagined that this had changed?. WP:CIVIL clearly states: It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.. Unomi (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

His response is immaterial, whether his comment was struck out first or not, both were made while he was under editing restrictions. The time line of the striking out doesn't supersede the timeline of his being restricted. I find it a tad unfortunate you continue to try to dance around the issue when it is clearly obvious that he was under an editing restriction and chose the route to generate the most drama. Sorry, can you point to the part of CIVIL that says its okay to violate your editing restrictions to respond to an AfD of an article you once edited? I'll wait while you look it up. Editing wikipedia isn't a right, so there is no "right of response". tph was not under editing restrictions. If you'd like to propose some for him, feel free. I'll even give you a little toque so it'll last longer. If you'd like to read up on something you should do some reading on Personal Resonpsibility. kmweber seems to utterly lack it and you're enabling him. He controlled his actions. No one forced him. If you can't deny that or provide evidence to the contrary, then we really have nothing further to discuss here. I asked you if you had evidence that tph was intentionally baiting kmweber to provide it. I haven't seen any. If you think tph did something untoward start a separate discussion and provide evidence. But unless you can demonstrate how someone forced him to make those edits, he's got nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you truly have a burning desire to discuss this then feel free to ping me on irc, but at this point I see no reason for us to waste yet more foundation resources on ANI threads. Unomi (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"indef is a frankly ridiculous response..." Why? Is it too long, or too short? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe she meant not definite enough? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will check the restriction, then, to see whether it should have been the short or long indefinite... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can I hear just one good reason why we should keep bringing Kmweber back? One good reason? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is none. Plain and simple: he violated his editing restriction. No ifs, ands, or buts. It is not complicated. Just like some other editors whom I won't mention, he is apparently entitled to an infinite number of "second chances". — Huntster (t @ c) 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unomi has suggested on IRC that this discussion be moved to a talk space or otherwise non-WP: space so that Kmweber can reply. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. Those end up being missed. Moving to subpages never accomplished anything than to try and prevent a discussion from actually going somewhere.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The block rational seems thin and heavily bureaucratic. It's continuing proof that when it comes to getting blocked, it's not what you do but who your friends are (and as important, who your enemies are). I'm not fan of Kurt but I've rarely seen an editor hounded as much as he has been. I'd be as argumentative if I was faced with the venom he has put up with. The whole thing is a little high school clique-like. Sorry if I soiund harsh. RxS (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Trouts all around. One for TPH, one for Kurt, one for the blocking admin, and one for the unblocking admin. Really? Was this necessary? I mean, come on, Kurt was harmless and not causing trouble up until this point. Couldn't we just leave him alone? The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• I largely agree with The Wordsmith above. Kurt made two edits arguing to keep an article he created. Heaven forbid! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• He was restricted from editing anything in wikipedia space. He did, and look where we are. This is the exact reason he was restricted from doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, maybe. I don't think the content of his arguments caused the drama (which has been the problem in the past), and I don't think we properly thought through how people should comment on content issues in such cases. If the ban is designed to include AfDs on articles where Kurt has significant content edits then we should say so explicitly I think. Piling in to other AfDs and noticeboard threads is obviously not going to fly but I can see why this particular case would be perceived as it was by Kurt. The main thing is that it does not seem to be part of a pattern of pushing the limits, and actually it does not seem to have had any effect on the outcome of the debate either. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• He was told all wikipedia space, he doesn't need someone else to come along and say, "and yes, we mean AfDs, and yes we mean projects, and yes we mean AN/I and yes we mean RFAs, and yes we mean...etc.etc." In the absence of any exceptions it means ALL wikipedia space.--Crossmr (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why he would or should be restricted from AfDs. Looking at discussions in which we both participated, his edits strike me as expressing valid viewpoints: [2] (1 edit to the discussion; explains why he thinks it should be kept) compared with say the far more antagonistic [3] from the same discussion by a different editor who says to "Build a bonfire and burn this crap." Or [4] (a single edit to the discussion, no attacks on other editors, not just a vote) and even if there is a concern that Kurt is somehow "too inclusionist," well, by that standard we would disallow delete votes in the same discussion from accounts that think they have a closed-minded "mission" to delete, would never argue to keep (that account never has, not once, as far as I can tell), and come here for sexual pleaseure... Now even something like here, he did not link to WP:Speedy keep or something, so his reply seems fair. Moreover, even if we disagree with his stance that existing is sufficient for inclusion, so what? It is just a stance. No one is forced to reply to him. A closing admin should be able to weigh the opinion accordingly. As for his more recent edits, this question is fair and reasonable and politely worded while being academically challenging. Many editors share that frustration with the repeated subjective use of "notability" in discussions. We have a whole category of editors with userboxes opposing notability and proposals that come up from time time saying to scrap this subjective/elitist term. I do not know the history between TPH and Kurt, so I have no comment on his accusation in his initial comment. Going back to his last AfD prior, we have this. Personally, I don't like copy and paste comments and the initial keep is similar to other keeps from this user, but the subsequent question might be valid and even with regards to the copy and paste, again, I see rapid fire "Delete per nom" and "Delete as cruft" style votes (sometimes three or even four in under a minute!) by several accounts over and over that don't really contribute anything to the discussion or reflect any interest in looking for sources let alone reading the article, but if those aren't banned, then I don't see why the opposite would be either. If anything, we should encourage Kurt, like all users, to not only participate in AfDs, but to go beyond the discussion to source searching and incorporating. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Because he was restricted from all wikipedia space without exception. That is why he was restricted. He should continue to be restricted since he demonstrates that he would prefer to take the route of most disruption rather than work with the community. That's why. Unlike many around here I don't use WP:TRADEAGOODCONTRIBFORBADBEHAVIOR cheat sheet that is so popular with trying to excuse and coddle disruptive users.--Crossmr (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific question

What do we think should be done in the case of users restricted from editing in project space (something which is not as unusual as it once was) in the specific case of AfD discussions on articles to which they have significant past contributions? I would say this should be an exception to general project-space bans, provided that involvement on the AfDs does not become disruptive. Line by line rebuttals after every !vote is obviously going to be perceived as a problem but a single !vote with rationale would seem to me to be a reasonable thing to allow in the specific case where the user has significant prior contributions to the article under discussion. I don't want to open the door to Wikilawyering here but I do think we need to be fair to people. The point of topical bans is, as I see it, to allow people to continue to contribute to content but to keep them away from their hot-button topics. I think you could argue this either way and I think we should come to a consensus view of how it should be handled in general. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, should we just do it here, village pump or an rfc? Unomi (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You start making exceptions and they argue for me. Suddenly it was in the "spirit" of the rule and not the "letter". No. If they're restricted from editing wikipedia space, they're restricted from editing wikipedia space. If they have some vitally crucial to the debate (in the terms of sources), then it can be edited into the article as necessary and the discussion can carry on from there. I can't say that there is every a reason where a specific person "needs" to participate in an AfD debate. AfD debates usually come up on things like sources and they don't need to edit the debate to provide those sources.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions need to be noted, so that uninvolved admins requested to act upon an alleged violation know precisely the remit. A working model that an exception to WP namespace pages bans/restrictions would be AfD's/DRV's, GA/FA discussions relating to articles previously edited would be fine, but it would need to be spelt out within the topic ban wording. That way, there is no confusion as to the extent of the ban when the wording is reviewed (and people under total exclusion type bans would not need that reinforced within the wording). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have voiced this opinion previously, but unfortunately, the "specifying the exceptions" part has often been forgotten during sanction proposal discussions (rather than always deliberately left out). I tend to avoid letting that problem exist when I make a proposal precisely so that enforcement is practical, and does not become as much of a headache as the alleged violation(s) that might later occur. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be able to at least defend articles they created in AfDs, barring they were banned for something like real world harassment, i.e. in which they are permanently blocked anyway. Any unblocked account, under other restrictions or not, should be able to defend articles they created under the normal participation conditions, i.e. if he is not swearing and tossing out severe personal attacks, then okay, but in this case, he made a mere two edits to the discussion which do not strike me as the least bit disruptive. I understand some editors did not like his RfA comments and apparently admin board ones as well. Upon reviewing his Afd contributions, I see nothing overly wrong with them. Even if some accounts don't like when he says "Keep, it exists," so what? We see lame non-arguments ("Delete, it's cruft") all the time in AfDs. We should probably not make a bigger deal out of them then they merit as any reasonable closing admin will hopefully ignore the weak arguments anyway. So, yes, like all of us, no one should be making personal attacks and such, but if he wants to make a mere two edits defending an article he created and therefore might know something about, just let him and if anyone thinks his arguments are weak, ignore them rather than start admin threads that only exacerbate tensions and distract us from improving content. Take care everyone and best wishes! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Per WP:OWN, having created an article doesn't give an editor any special privileges relating to that article. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with A Nobody on this point. While no one owns any article, a major contributor, particularly when that editor is also the creator, is particularly likely to have useful information and views worth considering. That is why CSD and AFD taggers are strongly encouraged to notify the original creator, and all the scripted tools for that do so automatically AFAIK. The alleged disruptions by kmweber involved "mass-!voting". If limited to discussions of articles of which he was the creator or q major contributor, he could hardly "mass" comment, and the process would be more transparent. In the absence of a modification of the restriction, I would, in principle, be willing to post on his behalf any comments in any such AfD discussion, whether I agree with them or not. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A major contributor can't argue anything that anyone else can't. There is nothing any individual person can do in an AfD that no one else can do. Most AfDs comes down to a lack of sources and they don't need to edit an AfD to provide those. Kurt's language on his talk page had a tinge of WP:OWN to it and that isn't remotely a good reason to ignore your sanctions.--Crossmr (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course a major contributor can argue something that someone else can't, especially for marginal articles a major contributor may be the only editor who is familiar with the material or had cause to believe that the existence of the article had merit in the first place. Kurts arguments or behavior on his talk page is immaterial to a general discussion of how these things might be better handled in the future. At the very least a person in such a case should be granted a proxy or other means of informing the discussion. Unomi (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What? AfD discussions are supposed to be decided on policy. So what is it that they can argue that is going to make a difference. Their opinion that it should be kept shouldn't really influence the outcome unless they've provided evidence to support it that wasn't already in the article. Evidence they could add to the article without editing the AfD. There is nothing preventing them from improving the article or addressing concerns on the article and then posting on the nominators or someone else's page who is involved in the AfD and asking them to reconsider the improved article. If there are questions over a borderline source they would be just as free to defend it on the article's talk page (which is where a borderline source should be discussed first). Otherwise, in what scenario do you envision that someone would be incapable of addressing a deletion reason without being able to access the AfD, which no one else on wikipedia could do?--Crossmr (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I frequently find myself arguing with accounts in AfDs who have no real knowledge or the topic under discussion and nor are they even interested in looking for sources. Rather, they just decide that they don't like the topic and so vote rather than argue to delete. By contrast, an article creator might actually be familiar with the subject and willing to look for and add sources in order to rescue it, including sources that might not be fully accessible on a standard Google Search. Google Books, for example, only gives snippet views of some books and some editors might not even have access to something like J-Stor. Many subjects are actually discussed in reliable secondary source journal and magazine articles as well as even full length books that are not always accessible online or in the case of something like Google News, one needs a paid subscription to access. I would much rather hear from someone who has a greater likelihood to have these sources or an interest in acquiring them and utilizing them than ignoring such a crucial opinion. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge and what matters more is the opinion and efforts of those who have, look for, and incorporate the sources than merely accounts that just toss out abbreviated links to ever changing guideline and policy pages. And let's be frank, we know many accounts show up in an Afd to never acknowledge or return even if the article has been drastically improved since nomination. We need those improving it to indicate as much in the actual discussion so that key development is not glossed over. I cannot help but ascertain that simply allowing Kurt to have made his two posts and either replied or ignored them in the discussion would have been far more favorable and far more constructive use of everyone's time than making an issue out of something easily ignored at worst. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator is closing an article based on votes and not reading the policies and arguments made and checking the article itself than that is matter for deletion review or administrator review. It isn't a reason to allow disruptive users to start trying to make exceptions on their restrictions on the off chance they might have a close of an AfD on their article done by an admin who isn't doing his job properly. If someone has been restricted from editing wikipedia space because of their constant disruption, I don't find their opinion to be all that crucial to begin with. But you're not describing anything that shouldn't first be discussed on the article talk page. If sources are questioned, they should be discussed on the article talk page before being taken to AfD. If there is a question about the sources the party is more than welcome to give much fuller details about the source on the talk page, which is where it should go so future editors can find it if they also question it. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge yes and we're doing it as a community. What matters most is that the people who participate in that process can do so without being disruptive. That is first and foremost. he had choices and chose the most disruptive path before him. Something he was restricted from doing. As durova pointed out he could have contacted someone, as I've pointed out he could have addressed sources on the talk page and asked the nominator to look at that again. If admins are closing debates properly there is zero reason for any restricted user to edit them. They can address whatever concerns there are at the article level. If there is a problem in the process, creating further issues by creating exceptions for some users who are otherwise restricted doesn't solve that problem. It then gets into a battle over what is a "major" contributor. Someone says 50%, someone else says 30%, someone else says just 10%, do we count characters? Visible words on the page? If someone simply makes an edit to a page is he then allowed to go edit the AfD. Would we then see restricted editors simply making a single edit to a page so they can go get involved in the AfD? no. As I said above. Give them inch, they'll take a mile.--Crossmr (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AfDs come down to polices applied to the specific facts of an article. A creator or major editor can, in many cases, assist in establishing those facts. Such an editor may know better where to find sources than most other editors commenting -- not always, but often enough to take note of. Such an editor may have relevant information on which sources in a particular field are reliable and why. Such an editor may have relevant information about the context of the article that most editors do not. Granted, this info could be presented via a proxy. Granted also, a different editor might have any or all of this information, and might happen to see the AfD and comment. But that might NOT happen either. Yes an editor might be disruptive. In such a case that editor might be blocked (note that in the instant case kmweber was not disruptive, although he was also not persuasive). It is said above that no one editor can do anythign at an afd that anyone else can't. And in a formal sense this is true. But it is common at an AfD for one editor to do something that no one else in fact does. For one editor to present sources or arguments or information that persuade others and turn the result of the discussion. That is why it is a discussion, and that is who it is supposed to work. And it is not by any means inevitable that had one editor not offered those sources or arguments someone else would have. AfDs are limited in time and space. Most AfDs have only a few editors commenting, who are not always really representative of the community as a whole. This is a problem with the AfD system. Restrictions of major contributors to an article will be all to likely to worsen the situation. The possible benefits -- avoidance of some possible disruption -- do not IMO match the possible costs -- possibly valid arguments or views not being considered. DES ^(talk) 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

and again, it all can and should be provided on the article talk page if it the sources are questioned. Both to solve the immediate question and to help future questions. The sources can be edited or clarified on the article just fine without editing the AfD. The user can then ask the nominator via their talk page to recheck them or ask another user to make a note on the AfD. Sorry, but I still fail to see anything which necessitates a restricted user from having their restrictions lifted. If that editor didn't want to be in that position, they shouldn't have been disruptive in the first place. With proper process the admin should be checking the article before deleting it and comparing it to the argument. If the article has been significantly improved to render the argument invalid, he shouldn't be deleting it. If the admin isn't closing properly that is a separate issue from trying to make exceptions for restricted users. And you haven't even begun to address what is considered a "major" contributor. That alone could take months to hammer out and you'd still have wish-washing over it when it came time to try and handle users. We're not avoiding possible disruption when we restrict a user. A user only ends up restricted from wikipedia space after they've been significantly disruptive. It doesn't happen from a single comment. It happens after long term disruption so it isn't done without good reason, when it is done the community has decided that there contributions in that area are no longer welcome. What's going to happen is some restricted editor is going to go from AfD, to DRV, to AN/I or wherever because is tangentially related to the AfD for which they're exempted, which will only result in more drama.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are taking an excessively melodramatic approach to all this, why don't you just tell use how you really feel? In this particular case kmweber did not disrupt anything, he defended his article with 3 posts to the afd (as I recall) yet we are now faced with walls of text that read like the end of times is upon us, is this a disruption we should lay at his feet? Should there be actual disruption of an afd or improper use of ancillary venues then I trust that the editor in question will be made to regret it, but there is no reason to assume to worst without cause. Unomi (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being intentionally obtuse since you asked. The specific question is about users in general. Not just kmweber. In fact my last post had nothing to do with KMweber. We talked about Kmweber above and you didn't want to have anything more to do with it. So which is it? If you want to continue talking about him we can do so in the section above, this section is for discussion of sanctions in general and should exceptions be made for users to defend articles on which they are a "major" contributor (whatever that means). My answer is quite simply and will always be, no. There is zero reason to afford them that luxury if they've found themselves in a position to be restricted from editing wikipedia space. We don't just do that lightly. There is nothing that they could say in an AfD that couldn't and shouldn't be said on an article talk page that would genuinely have an application to the AfD process.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

By that argument we shouldn't have centralized AfD discussions at all, since such discussions can occur on article talk pages -- as indeed they once did, before the creation of VfD, which later became AfD. Comments on article talk pages may well not be seen by other participants in the discussion and so may not persuade or inform them. An AfD is not supposed to be merely a bunch of people posting arguments for an admin to evaluate (even assuming that the admin reviews the article talk page, which is not part of the standard instructions to AfD closers), it is supposed to be a discussion. This means that comments should be read by and reacted to by other participants. Restricting one user's comments to a quite different page hinders such discussion, and therefore makes the AfD potentially less useful than it could be. As to what constitutes being a "major contributor", that is no more subjective than having "substantial coverage" -- a matter often debated at AfDs -- nor for the matter of that than many other Wikipedia standards. If the matter comes up and a question is raised, an uninvolved admin can review and if s/he thinks the "major contributor" standard isn't met, warn the restricted user or if need be issue a block. In many cases it is crystal clear when a given user is a major contributor -- lots of articles listed at AfD have only one non-trivial contributor, ignoring edits to add tags, formatting and the like. If the user involved becomes disruptive on the AfD that can be dealt with. If the user has in the past been disruptive on AfDs for articles s/he created, then the restriction can specifically include such, it merely should not do so by default and without specific discussion of the issue. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Wikipedia is usually served better by pragmatism than legalistic interpretations of rules or even editing restrictions. If the user is behaving and helping an AFD debate on an article he's had content involvement with, then treat it as an exception to the restriction. If he's obviously being unhelpful or disruptive, then revoke that implicit privelage and come down like a tonne of bricks on him. Sure, the letter of the restriction may not allow him to contribute, but this looks to me like a valid place for IAR, as long as it is helping the project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am actually arguing for an explicit exception, not for creating one on the spot via IAR. The problem with IAR in such a case is lack of predictability. If an editor comments despite the letter of a restriction, s/he may be blocked with no significant discussion of the value or non-value of the particular edits involved, by an admin who simply points to the letter of the restriction (as in fact the blocking admin did in the current case). While in a different case an admin may take the view espoused by Scott MacDonald. Thus an editor subject to a restriction would not know with reasonable assurance what conduct would or would not result in a block. I am arguing that when a restriction would by its terms cover AfD, it should be interpreted as always having an exception for AFDs of articles where the editor is the creator of or a major contributor to the article, unless there is an explicit provision to restrict AfD participation in such cases. In short I am arguing for a "leagalistic" view of editing restrictions, because some will choose to treat them that way anyway, merely for a specific amendment to the general rule in such cases. One of the principles of a legal system is that people ought to be able to determine in advance what conduct is subject to penalty, and while Wikipedia is not a government or a legal system, that principle should IMO apply in general here. (As usual I have little support for the use of IAR, a policy I think we would be better off without.) DES ^(talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see six editors who have for one reason or another supported the idea of such a general exception, and only two who have opposed it, one quite briefly and one quite extensively. What would be the best way forward to confirm and document such a consensus? DES ^(talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Make that 7. I was of a mind with Scott, but DES convinced me; in this case, he did, as Scott said, "behave", but still got his ton of bricks. This is a reasonable exception, and due to kmweber's reputation with several people who would like to see him gone, I think an "official" (much as I hate that word) exception is the best way to go. Kmweber should be allowed to participate constructively in AFD's of articles he has previously edited, and discussions that are about him. I assume an uninvolved admin will come along eventually, decide whether there's consensus to change the wording of the ban, and make the change. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, I find any Draconian punishments to be a major problem. I would suggest that no one be barred from a single short comment (under 100 words?) in a WP process page concerning articles etc. with which they have been active. Such a single comment is hardly likely to upset the great order of the cosmos, and will prevent cases in which (for example) one editor decides to nom for deletion lots of stuff from a person who is barred from making even a simple comment on the process (without claiming this is the precise current situation). Collect (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Such an exception would easily be gamed, which would lead to further drama. It should either be "allowed to comment" or "not allowed to comment." This is something where a gray area is just inviting abuse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I think differently than everyone else here on Wikipedia, but this question occurs to me: why can't the individual Guy mentions in his post above first ask someone for permission to participate? If a person who has been banned from a given namespace decides to add a comment, her/his contributions will be ignored or deleted -- unless some uninvolved party runs interference. Doing so will only make their contributions more convincing. While we can't make our fellow Wikipedians think, we shouldn't unduly mollicuddle them when there is a reasonable alternative she/he can take. -- llywrch (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations where I have proposes such an exception as a standard for the future. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber

In light of the above discussion I hereby formally propose that User:Kmweber's editing restriction be modified as follows:

If an article which Kmweber has created, or to which he has substantially contributed, is nominated by another editor at AfD, Kmweber is permitted to edit the AfD page for that article to express his views in non-disruptive fashion, and is not subject to block for doing so. Expressing minority or unpopular views in a civil fashion shall not be considered "disruptive", although making personal attacks would be considered disruptive. An uninvolved admin may assess, using commonsense judgment, whether Kmweber has been a major contributor to the article, if the question is raised. Disruptive editing of any AfD page, or editing the AfD page of an article to which he clearly was not a major contributor, will still be grounds for a block without further notice.

I hereby seek consensus for this modification. The discussion above, in the #Specific Question section, seems to me to establish that there is not a consensus for a restriction to prohibit such edits in general. I hereby ask for a formal decision that such a restriction is not needed in this specific case. DES ^(talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I notified every editor (besides myself) who commented in the #Specific question section of this discussion in identical wording. Several appear to be on wikibreak at the moment.DES ^(talk) 16:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• oppose per my reasoning above. He made a poor choice and several people supported the block. We don't reward poor behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above and with the extension that he be allowed to edit in all AFds as any normal editor would. I have never been persuaded that his contributions to afDs are disruptive and he should have never had any restrictions concerning them. He should be able to edit Afds under the same guidelines and policies as everyone else. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Claims of disruption are unsubstantiated. Şłџğģő 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support (ec) per my comments at the prior discussion and my belief that Draconian punishments at any time have unintended consequences. Collect (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support this specific amendment to his topic ban, and I affirm the ban in general. Also as a point of procedure, i'd just like to note that I made a minor edit to the proposal text; I put a comma inside the quotation mark in "disruptive," The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I used, as I use in general, "logical quotation", as recommended by the relevant MOS section, so the placement of the comma outside the quotes was intentional. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per DES, Scott Mac, Floquenbeam, Unomi, Şłџğģő, Wordsmith, A Nobody, and Collect both in this section and the one just above. Did I forget anyone else? They sure saved me a lot of typing since they covered nicely the points I wanted to raise. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think it should be much shorter: "If an article which Kmweber has created, or to which he has substantially contributed, is nominated by another editor at AfD, Kmweber is permitted to edit the AfD page for that article to express his views in non-disruptive fashion". The rest is superfluous, IMO. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess this is a support. I think the point is, this whole back-and-forth is unhelpful, growing uglier by the minute, and needs to end. In case anybody, including Kurt, has any questions about what he can and cannot do, this thread ought to be the definitive source for an answer. All the extra language should be unnecessary, but it doesn't hurt to have it there. Şłџğģő 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I would not object to Guy's phrasing. Since this grew out of a general statement not spellign out what some see as a commensense exception and others apparently do not, i wanted to spell things out completely. And besides I may be a bit over-verbose at times. There appears no difference of intent. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm here hoping that Kmweber doesn't test the limits of his ban, and that admins can handle any supposed violation without raising storms of drama or wheel-warring. I hope that I don't have to regret my support. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support the current phrasing, tho I prefer Guy's phrasing. I'd support adding a statement that he can participate in noticeboard threads about him. To be honest, I'd support lifting the sanctions completely. I'm disappointed it takes this much effort to make a commonsense tweak to something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I too agree with Guy in this, but The perfect is the enemy of the good etc. Unomi (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support either DES' or Guys version, but would also add FA/GA discussions regarding articles to which he is a major contributor on the same non-disruptive basis. I would not go as far as Floquenbeam in allowing participation on Admin Noticeboards on discussions regarding said articles, because the temptation (and indeed practice) of discussion becoming heated may be too much for Kurt to resist - and the idea is to have him continue contributing to article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) ps. My block was completely correct; this discussion should have happened before.

Is it likely that an article that he worked on would be nominated for GA/FA in the foreseeable future? If not then this modification is unnecessary; & if one is so nominated, the quickest & easiest thing would be for him to contact some third party -- perhaps an Admin -- & explain the situation & get permission. That way he is showing good faith, & we don't need to open a new WP:AN/I thread to hash things out. -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GA discussions take place on the article's subpage. No need for an exception for that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations where I have proposed such an exception as a standard for the future. DES ^(talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor using hacked AWB code

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games § Moby_Games_ext._links_removal

User:Lorson modified the open source code of AWB to make hundreds of edits. I am not sure there was a consensus for these edits. I contacted the editor in their talk page in User talk:Lorson and after a short reply in which never denied to hack the code, they kept mass edits despite of the reaction of a number of editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor is operating an unapproved bot making more than 10 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe he has finished this "run", so a block now wouldn't really be preventing anything. Have to find whether these edits were valid, and if not, rollback.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Reach Out to the Truth did 200 rollbacks in the last hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson (talk · contribs) does not appear at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users. Whether he's using AWB in a bot or directly, if he doesn't have permission, he has to stop now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the issue is, the only problem is that User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth abused their rollback privilege. And I got some rather hostile message from User:Mephistophelian on my talk page that I ignored. I was only using AWB to make my edits faster.--Lorson (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But if you don't have permission to use AWB, then you may not use it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB needs permission, which Lorson doesn't have. The editor hacked the code to run an unapproved bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't some sort of accidental-use-without-permission. If someone has gone to the trouble of building a hacked version of AWB, it's clearly an intentional breach of the requirement that AWB editors must be authorised. I suggest that Lorson reverts all the edits done with unauthorised AWB, or faces a block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson has been tempblocked for running an unapproved bot (which he was essentially doing). An admin may wish to block Reach Out to the Truth and/or JasonAQuest, remove rollback, or do nothing to them at all, their call, I have to leave the computer at this moment in time.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that both User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth have been warned about their use of rollback for this incident and I've pointed them to here. Lorson has a further comment at User talk:Lorson#Block. something lame from CBW 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

JasonAQuest did more than 750 rollbacks in an hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Lorson failed to obtain agreement or support for his/her mass revisions, I fail to see why two users should lose privileges for rolling back articles to a state which had been agreed upon by the majority of editors whom it concerned [5]. There was also concern that Lorson's edits were the result of a conflict of interest and hypocrisy, i.e. removing links to Mobygames while adding contentless spam links to GameFAQs. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw someone engaging in massive deletions of links that had withstood years of scrutiny. It seemed like vandalism, was at the least disruptive, and would be more difficult to fix if left for later, so I acted with the tools I'd been given (which included rollback) to address it right away. "Don't fix it yourself" didn't occur to me, and I apologize. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The removal of MobyGames links was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Moby Games ext. links removal. There was no consensus for removal of the links, but he continued doing so anyway. Back in October he had added GameFAQs links to numerous articles, and I find it odd that now he wants to remove MobyGames links from articles. As far as I can tell he hasn't removed links to any other sites, just MobyGames. Reach Out to the Truth 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why users should be warned for rolling back edits of an unapproved bot. I'd sooner thank them, no? Rollback is intended to make stuff like this easier. Cleaning up after an unapproved bot fits the bill in my mind. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:02, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

These issues can't be sorted out with rollbacking that gives no explanation why it's done. This is independent of who is right. Recall that in edit wars both sides claim to be right. Reporting the incident helps in solving it. We had one day and half of edits and reverts. I am still not sure what the actions from now on should be. What dies the Video games project say? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing for a few edits and some reverts. We are discussing for a day of edits, reverts, then 3 days pause and again edits and reverts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread would indicate the person running the unapproved bot is wrong, and would seem to serve as all the explanation necessary. If we'd have waited, other edits might have been done to the articles, and then each one would've had to be sorted out individually -- which probably never would've actually gotten done. It would be good to be able to specify an edit summary for rollbacks, but when someone runs an unapproved bot I think that qualifies as a case where we can use a quick clean-up method. It's not an edit war if you're just cleaning up after something like the above violation. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:13, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacking was been doing before my report here and stopped after it as long with Lorson's mass edits. For one hour Lorson's edit were done simultaneously with rollbacks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if he began rolling back before this report, the fixing still seemed to be justified in the end. He probably should've made a report, but in that event, beginning to clean up before he gained consensus on the appropriate action would be fine, as long as he was right about their being in violation, which he seems to have been. Again if he would've waited then an eventual mass-revert might've become impossible, so I have to be glad he did what he did. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:24, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The VG wikiproject endorses the use of links to mobygames, when they are beneficial to the article (primarily for game credits, which they usually carry extensive lists for, such that we would never include (eg). Also extensive and cross-platform screenshots.). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources for details. The few times I have seen this previously discussed, it was agreed that mass-deletion of any links that were added in 2005 was counterproductive. A checking effort was undertaken, though it didn't get through all uses of the template. The project's editors are (or should be) aware that checked-links-that-are-deemed-insufficiently-useful may be removed.

Also, Lorson appears to be a SPA, having nothing but pro-gamefaqs.com and anti-mobygames.com edits in their contribs. (gamefaqs is listed in the same VG/sources subsection, but has tighter restrictions on appropriate usage). I don't know how that gets 'dealt' with, but it sounds like the editor otherwise intends on returning to doing the same thing at a slower pace once their block expires, so it probably should be. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:VG/RS is not relevant in this case, as it discusses sites used as sources not ELs. SharkD  Talk  02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

His behaviour has been farcical. First, he joins to spam GameFaqs. Get's called out, and throws a fit over MobyGames because it's so unfair. He then downloads the AWB source code, alters it, with the sole intention of bypassing the clearly stated authorisation procedure, in order to run bot-edits to remove four year old links against consensus. How is that remotely acceptable? The hacking of AWB is bad faith. This is a single purpose account, whose purpose is detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. He still has thousands of edits which are live - they should not stand. - hahnchen 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and reverted the edits as unapproved botting. Next time please do bring situations like this to an admin, WP:ANI or WP:BON. Admins are uniquely positioned to quickly undo any unapproved bot edits with &bot=1, rollback summary, and mass rollback. –xeno^talk 04:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop it with the 'hacked' references

AWB is distributed under the GPL, the right to view and modify the source to fit your needs is enshrined in the license deliberately chosen by the programmer. Running an unapproved bot for a task without consensus is a Bad Thing(tm) but everyones running around like he committed some horrible, awful deed in respect to AWB. He didn't. That's how open source works. --M^ask? 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're familiar with open-source software, you should know that "hack" is a judgment-neutral verb. It means he took a tool and modified it to suit his purposes.... which in this case were to evade WP's requirement that it be used only by people who had demonstrated themselves trustworthy. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be established that "hacking" is not necessarily a bad-faith action. For the record, I run a "hacked" version of Huggle, which is configured to use global and project config pages in my userspace, and has a couple bug fixes. This simply allows me much more freedom in how I can configure it. And it also manages to speed up the program so that it isn't so slow, thereby allowing me to spot and remove vandalism at a much faster pace... Is it bad faith? I would certainly hope not... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I will opine that when someone sees a bunch of rapid-fire edits regarding the same thing across a clearly-defined subset of articles is indeed a cause for alarm amongst editors. The bot policy is there for a reason because of the potentially destructive edits they can make if something goes wrong. That's why we only allow users that have been approved in advance by the community (either through WP:BAG for normal bots or by individual admins in the case of semi-automatic scripts like AWB) so that we exactly know why such edits are happening in a certain fashion and at a high rate. Whether or not the software used is open source has nothing to do with this – it's how it's being used with respect to applicable policy and normal procedure. –MuZemike 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hacking" is not a bad action in general but "hacking AWB" to skip its checkpage and do mass edits against consensus and approval it is. Using AWB needs 500 edits in mainspace and APPROVAL, not hacking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See, you're highlighting the wrong issue. He was freely exercising his rights given to him by the developer. He made it skip the checkpage, that's a requirement to use it on en.wiki, not to use the software. Focus on the edit's against consensus and the unapproved bot, violations of our rules, because he did nothing to AWB that voided his license or right to use AND modify the code. Everyone seems to be getting pissed for the wrong reasons with this. --M^ask? 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no one is getting pissed off because he hacked the software. They are pissed off because of what that hacking demonstrates: a willful intent to defy policy. No one is complaining about him violating any software license (which he obviously didn't); that's not what hack means. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. AWB is open source. Take it, play with it, develop it, do whatever you want but not bot-like edit in wikipedia. The reason I emphasized in the title in the "hacked AWB" because the edit summaries where writing "using AWB". Well, it wasn't the official AWB and the edit summaries were misleading giving wrong impression on the policy around AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What I find odd about this discussion is that there are several editors at the very top of WP:MOSTEDITS, including one of the AWB maintainers, who routinely do 10-hour-long full-speed AWB runs from their user account. Leave them a talk page message in the middle of a run and their session will stop but they'll take hours to get back to you. Obviously they are away from their computer while it runs in bot mode. Obviously they have "hacked" AWB so that they can run it as a bot from their user account. This has been so obvious for so long that I had assumed it was an open secret. Personally I don't have a problem with it; but we can't very well complain about someone "hacking" AWB to bypass our approvals mechamisn, when we've been turning a blind eye to it for years. Hesperian 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly no fan of those editors flouting AWB rules of use but I am forced to admit that most of the edits they make are uncontroversial; this was clearly not the case here. –xeno^talk 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of folks that Hesperian is referring to above have BAG approval for (well, the vast majority) of the tasks that their performing, anyway. People aren't really "flouting the rules" if we give them permission to run in full auto, ya know. There's no hacking required to use AWB in full bot mode either, since it's built to be able to do so as long as the account that it's logged in to has both AWB permission and a bot flag.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm talking about user accounts not bot accounts. Hesperian 08:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? Because I never used my user account to run in bot mode. Check discussion in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_14#AWB_doesn.27t_recognize_bot_status_from_CheckPage. I am the one who asked the disactivation of this "feature" in AWB. Moreover, I think I reply to messages in my talk page fairly fast. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he's referring to you, you are not at the "very top of WP:MOSTEDITS". In any case, this is really an issue for WT:AWB as it is peripheral to this ANI, which I think is resolved at this point unless Lorson continues making mass edits without approval/consensus. –xeno^talk 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no policy requiring users to get approval to run semi-automated tools, and as bot policy is currently written you are not required to get approval to run automated scripts at high edit rates though it is advise. As long as there is someone clicking yes, or otherwise approving each edit you are not technically violating policy, though doing high edit rates (i.e. 10 edits per minute) kind of violates WP:SENSE and is WP:GAMEy. As far as hacking AWB as soon as you modify the code it is no longer AWB, but rather your own software using AWB code thus you can say that the rules of AWB use don't necessarily apply, though again this is certainly WP:GAMEy. —nn123645 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we reading the same bot policy? "Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the bot account and possible sanctions for the operator." –xeno^talk 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So is anyone going to explain why the spammers don't get reverted, but when I undo their spam I get blocked and reverted?--Lorson (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Begging the question. –xeno^talk 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to MobyGames is not spam. Period. -- œ^™ 08:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lorson, you first have to gain consensus to remove these links. As far as I understand, you don't have this consensus at the moment. As soon as there is a consensus for that please ask for a Bot Request for Approval (BRFA) before making automatic edits. I know that you may think that this delays things but it's the only way that will assure there are no disagreements, reverts, long discussions in many places, etc. So, for now just focus in convincing the Video games project or start a discussion somewhere that is appropriate. I think the discussion here will start making circles. The incident was sorted it I think. A summary of the discussion will follow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary:

• User:Lorson ran an unapproved bot from his account. He got blocked for 24 hours for this action.
• User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth massed rollbacked hundreds of Lorson's edits. They got warned about misusing the rollback feature. No further action taken since they were acting for the greater good.
• MobyGames links removal doesn't have consensus at the moment.

Do we agree with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair summary. -- Atama頭 17:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't removing links, I was reverting links added by spammers. Why do you and others keep saying the former? And is any going to answer my question?--Lorson (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will answer your question when you stop begging the question. –xeno^talk 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We disagree with your assumption that the links should be treated as spam. The motives of the editors who added them aren't that important; the opinions of other editors about the value of the links are. For example, if Wikipedia had no links to the IMDB, and someone went through and added them to every article about a movie, that editor may have intended it as spam, but a lot of people would look at those links and say "keep them" because they consider the links valuable. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 matter was not resolved

Yes it was.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – DNFTT. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The matter of not providing evidence that truthseeker666 had not done anything to deserve his suspension was not resolved. Admin:rkwaton and others repeatedly asked for the factual proof Ttruthseekers had vandalised Wikicommons. Admins here denied to give the proof and instead classed the matter as resolved and closed and deleted the thread. .Why. If the proof of this vandaqlism never provided then matter was far from resolved and Truthseeker suspension unjustified. Do not ignore users and admins like this. Explain these actions. PeteyJ Bristol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) No explanation is required. He was editing tendentiously and spamming his website. If he feels hard done by he can ask for his money back, I guess. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't this IP be blocked per WP:DUCK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Eh. One edit from early this morning and nothing since. TNXMan 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Quack! Call the CUs for help... then again, maybe not since there's only a single edit (read up on point 64 of WP:OWB). --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I think it is wrong for well established admins like RKLawton to be ignored and other admins stat they need give no explaination. If you behave like this there is no justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Truthseeker appealed via e-mail, and a fresh group of experienced heads reviewed the matter. The result was to uphold the block. So that, as they say, is that. Rklawton (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I am not taking sides in this discussion but would like to state the following, how can this comment "Admins here denied to give the proof and instead classed the matter as resolved and closed" how can this be done ???? surely if the Admins HAD the proof they would produce it and save all the hassle, what happened to "Innocent untill proven Guilty" and "There are Two sides to a story"?? for some unknown reason Admin appear (and I use the word appear) to be hell bent on keeping this user blocked and as I said if he WAS guilty then why not just provide the proof and that would be that..... I just don't understand the ruling as its confusing and contradictory to the Wikipedia Rules--AMSCPC (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ADMIN:Milborneone WP:CIVIL

This one too.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved I have just been reading the pages of truthseeker666 and have noticed a very glaring point. truthseeker was warned by milborneone re wp:civil on his user discussionpage. No similar warning was given to user ALR for using comments at truthseeker like "nutter" and "idiot". Why would this admin take sides. ALR and milborneone are both freemasons. Is this part of their vow not to attack other freemasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Quack, quack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Folks who promote conspiracy theories as truth rather than fiction are often treated less than politely - primarily because they waste a lot of our time. You're right, though. Speaking as an admin, a Freemason, and an editor prone to referring to people who promote conspiracy theories as "nutters", we really ought not do that. It would be better if we had a short list of subjects for which conspiracy theorists abound and permission to warn them off and then block them before wasting too much of our time. Instead, we have individual ArbCom rulings for articles such as 9/11 which provide this ability. However, these exceptions are not well communicated or understood. As a substitute, it wouldn't hurt to have a template for explaining our policies regarding writing about conspiracy theories we could use to warn new, wayward editors. The template should introduce our standards on OR, RS, and UNDO in the appropriate context. Rklawton (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) That makes sense to me. Although it can be frustrating dealing with individuals who construct fantastically improbable houses of cards and look everywhere except at their own behaviour to explain why they are ultimately shown the door, I think there's no need for us to be impolite about it. Where would you suggest developing such a template? Part of the suite at WP:WARN? EyeSerenetalk 08:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You people really do not listen at all. The point was user ALR had not been pulled up on use of rude language. You turn it immediately into why I cannot state that it appears freemasons sticking up for one another. Thats ALR Milborne One and now even RKLawton as Freemasons. Cmon RKLawton why dont you admit ALR was wrong for attacking like this and tell him so. All you want to do is turn this against me and now state its an interesting new concept to get rid of anyone who speaks bad of Freemasons under your proposed larger unmbrella of "get rid of them all quickly". Back to the point. ALR. Why didnt ALR get told off when truthseeker666 did. Answer why. Repeat ANSWER WHY, on **this** point and not on 15 other ways to get rid of me as a wiki user. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) This is amazing to see. User:Truthseekers666 did say that admins were rude and want to find ways to keep information off Wiki, and now comments by Admin:RKlawton prove this. Creation of a black list of subjects just not to be taken seriously. Thats censorship. Who made RKLawton judge and juror over everything in this world. Is he god? Does he know everything. 74.117.232.11 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)MANCHURIAN

Request to block suspected sockpuppet

Hi there - could someone please urgently look at blocking User:Orang77 as a sock of User:Roman888. Details are in the thread higher on this page about User:Roman888. I'm struggling to keep up with reverting and blanking this guy's copyright violations . Cheers - --Mkativerata (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Orang77 as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888 since they were adding the same material Roman888 did to articles. I have made the block indefinite with account creation blocked, and asked the user to appeal on the talk page of their main account. Review, or alteration if necessary, would be welcome, as I don't do these kind of blocks often. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block. This was a warning sign, and they had even threatened to sock from their old account. -- Atama頭 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I really think that a checkuser needs to check the accounts before any conclusions are made that Roman888 sockpuppeted as Orang77. While Roman888 did threaten to sockpuppet, until a check is performed, there is no proof that Roman888 and Orang77 are related in any way. That said, Orang77 should not be blocked as a sockpuppet until there is proof of the suspected relation. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ever heard of WP:DUCK? No Checkuser is going to run a check here because it's already so obvious.--Atlan (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's absurd to think they're not the same person. The original editor threatened to create a sockpuppet, and you'll see how "not using URLs" was mentioned. A new account was created, with a similar name (five letters and a multi-digit repeated number), declaring defiance against admins and rules in their very first edit and mentioning that same bit about URLs. Then goes on to make the same edits. Mythdon, it's doubtful that a checkuser would even agree to run the tools in a case that obvious, often at WP:SPI they'll tell you that it's a waste of time and that the editor should just be blocked on behavioral evidence, which is what was already done here. -- Atama頭 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems very clear that this is socky. While not an admin, I concur with the block. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 13:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility / application of G7

Resolved

 – Editor blocked 31 hours for personal attacks, pointy/tendentious editing

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How should I deal with this edit to my user talk page? Another editor, Atmoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), appears to feel that he owns certain articles that he created, and has incorrectly labelled my edits (including adding a {{hangon}} tag to the disputed articles) as vandalism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the vandalism thing. Not the rest. -Atmoz (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Once other users have made substantive edits to articles you created, G7 no longer applies. This is not a reason to remove G7 from the speedy criteria... –xeno^talk 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a "substantive edit"? And that's not what G7 says. It says "substantial content". What substantial content was added to, for instance, Owen Toon by another editor besides myself? -Atmoz (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as commented at my talk page, you are probably right in that you were the only one to add substantial content. However, DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) declined the speedy so fulfilling it at this point would be wheel warring. –xeno^talk 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) G7 may very well have been satisfied in the case of Owen Toon. However, speedy deletion is discretionary, which means that other factors can be considered even if a criterion for deletion is met. It was open to User:DGG to decline your G7 tag on the basis that the subject is notable and warrants an article. Please don't keep making edits to WP:CSD to remove G7: if you think G7 is an inappropriate criterion or should be amended, discuss that on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given Atmoz a uw-npa3. No need for such a header. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz has removed the warning, which means that it has been read and understood. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that some of you have fragile ears. Although I'm not sure why you needed to post it here. -Atmoz (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside Atmoz's blatant personal attacks and using Twinkle to revert non-vandalism and labeling it vandalism, his complaint may have merit. Look at the version of Robert Lin when this user first tagged it; the only contribs besides the author were one bot categorization and 1 user adding a default sort. The article at that time certainly qualified for a G7. DGG did not decline the speedy because the article was deemed to be G7-ineligible, but because that admin declared such people to be "always notable". A bit moot now on edit conflict, but I am concerned about DGG substituting their own very pro-inclusionist POV on what should have been a simple G7. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As above, speedy deletion is discretionary. In my view, it was open to User:DGG to decline a tag that met G7 for countervailing reasons (ie the subject was unquestionably notable). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec}@X: Wheel warring is a crappy policy. If an admin makes a mistake, it's the job of another admin to fix it. I don't want my name on these articles. I don't care if Wikipedia wants to have articles on them. I just want someone else to write them. I don't think that's too much to ask. I'm okay with them getting deleted, and then having someone use exactly the same characters in exactly the same order as I wrote them. I just don't want my name on it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz doesn't want their name attached to these, so perhaps to fulfill their wish (and if others are adamant about keeping the articles around), the article could be deleted and one could re-create it under their own hand (noting the other previous minor contributors in the initial edit summary). If Atmoz releases their contributions to the public domain their name does not need to be in the edit history. –xeno^talk 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do such on those articles. -Atmoz (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Just those articles. An alternative would be to use WP:RevDel to remove their name, but I'm not sure if this is permitted per the policy. –xeno^talk 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSDX (a useful page of explanations of speedy criteria) says of G7 "Does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject." Tagging an article about 14 months after writing it would seem to me to be far too late to use G7 on this basis. Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Precisely. The application of G7 should be balanced against the principles of WP:OWN and the damage to the encyclopaedia of deleting quality long-standing content. That balance can be achieved by the exercise of discretion to decline a G7 even if G7 is satisfied. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should stop worrying about the letter of the policy and instead focus on fulfilling good faith requests for our long-term users. –xeno^talk 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I or any editor except the author may remove in good faith any speedy tag I object to--it's not even a function of my role as an administrator. But in my role as an admin, I consider deleting an article under any deletion condition to be subject to the judgment of the administrator, and I delete when i think the deletion conforms to the criterion, is a reasonable and good faith request, and I see no way of dealing with the article otherwise. Normally G7 is used to remove material that an editor decides while working on is not notable, or not sourceable, or not worth finishing to the extent that it would be an acceptable article, or that they have made such a bad mistake in the name or otherwise that it seems better to start over. They nominate it as G7 because they want to help the encyclopedia by not leaving it there for someone else to get rid of. (this is a particularly good solution when someone prods an article) G7 is important for all these purposes, and should not be removed from the CSD reasons--I delete articles under it frequently.

If someone who has written a good article on a notable person decides he would rather not have done so, for a reason which he cannot or will not explain there is no reason to delete the article. I asked Atmoz repeatedly for his reason, and received no satisfactory answer. I have not the least idea what his motive may be, except that considering the subject the people work on, I assume it has something to do with the Global Warming controversy. The license is irreversible, and once contributed, anyone may use the material. Nobody owns an article once they have submitted it. If someone wants to develop the article, they have every right to use the material already there. If the article does not even need further development, then people have the right to read it. Irreversible is irreversible. (we make exception of course for plain errors, and I would be prepared to make an exception for borderline notability. In fact, one of the articles I judged not necessarily notable, and, as another admin had deleted it, left it there. Someone asked to see it, so I restored it to their user space, not main space.) As for being an extreme pro-inclusionist, one of the people , Robert Lin, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a position that is makes someone unquestionably notable according to WP:PROF.

I do not consider I made a mistake. I consider deleting the articles would have been a mistake, and I would be somewhat surprised at any admin who would delete an article on a member of the NAS, though I would not bring the matter here, for they might have deleted it without having read it. I consider removing the user's edits would be a serious misuse of RevDel. I would object even to the removal of Atmoz' name, for we must attribute the edits. I would probably bring any oversighter who removes the edits to the attention of arb com, for them to decide how to handle it. The basis of Wikipedia is that we operate under a license, and the license is not optional. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken there - if the user releases the material to the public domain, we can import it without attribution and relicense it as cc-by-sa. –xeno^talk 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, if someone comes back later to ask for proof that the edits were released PD, how do we do so without pointing them to Atmoz' name? I don't think this can be done. (edit) Given further thought, this is a legal matter and would have to be referred to the Foundation lawyer for an actual answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think s/he is so worried that s/he would have a problem with us showing them the diff where s/he released the material. Anyhow, I think this is somewhat a moot point and Atmoz may have abandoned their quest to detached themselves from these edits (perhaps along with their service to Wikipedia). –xeno^talk 14:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad block

• I don't think a block was necessary here. It was heavyhanded and premature. Moreover, the issue is not resolved, the user still has live edits they want to detach themselves from. –xeno^talk 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Grounds for block are on the user's talk page - including ongoing personal attacks. User has no right to detach themselves from live edits - so far as I know, so that point is moot. Rklawton (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • They had been warned about both the issues you highlighted there and had not persisted. God forbid we entertain wishes (regardless of their "rights") from our long-time constructive contributors. –xeno^talk 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolving issues is too hard. Much easier to play with the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the speedy should have been granted in the first place, but having said that, I find the "scrub my name from the author list" to be troublesome. Users are presented with the GDFL terms before they hit submit. Tarc (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Block discussion should take place on the user's talk page. I've already posted a link there that shows another attack following the warning. Rklawton (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked you at the talk page to reverse your block (you say you blocked him for the "fragile ears" comment), but failing that, consensus to reverse it can be established here. –xeno^talk 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block was perfectly legitimate. Such a remark (the section header) is inexcusable, and should result in blocks. Also, I would like to draw attention to an edit summary, in which they address users who warn them by "civility police". The edit summary is indicative that the block is necessary. Let's see how the cards play out when the block is over. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block. The editor's desires regarding the articles in question might have been accomodated had he or she approached them civilly, but the aggressive and abusive tack taken shouldn't be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not want this to become personal, and i am willing to remove the block if he wishes, unless there is objection to it here. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I object. The editor clearly continued baiting after the warning, not once but twice. And this from an editor who should know better. Also this discussion should take place on the user's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Object X 2. Incivility is not a right. Woogee (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I object per my endorsement of the block above. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz has just informed everyone in an edit summary that an unblock is not needed. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion of "good block / bad block" is unproductive. In light of Atmoz's comment on his talk page that he'll refrain from such language going forward, I support unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Atmoz is only agreeing to refrain from that use of language towards "sensitive ears". Whether the editors have "sensitive ears" (i.e. easily offended) is irrelevant. The incivility still happened. Atmoz should be agreeing to not speak that way to any user. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, it appears he decided to just sit it out, there's no longer an active unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would hate to think that this incident would push an editor further away from active editing. I see no reason to keep him blocked, and intend to unblock per rough agreement of four administrators (Xeno, Floquenbeam, DGG and myself) who have all reviewed this block. Of the four edits that the user made between his warning and the block ([6], [7], [8], [9]), not one is deserving of a block. Calling those edits "baiting" is highly subjective; I simply don't see it. [10] gets you maybe-kind-of-close-to baiting, but certainly not anything blockable. NW (Talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  Go for it. I was hoping Rklawton's would reverse or lift it himself, but he doesn't seem to understand that blocks are meant to be preventitive, not punitive. This was the user's first block and I don't think it was necessary at all - and it certainly isn't now. –xeno^talk 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  I only see incivility in the first diff, but, there's other concern as well. Atmoz admits to block evasion, which is a serious offense that can lead to blocks. The block should stay. If anything is done to reverse the actions against Atmoz's incivility, the block should only be changed to a sockpuppetry block. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  I've reverted Atmoz's edit as an IP. I don't think that it is worth blocking the IP over this, as innocent people would be affected by such a block. I've told Atmoz to sit out the rest of the block, and return to the discussion when it expires. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  S/he evaded a block - yes - but to redact their incivility, and we're reverting them? Am I simply a player in a comedy of errors? –xeno^talk 14:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of questionable admin actions, but this one [11] deserves a special category of it's own. care to explain how that edit was of any benifit Mjroots?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've seen a lot of blocks being evaded. That's about the only one that I've seen that should have WP:IAR invoked. The majority of the time that a block is evaded, it's to continue an edit war or a conflict or vandalism or what not. He clearly evaded merely to calm the situation. While "the rules" say he shouldn't do it...it was clearly a good faith action. Thus, I say WP:IAR. --Smashville^talk 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Same here. I support the original decision to block, and block evasion is not allowed, but come on, someone trying to retract bad language they made should never be reverted. In response to Cube lurker, I wouldn't call that an "admin action"; while an admin did it, that edit could have been made by any editor. -- Atama頭 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't use the tools, but was made under the under color of authority. But not worth arguing about semantics, the action speaks loudly for itself.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that admins don't have any authority over other editors, either literally or figuratively, except perhaps the kind of authority that a citizen carrying a gun would have over an unarmed citizen. But you're right, those are semantics, your basic point is spot-on. -- Atama頭 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Understandable, but regrettable block. I believe this could have been solved differently. I'm baffled, flabbergasted and flummoxed by Mjroots revert, and I'm seriously tempted to used uncivil language to describe it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• This should have been handled differently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, I forgot to post here earlier. I unblocked Atmoz several hours ago, per discussion above. NW (Talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Per what above, exactly? The user dropped his unblock request, and there was no consensus regarding any move to unblock. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Rklawton, I am honestly tempted to trout slap you (which is incidentally something I don't think I've ever done to any user of any status so far). Adminship is meant to be no big deal, but your spectacular approach/attitude throughout this has suggested otherwise, and left a great deal to be desired. You used 6 diffs to explain your block; xeno pointed out that 5 of them were already addressed via warnings and acknowledgement, and then you said "This edit (noted above) followed the warning. Furthermore, an editor with this much experience should already know that his personal attack was over the top." The edit that supposedly ignored the warning said "Yes. I understand that some of you have fragile ears. Although I'm not sure why you needed to post it here." Despite the fact that the edit didn't actually rise to the level that warranted a block, and it was borderline if anything, Atmoz made all the necessary assurances to warrant an unblock here. Your stubborn refusal to allow anyone, including yourself, to lift it in good faith (in spite of all of this) is appalling, particularly when the entire matter should've actually been handled differently (especially including Mjroots edit). Blocks are to be preventative; not punitive, and the block you imposed was accomplishing nothing useful. If you are going to insist that unproductive ordinary blocks should not be lifted in good faith because the i's aren't dotted and the t's aren't crossed, then I suggest you make a move to deprecate the policy that says "Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy" first in order to avoid letting your judgement appear even more foolish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Unblocking was necessary to remove some of the sting of your hasty and unnecessary block - which may have already driven this user from the project. Endorse the unblock, and strongly suggest that you not 'fire from the hip' in future situations. –xeno^talk 16:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The block was deemed appropriate as you can read above. Rklawton (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
        • The block was nearly unanimously rejected by other administrators, with only Mjroots implicitly supporting at the time of the unblock. What's more, several administrators were already reviewing this thread when you stumbled in the room throwing your weight around with the block button. The block served only to inflame the situation, as did your refusal to lift it after the user agreed to moderate their approach.
          In any case, this user has seemingly left the project or gone on a break. Continuing to argue about whether they should've served out the remaining hours of the block here isn't productive, especially given that it would've lapsed by now. –xeno^talk 18:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
          • That's just factually wrong. Rklawton (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Oh? Looks like a clear read of the facts to me. –xeno^talk 19:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

problem on Ghost

Unresolved

 – Classic WP:SHOT: Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) blocked for edit warring Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (Later unblocked per promise to not edit Ghost article.)

I keep trying to remove or {{Fv}}-tag a footnote on Ghost that has failed verification, but I have a number of editors consistently re-adding it and removing the tag. The statement in question is the bit about 'pseudoscientific belief' (in text, based on footnote 3) which refers to the 2006 version of the NSF's Science and Technology Indicators. the current (2010) version of this document - available here in html and in a more complete form here in pdf - supersedes the 2006 version, and makes no mention of either 'pseudoscientific beliefs' or ghosts. Note that I am not objecting to the NSF or the pseudoscience bit per se, just to this misrepresentation of their position.

I have made this point two or three different times in talk and edit summaries, but none of the editors involved in the page have seen fit to acknowledge it.

If you want to take me to task for being bull-headed about this issue, we can discuss that, but I am bull-headed and right in this case, and I am tired of struggling with non-communicative editors. someone please fix it. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted in an earlier thread, you have set yourself up to not accept consensus, expressed in several places, concerning the NSF report. There's nothing that needs to be fixed here except your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to bring edit conflicts. Woogee (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is, however, the place to report editors who are tendentiously violating wp:V. you've got three or four editors insisting on the inclusion of a quote that appears nowhere in the most current version of the document they are citing - how does that improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia?

to your other points, I'll simply remind you to comment on the topic, not the editor, and then I'll forget all about it. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to see my powers of observation and extrapolation remain in fairly good shape. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

well, BMK, I do think you misunderstand the nature of consensus. consensus is not a tool for getting what one wants, it's a tool for building an encyclopedia. I am not particularly concerned when a number of editors form a consensus that detracts from the value of the encyclopedia, and I don't mind standing up to such a group even if it causes me some trouble. The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right. I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right, because then I could leave this stinking, stupid, thoroughly irrational conflict and go do something more productive.

Now, if you would care to discuss this with me rationally and demonstrate that I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that. I'll be very surprised if you come up with a feasible argument, but I will appreciate it and accept it if you do. On the other hand, if you don't have a feasible, rational argument... what are you criticizing me for? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am criticizing you for ignoring a clear consensus when it is put in front of you, because it's not the result you wanted, and for continuing to attempt to manipulate things to get the result you want in the face of that consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right." ----> see WP:TRUTH, get bonus points from implying that other editors are using irrational perspectives. "I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right (...)" ---> us people have been trying to do that at Talk:Ghost and WT:NPOV. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really possible to demonstrate that someone is not right when they excell in the practice of not hearing what's being said, which is clearly what's going on here, and will continue to go on until Ludwigs2 is in some fashion compelled to follow the community consensus he doesn't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me - what part of "The quote being used does not appear in the source being cited" are you having trouble with? BMK, you can attack me personally until the cows come home (I really don't give a flying f#ck what you think about me), but you seem to be arguing that we should violate wikipedia policy because you don't like the person pointing it out.

Policy is on my side here - it's too bad that you're too blinded by your own emotions to see that to see that, but I really don't care. argue the point or go away. --Ludwigs2 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Hopeless. I suggest this thread be closed, as there's no admin action to be taken here, unless someone wants to look into L2's intransigence and deliberate ignoring of consensus; certainly nobody that L2 is complaining about has done anything against policy, no matter how often he pounds his chest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

so, in other words, you're not going to make an argument, you're simply going to ask to have the thread closed without due consideration? yes, hopeless is a good word: complete incapacity to understand policy or engage in rational discussion. very sad. Honestly, you'd server yourself better by taking the time to explain your position than by continuing in this kind of... heck, I can't think of a polite word, so I'll leave it hanging. go away, and allow someone who is willing to discuss the matter to explain it to me.

Unfortunately, you may have a significant wait, since no one is willing to discuss it with you, because you don't hear them. Toodles! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm patient, that's fine. it's not like the problem is going anywhere. thanks for contributing, at any rate. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, this is not about scientific research, where new findings replace old and outdated ones. The NSF report changes slightly from year to year. In the absence of any evidence that they have changed their POV, the contents of ALL the NSF reports are legitimate sources. The part that's relevant and fits the ArbCom wording exactly is found in the 2006 version and possibly others. Just because the NSF declared belief in ten concepts to be "pseudoscientific beliefs" in 2006, doesn't mean they are suddenly not pseudoscientific beliefs today. What you say above really doesn't matter. It's just another diversionary attempt (by substituting a different version for the one which contains the content overwhelmingly approved by two RfCs). The National Science Foundation is a legitimate source and my simple proposal has overwhelmingly passed muster in two different RfCs found at Talk:Ghost and at Talk:NPOV. There are two overwhelming consensus against you. I invite you to bow to the consensus as any good Wikipedian does. Your continual violation of consensus isn't taken lightly here. You have just been blocked and unblocked based on a promise not to edit the Ghost article, but your disruption is still very evident on talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer: Your entire argument has been that this 'pseudoscientific belief' terminology - which only appears (to my knowledge) in the 2006 revision of this document - is significant enough to the NSF that we can justify the claim that the NSF objects to any non-scientific belief, whether or not it was ever presented as scientific. The fact that this terminology only appears in that revision, and was subsequently revised away completely so that it is no longer used in the current version of this document (or anywhere else), is a pretty clear indication that the NSF does not mean to say what you consistently claim it means to say.

Even scientists make mistakes. The hallmark of a good scientist is that s/he corrects the mistake and moves on, which is what the NSF has done. You, by contrast, are clinging to an unsupported, outdated statement simply because you want it to be true. You had very thin grounds for making this assertion in the first place, and even those grounds have slipped away with the NSF revisions.

Let me be frank here. I am being a hard-assed bitch about this issue (yes, I know that), and I'm doing it for a very particular reason. You spent a good month insulting me, misrepresenting me, defaming me, and otherwise acting like a hysterical fool (I have a couple of hundred diffs that will demonstrate that, which I will bring up when I take you to RfC) all so that you could reach this point where you could dismiss a logical argument on purely emotional/personal grounds. It is a masterful and thoroughly disgusting example of political gamesmanship, and I salute you for your perseverance, if not for the ethics or intelligence of the act. I will continue to argue this point (yes, like a hard-assed bitch) until the wikipedia community makes it clear that (a) I have misunderstood the situation, or (b) that they prefer your brand of poison to my brand of reason. Frankly, the difference between your position and mine is minor enough that I would have given this up as pointless ages ago, except that I cannot stand this kind of political manipulation.

So, I thank you for your reasoned response above; as I have shown, your reasoning is flawed. would you care to make a stronger case for your position, or are you going to go back to ad hominem attacks? posted by Ludwigs2 at 12:51, 12 March 2010

BINGO!       (Pointy too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that an actual argument, or another ad hominem? As you can see, I heard him perfectly well, I just think he has a rather stupid argument. can you do better? I'm sorry BMK, but if you haven't got anything intelligent to say, it's probably time for you to stop talking. I mean, it's fine by me either way - the more you harass me like this, the stronger my case gets - but I'd rather this were decided by reasoned discussion. --Ludwigs2 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You really need to review the definition of an ad hominem argument. Tan | 39 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"IDHT" accusations are at least a borderline ad hominem if they are patently false, as here. Hans Adler 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. I'm not making any judgment as to who is right or wrong, or the validity of the claims. I am just saying that Ludwigs2 repeatedly claims that other people are using ad hominem arguments, when they are not. Ad hominem != personal attack. Tan | 39 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that "BINGO!" above is linked to WP:IDHT. Beyond my Ken is clearly accusing Ludwigs2 of using the "I didn't hear that" technique. While such an accusation can be justified in some cases, it is not so in this case because Ludwigs2 actually has the better arguments, which are simply being ignored by the opposite side. Therefore when Beyond my Ken linked to WP:IDHT, it was at least a borderline ad hominem. Clear now? Hans Adler 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not "clear" at all. I think that you, like Ludwigs2, have a misconception of what an ad hominem argument is. Tan | 39 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely off-topic, but I maintain that it is a borderline case of the definition of "ad hominem abusive" under Ad hominem#Types of ad hominems. Basically, Beyond my Ken said: "Ludwigs2's arguments are invalid because he is in the minority on Talk:Ghost and has been so for some time." (The reason the IDHT link must be interpreted in this way is that Ludwigs2 has an extremely strong argument – that this is an egregious case of quote-mining – which nobody is addressing. I.e. the IDHT actually occurs on the other side.) There is a connection between Ludwigs2's situation and his credibility, but it is weak.

Ludwigs2 is absolutely right here, in every respect. The IDHT is clearly going on on the side of Brangifer, as usual (I can give you a few more examples if you are interested) and resisting against an attempt to push a policy violation through by bullying is never a POINT violation, even if the policy violation itself is not a big deal when taken in isolation (i.e. without the attempt to push it through).

I think we have a problem here with people who have no idea how scholarly citation works and who think quote-mining is good academic practice. Hans Adler 21:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Hans, this has gotten blown all out of proportion by User:Ludwigs2, User:Dbachmann, and now by yourself. If I'm wrong, then my fault is the extremely serious policy violation of believing the overwhelming majority of editors, including notable admins, who have clearly stated that they support my proposition in two RfCs, and who have actively resisted their arguments. They haven't convinced them, but have apparently fooled you into joining them. Abiding by such a great consensus is apparently a very serious offense! After all, in the world of Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann, CONSENSUS has NOTHING to do with how Wikipedia works. In Ludwigs2's and Dbachmann's world it obviously doesn't, so they must be right and I must be mercilessly hounded by them in all venues, talk pages, and noticeboards (as I have been!), including a planned REVENGE RfC/U.

What was it that the overwhelming majority endorsed so clearly in TWO RfCs?:

• That the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for what it states. It stated that belief in the ten items they listed in a very independently clear manner (in relation to the original source) were "pseudoscientific beliefs". (There is no evidence they have ever changed their position, and lack of mention in a later version is irrelevant to that point. The pseudoscientific concepts they mentioned are still pseudoscientific.)

Is that such a radical proposition when they stated it so clearly? Am I such a terrible person for innocently believing what they say? Is that "quote mining"?

Ludwigs2 expressed very clearly that the RfC at Ghost was formulated improperly, and based on that Ludwigs2 has refused to accept the consensus from the RfC and the RfC at Talk:NPOV. Well, it really is irrelevant whether Ludwigs2 was right or wrong in that matter. Even if they were right, that wasn't the question dealt with in those two RfCs, and Ludwigs2's rage over losing two RfCs is misplaced and simply disruptive revenge, which he's planning on wreaking on me in an upcoming RfC/U. I have already told him that the gun is in his hand, and if he's going to shoot, then do it. It's not my fault that the gun is pointed at his own foot, since he's the one who has violated multiple policies since this started, most notably the rule of consensus, which generally trumps nearly all other policies. (Note that when and if a consensus is wrong, the solution is not to persecute those who followed consensus, but to change policy.)

My three faults are in

1. believing and abiding by the overwhelming consensus of a large number of editors in two RfCs, and
2. believing the arguments made by many of those editors who have debated this with Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann, and then
3. pointing out very clearly that Ludwigs2's and Dbachmann's behavior (personal attacks, edit warring to the point of Ludwigs2 being blocked), and other policy violations were/are against consensus, disruptive, and very improper. (They obviously consider such "revealings" to be incivil.)

Are those three things punishable offenses? Let's see what the result of the RfC/U against me shows. If editors here fail to defend me and allow these two (or three) editors (the "gang of three") to use the RfC/U to distract from the real issues, then we have a serious problem. If the gang of three can convince other editors that my actions (in pointing out the improper nature of their policy violations, refusal to accept consensus, and edit warring) are gross incivility violations that are worse than their offenses, well, then those editors will have succeeded in fooling everyone and elevating refusal to abide by a consensus and edit warring against it to acceptable practices.

Why do I say that this has been blown out of proportion? Because my fault is in refusing to address a very different matter that wasn't dealt with in the two RfCs. I refuse to let the gang of three divert this away from what the overwhelming consensus has approved. They approved those two RfCs as they were worded, and they obviously believed they were worded properly. And ever since then the consensus editors have resisted the efforts of this "disruptive" (is that really so incivil a word?) gang of three who refuse to abide by the consensus. No one says they have to believe it, but they should be silent and let Wikipedia continue to function. Instead they are pursuing this matter in many venues, noticeboards, and a planned revenge against me personally in a coming RfC/U. That's serious disruption and a classic example of tendentious editing: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Read that essay and you'll see it was written with the gang of three in mind.

In fact, if editors here fail to meet up at the RfC/U and make their voices count, they will by default have voted for such a change of practice here. Consensus will mean nothing. Is that what we want? Are those three "faults" of mine really faults, or are they the proper way to defend Wikipedia against the two editors (Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann) who have declared ownership of the Ghost article and have grossly ignored and warred against a very clear consensus? What think ye? (Frankly I think they should have already been blocked and then topic banned from all fringe (paranormal/pseudoscience/alternative medicine) subjects (articles and talk pages), and if they start an RfC/U against me, they should have their blocks reinstated and lengthened for frivolous and disruptive misuse of RfC. Dbachmann should also be desysopped no matter what. He should know better than to do the dastardly things he's already done.) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, consensus means nothing if it's only based on random sociological factors rather than reasoned debate, if it obviously needs to be revised because its result is absurd, and if it will be revised as a matter of course once the wider community looks at the matter.

According to you, the NSF has claimed with its full scientific weight that belief in ghosts and reincarnation is belief in pseudoscience.

The purported NSF claim is patently absurd because it implies that belief in most religions is pseudoscience. Ghosts feature in Christianity (resurrection of Jesus), Islam (genies) and many other religions. Therefore belief in Christianity or Islam would be belief in pseudoscience. Similarly, belief in Buddhism and Hinduism implies belief in reincarnation and therefore belief in pseudoscience.

A definition of pseudoscience compatible with this claim would be so broad as to be essentially meaningless and contradicts the very paragraph before the one that you are quote-minging: "Pseudoscience has been defined as 'claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility'". (My italics) Hans Adler 11:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, your comment is based on a misunderstanding and is therefore misleading and a straw man argument, which you then use to discuss religion, even though religion isn't part of the quote or my argument. You write "according to you", but even a relatively careless reading of my wording and the quote makes it clear that neither I nor the NSF have "claimed...that belief in ghosts and reincarnation is belief in pseudoscience." The NSF statement and their reference to the Gallup Poll clearly focuses on beliefs, not the items listed. That doesn't mean they couldn't have done it, but they didn't in this instance. They clearly state that beliefs in the ten items are "pseudoscientific beliefs". That's not the same as stating that the items are pseudoscientific. That's your interpretation. Although it's an accurate interpretation of fact, it's not accurate to make the quote say that. What can accurately and justifiably be concluded from the Gallup Poll and the way the NSF use it is that the NSF equates paranormal beliefs with pseudoscientific beliefs because Gallup never used the word "pseudoscience", but repeatedly used the word "paranormal". The NSF then took that and used the word "pseudoscience" when referring to those items. I hope that ends the use of this misunderstanding of the quote. I totally AGF since it's an easy mistake to make. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghost, arbitrary break

It seems to be clear what's going on. For some reason Ludwigs2 has acquired a reputation of being in the "pseudoscience" side, and so a lot of people have made up their minds that he must be wrong when he holds his opinion against so many others. But it turns out that he isn't. Which is why dab is on the same side at Talk:Ghost. I would have done the same if I had seen earlier what's going on there. Unfortunately I first saw the mess when I became aware of an RfC about editing a policy. The RfC was started by Brangifer. The RfC did not even have a link to the NSF source on which it was ostensibly based. When I looked for that, I eventually found it at an earlier RfC also started by Brangifer, which was still open. Both RfCs already were extremely messy. So I simply stayed out of the matter. My apologies to Ludwigs2 and dab, but I don't have that much time to waste for fighting against WP:Randy in Boise. Hans Adler 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have your attention, hopefully, may I ask everybody to turn on your brains and ask yourselves how likely it is that the NSF really meant to say, with its full scientific weight, that certain fields are pseudosciences without any further qualification, but instead of publishing this important contribution to the demarcation problem, a known-hard philosophical problem, they did it casually and even omitted this significant contribution to the pseudoscience debate from later versions of the paper. Hans Adler 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, you are very mistaken on four points:

1. The RfC at Talk:NPOV -- Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference has always contained a link to the original source. Look again and click the link. It looks like this:

   --- Source: "Science and Engineering Indicators 2006", National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Belief in Pseudoscience". (See Note 29)

2. While your linking to "Randy" is amusing, it's also very deceptive, offensive, and incivil. It is Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann who are acting in a tendentious manner, not I. If they had the consensus on their side, you would be right, but that's undeniably not the case, so your argument carries no weight at all. It's totally wrong and thus also adds to the disruption.
3. The NSF statement did not state that the ten items "are pseudosciences". The NSF carefully declared that "belief" in those items were "pseudoscientific beliefs". There's a huge difference. While that does, in effect, label the ten items as pseudoscientific in some manner or other, your statement is just plain wrong. Read the actual quote above in the RfC. What's really interesting, and what proves they were very deliberate in their statement, is that they were referring to a Gallup Poll which only used the word "paranormal". The NSF then used the word "pseudoscience" instead of paranormal, thus demonstrating their understanding of an obvious truth, that paranormal beliefs are pseudoscientific beliefs.
4. Their "omission" from any later editions really means nothing. There is no evidence (but some OR indulged by certain members of the gang of three) that the NSF has changed their opinion, and those items have most certainly not ceased to be pseudoscientific in some manner. The NSF report is a yearly report and it varies somewhat from year to year, often citing research, articles, polls, etc., which are actual at the time of publication. All of those reports are valid sources. None of them supercedes another later version, since they aren't scientific research, where newer research supercedes outdated and incorrect previous research. These are different. When one actually adds up the various things they have labelled as pseudoscientific in some manner during the years in all those reports, it adds up to quite a few more than just the ten they mentioned in 2006, and we could/should justifiably create a properly sourced list of all of them and state in an NPOV manner that the NSF has declared them all to be pseudoscientific in some manner or other. We have the NSF as a V & RS to do it.

Brangifer (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a matter for unambiguous attribution. "In <year>, <source> said <statement>" should work. If the source has since come out with a conflicting statement that would be a problem but to simply drop it does not indicate that it is no longer the case. Aside: one wonders if they have had as many griefers badgering them about it as we have and have simply decided to walk away from the advocates of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 10:18, March 13, 2010 UTC

Sorry, but I have refactored the above comment to include nowiki tags as the tags used in it were interpreted as real by the software and broke this page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Saved me doing exactly that, thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, that doesn't work because this claim has been assembled from something in the main text of the NSF document and a footnote. (See my hatted paragraph "What the NSF really said" below.) It also wouldn't solve the problem that it's quote-mining in the first place. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re 1: I stand corrected. (I did end up at the other RfC when trying to make sense of things and looking for the reference itself. I guess it has something to do with the weird formatting of your proposal, but I shouldn't have mentioned this at all.)

Re 2: You are using a strategy that I have often observed: Some of the most disruptive editors are very liberal with certain accusations which accurately describe their own behaviour. (I guess this is not because they understand they are guilty of it themselves and they try to anticipate corresponding accusations so they can claim that their opponent is just mirroring them. Although that would be a very efficient rhetorical technique. But rather, I guess, they use these accusations after being targeted by them and being defenceless. Their conclusion, then, is not: "It's true and I must change my behaviour." Their conclusion is: "This is a highly efficient personal attack that I should take into my repertoire.")

Detailed argument condensed for convenience
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are also using the same unethical rhetorical trick here that Beyond my Ken used above (see my discussion with Tan): A: There is a consensus here to use [...] quotation in [...] way, but it is wrong. This is not what the authors meant, because [...]. B: You are wrong. A: Why? B: We all agree to use the quotation in this way. It's consensus. [Therefore] it's not a misquotation. A: That's not a valid argument. B: Ha! Now he is practising I didn't hear that and tendentious editing. There are at least three factors that can lead to a consensus: (1) Everybody sees the truth. (2) Everybody sees what is most convenient to reach a certain goal, even if it is false. (3) A bunch of people agree with each other because they are friends or have a common enemy. Do we have a consensus of type (1) here? Let's test this hypothesis. What's the dynamic when we take matters to a more public place? Oppose and objection (by the black sheep, Ludwigs2), Support, Support, Words of caution, Support, Objection (by the other black sheep, dab), Support, Support, Support, Support, Support, Support, Words of caution, Support, Support, (*) Oppose, Oppose, Oppose, Support, Oppose, Oppose, Support, Support, Oppose, Support, Support, Comment, Support. Look at the place marked (*). Before that we have 2 objections and 2 instances of words of caution. And a whopping 11 Support !votes. After the (*) we have 6 Support !votes and 6 Oppose !votes. Doesn't look like a stable consensus to me. (For simplicity I have argued as if the two RfC's were discussing the same question. Yes, I know it's a simplification.)

Re 3: Granted, the passage that you are trying to push into WP:NPOV says this:

The scientific consensus, as expressed by the [NSF], has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: [...] ghosts, [...] reincarnation, [...].

So you are making a distinction between subjects and belief in the subjects. OK, that's a distinction you can make if you are pedantic. But it is not a distinction that makes much sense when you are quote-mining in the first place.

What the NSF really said
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is what the NSF really wrote: Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" [...] [...] about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] [...] (Moore 2005b). [29]: Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body. (Moore 2005b) Moore DW. 2005b. Three in four Americans believe in paranormal. Gallup Poll News Service.

The sentence "Obama is a Muslim" is false. If you draw that 'information' from a White House statement then you made a mistake. If instead you draw the 'information' that "Belief that Obama is a Muslim is belief in the truth" from the same statement, it's not more correct, it's just more absurd.

Re 4: Yes, the NSF report varies from year to year. No, they don't do it for your convenience, so that you have more versions to choose from for your quote-mining. E.g. in 2004 they used a more careful formulation: "According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include [...]" with a different list. We don't need evidence that the NSF changed their opinion because we don't have more than very weak circumstantial evidence that they held such an opinion, as a considered opinion with a weight suitable for what you are trying to use it for, in the first place. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I read it. NSF basically says that belief in ghosts is pseudoscience, a few people don't like it, tough shit. Sorry, that's an end of it. It's been discussed to death and consensus is clear, it's now got to the point of disruptive refusal to accept consensus. I don't see any willingness on the part of the holdouts to compromise, and the arguments indicate to me that the opposition is rooted in WP:TRUTH rather than commitment to policy. How many RfCs and discussions have to go against before people will finally accept this, I wonder? No, don't answer, that's a rhetorical question. And yes I know this is never going to fix the real world problem that close to 100% of scientists agree that the paranormal is pseudoscience whereas a large proportion of the US public in particular remains wedded to belief in such stuff. We can't and actively don't want to fix that, we're just documenting it. It's no different to creation myths, which remain creation myths however many people sincerely believe them. The term is accurate even though true believers are unable to see it without feeling their belief is being challenged - that is their problem not ours. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Beleif in ghost is pseudoscience and there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious so that no one gets confused. The reference says that beleif in ghost is pseudoscience. Yes the 2008 version does not mention it specifically but that does not mean that belief has become ligit in the eyes of science. This whole arguement in my opinion is rather strange. I have specifically asked those who disagree to specify the text this quote should be used to support.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Guy, you are arguing on the level of truth rather than wikilawyering, so I am responding on the same level.) Well, we are still writing an encyclopedia here. That requires intelligent reading of the sources rather than quote-mining to make absurd claims. Of course there are strong connections and similarities between religion, other belief systems and pseudoscience. But that doesn't mean it's OK for an encyclopedia to call religious beliefs pseudoscientific and vice versa where it makes no sense. (By all means do so where it does.) Basing it on a misquotation doesn't make the absurdity better.

We all have a tendency to believe that subjects we don't like are more closely related to each other than subjects we do like. That doesn't make it OK to give up all standard distinctions when dealing with ridiculous topics such as ghosts, reincarnation and pseudoscience.

By calling ghosts and reincarnation pseudoscience in general and without qualification, i.e. in the absence of any pretence at being scientific or copying of the language of science (of course there are plenty of pseudoscientists who play their silly games with these beliefs, but they are not dominant for these topics) you are making the term pseudoscience redundant and basically useless.

Basically you have just told me that yes, a Buddhist or Hindu who believes he will be reincarnated, is believing in pseudoscience. That yes, a Muslim who believes that genies exist, is believing in pseudoscience. That yes, an African who believes in witches, is believing in pseudoscience. Is that really what you mean? Then what word are you going to use for the distinctive properties of writings such as Frank Tipler's "The Physics of Christianity"? [12] Perhaps it isn't even pseudoscience but something else? Hans Adler 12:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "absurd" about the idea that most paranormal ideas and nearly all paranormalists are pseudoscientific. My reading of the source (which reading I like to think is intelligent, given that I am a graduate professional) supports the statement we make, undoubtedly some people don't like that and have spent an inordinately long time raising the issue at new venues in the apparent hope of eventually getting an answer they do like. This has now, in my view, reached the point of disruptive stonewalling. Time to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Catholic Church straw poll

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Catholic Church straw poll to save space here and to centralize discussion. Please do not timestamp until this section reaches the top of the page. –MuZemike

Unnecessary blanking of closed AfDs

User:JBsupreme has replaced the content at Articles for deletion/Chioke Dmachi (2nd nomination) with an {{afd-privacy}} tag. I can see no reason for this; there were no BLP issues on that page (before, after). There is no explanation for the change in the edit summary, no aparrent involvement with the closing admin, and the user will not explain what issues are perceived. This was one of several examples all done at that time - see also: Brian T. Edwards: before, after; Scott Rasgon: before, after; Nagy Sadeq Shurrab: before, after; Jack Garson: before, after; Barrie Lynch: before, after; Bob Cockrum: before, after. Can someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I42 (talk • contribs)

From the template documentation, "As noted at courtesy blanking, AfD subpages may be blanked upon the request of any editor"' and given that the full archives are a simple click away, I'm really not seeing an issue with this, especially given that (AFAIK) those AfDs ended in delete. This is well within policy, so I'm honestly not seeing a problem here - Alison ^❤ 07:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon the request implies some form of discussion, as does the actual policy which talks about 'community' judgement. The policy also states this is generally not done except under rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation, which is clearly not an issue here. But regardless of the intricacies of the policy - I disagree with the editor's changes and rather than simply revert I have attempted to start a discussion with them, but as they refuse to engage I am dicussing it here instead; I would welcome opinion on whether the changes are inappropriate and may be reverted. I42 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy states that 'due consideration' be given and I daresay he's given it that here. Furthermore, it can easily be disputed that the potential for harm to a person or organization actually is an issue here. It's not okay to simply dismiss it by opining that it's 'clearly not an issue' - Alison ^❤ 08:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All BLPs, by the look of it. I don't see anything unusual about the courtesy blankings. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need people to bring the right kind of shrubbery before we allow courtesy blanking of an AfD, any OTRS volunteer can testify to the effect these debates can have on real people, courtesy blanking is the least we can do. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy to whom? Is it the intention of JB to blank all AfD discussions of BLPs? The provision for courtesy blanking is usually used when there is some reason, and I can see no particular reason here. I do not see any common element in these, and I think we do need some explanation from them about . why should an AfD about a city council member which decided that the person was not necessarily notable and thus ended in a delete be the least sensitive? Alison, you say that policy requires that due consideration was given , and the absence of any rational explanation after several requests does not seem to me to give any evidence that due consideration has been given. I think JB owes his colleagues a little information here. DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To second what DGG has said I would also be interested to know the intent behind the blanking - if the intent is to simply remove the commentary about a subject being non-notable (which could be construed as -BLP) from search engines then couldn't we simply use the {{NOINDEX}} template (which the blanking template also does as belt&suspenders approach)? Since the full text is only two clicks away we don't seem to be offering much protection, and anything that really constitutes -BLP should be RD2'd, not simply cblanked.  7  08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a simple courtesy that can be extended to any BLP subject. If there is more that we can do, we should certainly strive to. JBsupreme (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Was there a request to blank the AfD, or did you do it on your own? Woogee (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Slightly complicated 3RR/COI issue

An IP editor, 75.66.75.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), added an entry to List of people from Mississippi. Another editor removed the entry which was about "Jody Renaldo". The IP has now made their fourth revert ([13], [14], [15], & [16]).

This would be a simple 3RR report except that the IP is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Allstarecho. Allstarecho has previously self-identified as Jody Renaldo, so this would mean that they were edit-warring to include themselves on a list of notable people. Allstarecho "retired" in August 2009 but continued to edit as that IP and appears to have returned to their account recently. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the lunacy of why we allow users to declare themselves 'retired' when they patently aren't, he has edited over many months since then, so Spartaz (talk)'s fulfilment of his talk page protection request, [17], should now be lifted, per wp:talk. Right now, he can't even be informed that he is being discussed on WP:ANI! MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One might think that posting this on the Administrator's noticeboard would get that dealt with, but I made the mistake of signing it. I've notified the IP instead. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP has removed the ANI notification from their talk page and made this comment on another editor's talk page. Please note that the inclusion of Jody Renaldo was the subject of an earlier Allstarecho edit-war on 8/9 August 2009 and the subject of a discussion on the article's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not even retired as Allstarecho any more: [18]. Please unprotect the Talk page. Woogee (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected. Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know if I should just take this over to the 3RR noticeboard. It really would be more expedient to deal with it here and now, but no one seems to be jumping on it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you thought this was likely to end quietly, the IP has now posted a message on the list's talk page which begins "I don't know if you all are just really that damn stupid...". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TechnoFaye

Resolved

 – Directed to WQA Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) has on at least two occasions, [19], [20] made statements, involving words such as "stupid" that are quite inflammatory. The user acknowledges that she has previously been banned from another online forum, so she is aware of the consequences of incivility [21]. The user states that she is autistic, and this is the reason for her impoliteness. I don't know about that, but all I can say is that wikipedia is better off without such inflammatory statements. Is there anything that can or should be done about this. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with them? Perhaps discussed it with a 3rd party at WP:WQA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already mentioned to the user that her tone isn't helpful [22]. Seems to have ignored it. But realistically, saying stuff like "Blacks are so stupid", in my opinion, is a blatant violation of wikipedia's policy on civility. Neither is wikipedia a forum nor a soapbox to express ones views in ways that will never make it into an article. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA is probably the proper venue for this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

attack account

The user account Sodaorusunni (lit. Soda is a c*** in Tamil) has been created to vandalise my user page and talk page. The user is mad at me for this edit. Seems to have created a sock for abusing me and is cussing me in my talk and user pages (in Tamil). So can anyone help a)protecting my user page and b) blocking this attack account?--Sodabottle (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The account you mentioned has been indefinitely blocked for harassment. Who is the other account involved? –MuZemike 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!. I don't who is the original user is. But he specifically mentioned that he is angry with me for this revert i did. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can't do much then if we don't know who is behind the harassment-only account unless you know somebody who harassed you in the past for something similar. –MuZemike 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Second attack account sodaoursunni1 has cropped up and started again. This is the first time i am getting harassed. Haven't had any fights/disagreements with anyone in my time here.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight notified. –MuZemike 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Numbers two and three also popped up, only to be blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

this IP is the same person I noticed one account that appeared to be angry in a similar way but won't mention the name here as I have only an educated guess. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Should an SPI be opened regarding that educated guess? Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the above username definitely does not follow WP:UN, if the translation is correct. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 14:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they've all been blocked. –MuZemike 16:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request semi-protect for Joe Mauer

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been a couple of vandalism incidents the last couple of days from different annon. addresses Rapier1 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:RFPP. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, finding the right venue isn't always intuitive. Rapier1 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Wjemather editing disruptively

Please. User:Wjemather came to Cobalt (CAD program) and slapped it with these two tags suggesting that the article was improperly cited. He didn’t even start a discussion thread on the article’s talk page. So I started one. Wjemather’s objections simply didn’t withstand scrutiny and the consensus from me and others on the page was that the author cited was an independent author and a reliable source. Wjemather then turned right around and changed the subject to something entirely new: that the $2995 major CAD package wasn’t notable. Given that there are a huge number of CAD packages on Wikipedia (as evidenced by this comparison chart), and the fact that we have plenty of articles on computer programs like WriteNow, which isn’t made anymore, worked only on the Mac, and cost under a $100), Wjemather’s new objection just isn’t credible. Then, before even allowing others to weigh in on his latest objection, he slapped the article with a {multiple issues} tag. I find this just to be sour-grapes, bad-faith editing to be disruptive and to make a point. His first argument (inadequate citing) didn’t gain traction with anyone so then he comes up with something new to try. There is no need for him to slap a tag on the article hours after he advances a new hypothesis in an active talk thread. Greg L (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It has no reliable 3rd party sourcing so I fail to see what the issue is. I also don't see why this issue is being brought here. Ridernyc (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What does your observation about sourcing, which the consensus is that it certainly does have third-party sourcing, have to do with notability? That’s the issue here that Wjemather has now raised. I note this edit you made only a few weeks ago on Wjemather’s talk page. Looking at what you wrote there, it seems you and Wjemather are quite familiar with each other? You know… wink-wink comments. I also see that amongst your last 500 edits, this is the only time you’ve visited this venue. Would you please tell us for the record that you didn’t just now receive an e-mail from Wjemather? Greg L (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please observe WP:AGF and not try to make accusations against me. And for the record no I did not receive an e-mail I saw the conversation pop up on my watchlist since I have his talk page watchlisted. Ridernyc (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AGF does not equate to “abandon common sense.” Your 2¢, above, don’t even touch upon his current, specious antics regarding notability. Try adhering to the issue, please, and stop parroting what you’ve been told to say. He is editing to be disruptive. Pure and simple. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope backing out of the conversation, your not going to bait me. Since you seem to think I'm here for some evil purpose of conspiracy I will back out of the conversation and let others deal with it. Ridernyc (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Update I will be deleting the tag from the article in a few moments since, given the consensus views on the talk page, Wjemather is simply editing disruptively to make a point after no one else there agreed with his views. If he will continue to debate in a civil fashion, forego slapping the article with {DEBATE}, {DISAGREE}, {I DON'T LIKE IT} tags, and actually give others time to weigh in and comment so a consensus can be arrived at, then all will be fine. BTW, that sounds wise, Ridernyc. Greg L (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Greg L's comments. As did everyone else in the talk page discussion. I've worked on articles subjected to similar disruptive tagging by WJE (tag-teaming with Rider, curiously), and am sorry to see others being subjected to it. He has also in my experience, when unhappy with the results of his inappropriate edits/assertions, followed up with similarly inappropriate edits/assertions in a manner not dissimilar to what we see here. Whether he is intending to "punish" the editor for having a different view, or just disrupt his editing, it is IMHO neither appropriate not conducive to the goals of the project. WJE is a talented editor, but his talents could best assist the project if he were to curtail this sort of editing on his part.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, I have raised a number of concerns and tagged the article appropriately. Those tags have been removed despite the concerns having barely been discussed, let alone resolved. If anything GregL should be severely reprimanded for his incessant personal attacks. _wjemather^bigissue 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with Greg L's comments. The article should be left to develop, and in due time if there are critiques of any problems/inadequacies in press or online, they can be added. Heck, if we knock down every new article unless it's received treatment in the academic literature, WP would be shooting itself in the foot—at the very least, we'd be relegating ourselves to the has-been, unable to inform our readers of the world of computational facilities that is being developed. Tony (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC

Agree w/Tony. Furthermore, a glance at the article talk page suggests that at this point (although its always possible that Wje's compatriot could joint the conversation with a different view) the clear overwhelming consensus is other than your view. Please respect consensus. Furthermore, the tag just left on Greg L's page here does little to civilly advance the conversation.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg's comments (You... aren’t making good-faith edits, don’t need to act like a baby, your latest nonsense) more than warranted the warning and your (Epee) thinly veiled allegations are unnecessary. I have now presented the issues in a numbered list, as they seem to have been largely overlooked and overshadowed by Greg's overly aggressive defence of his article. _wjemather^bigissue 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is not to mention Greg's constant misrepresentation of my comments, something which he has done again here. _wjemather^bigissue 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: This is my last post on the discussion page, which I addressed to Wjemather:

“ The consensus here is that the article is clearly notable and sufficiently cited. If you persist to disrupt Wikipedia by slapping your {Discuss-DISPUTE-I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags on an article to force debate in defiance of consensus, you will be held accountable. I understand you might not agree with the consensus here that the article is sufficiently cited and is notable; in the military, that’s called “So sad–too bad.” You will have to live with that and move on. Goodbye and happy editing. ”

Eighty percent of the editors on the discussion page have now twice weighed in to indicate they don’t agree with Wjemather. Now we will just have to all sit back and see if he continues to insist that his concerns be addressed to his satisfaction and disruptively edits to force more debate. Greg L (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is the timeline of events. The tags that I originally placed (diff) were removed (diff) before discussion even began (rev) – only GregL had commented on the talk page. Consensus was apparently reached in double quick time by GregL and a few of his Wiki-friends based on a misinterpretation of my concerns. I then presented a short explanation of the issues as I saw them, and having seen the tags removed and recognising that they did not truly reflect the sum total of the issues, I added a multiple issues tag to the article (diff). This tag was promptly removed (diff) with further claims of consensus despite there having been no discussion on the majority of the issues raised, and bizarrely an assertion that the tag should not be in place while discussions are ongoing.

When he was unsatisfied with my response to his questioning, GregL then had his say on the talk page, opened this AN/I thread and introduced a misleading sub-section header to express his displeasure, undermine my contribution to the discussion and claim that I was raising different issues in order to be disruptive (diff). I replied to his post and then changed the subsection header to accurately reflect the discussion (diff). GregL's response was to change the sub-section header again, twice (diff, diff), while pouring more scorn on my comments.

GregL has persistently sought to argue on tangential issues (one of notability which has not been disputed and one of a supposed consensus) with long and protracted ramblings. He has also continued to express his displeasure by further changing the sub-section header in a disruptive and uncivil manner (diff, diff) consistent with the general condescending tone of his talk page contributions. In all I feel that have been sufficiently abused and baited by GregL (including the comments mentioned previously), and think it should probably stop now.

Thankfully another editor (Ohconfucius) has begun to alleviate the problems with the article and also constructively contributed to the discussion, so with any luck this can be put to bed. _wjemather^bigissue 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a grand total of one, single post by Ohconfucius where all he did was politely disagree with all of Wjemather’s objections. The following is the entirety of Ohconfucius’s post:

---

I don't think its obligatory or indeed necessary to have an overt assertion of notability ("It is notable because...."). In this case, as can be gleamed from the excellent and comprehensive Al Dean review, it seems that its notability stems from several factors, least of all because there are precious few CAD programs written from Mac and PC, and that it is intuitive and easy to use. I believe such facts, already well laid out in the lead, will stand out to any user of CAD software as making the product noteworthy. I also think that the image gallery serve a purpose other than simple "decoration" as it demonstrates the product's quality and versatility. I'm no expert, but the range of subject matter and rendering quality are also likely to be qualities that mark out the product from its competition.

---

Wjemather is free to express his views on the talk page. The consensus view—including Ohconfucius—does not share any of Wjemather’s objections to the article. We’re moving on. I urge him to move on and not edit against consensus and desist with his slapping {I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags ever time the consensus turns against him.

And I do hope that when Wjemather writes Thankfully another editor (Ohconfucius) has begun to alleviate the problems with the article and also constructively contributed to the discussion, that this doesn’t mean Wjemather expects to receive an endless stream of others entertaining him by responding to his posts. He has “problems” with the article; the rest of us don’t. A consensus has been reached and he is the odd-man-out. Wikidrama does not go on perpetually just because one editor refuses to abide by the consensus view; the whole art of collaborative writing would collapse into utter chaos if there were no means to reign-in such behavior. Greg L (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I’m afraid this entry at the ANI won’t be marked “resolved” and other editors in the future will be able to point to this entry and cite an “unresolved ANI that Wjemather was the subject of.” If I were you, I’d write something here along the lines of as follows: “OK, I don’t necessarily agree with those that share the consensus view on the Cobalt talk page, but I pledge to not keep harping on the issues they consider settled and pledge to not edit against consensus nor edit disruptively.” Some nice administrator here will mark this section with a splendid little green “resolved” checkmark and we all move on. Just a suggestion… Greg L (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Very odd. I do find WJE's continued failure to defer to overwhelming consensus to be less than constructive.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• He lives in England and edits after work. It’s nearly 2:00 in the morning for him. We’ll see what happens tomorrow… Greg L (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep going on about consensus, but several of the points I raised were not even discussed. Ohconfucius is pretty much the only editor who even attempted to do so. To state that no-one shared my concerns is wholly inaccurate. Tony, on my talk page, commented that he had revised his opinion and thought I was right to raise the issues (diff), although he did not reiterate this on the article talk page. Above Ridernyc also seems to agree with me, but was quickly hounded away from any discussion by GregL. As GregL knows, there are others who also feel valid points were raised, but they have chosen to steer clear of this unpleasantness. Also, an IP editor saw fit to tag the article as an advert (diff), which GregL removed within 10 minutes without explanation (diff).

I have accurately outlined the sequence of events above, but perhaps I should have started with the AfD of the gallery article which GregL seemed to take as a personal affront before apparently realising the fundamental problems (aided by another editor) and blanked the page to request speedy deletion.

GregL, you opened this AN/I with the claim that I have been editing disruptively, yet have provided no evidence that that is in fact the case. I do not see how raising perceived issues with an article can be construed as disruptive. If I had begun to cut away huge swathes of article content that would be a different matter, but I merely sought to have discussion. _wjemather^bigissue 08:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment : I think there have been some misjudgements and unhealthy escalations here, and we really ought to de-escalate. This is quite ugly, and I would have intervened here earlier had I known a case had been opened. I don't want to see good editors tearing at each other's throats, especially over some misunderstanding, which this appears to me. I believe that the problems at Cobalt are now resolved, so can we agree to mark this case as 'closed'? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple account problem

Resolved

 – No obvious issues with the editor. Successful at startling TTTSNB, though! —DoRD (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Editor was improperly reported to AIV for a non-vandal edit earlier today and, while investigating their contributions, I noticed that they had redirected three other similarly-named userpages to their userpage. I mistakenly assumed that the edits were vandalism and reverted, then realized that they all contained similar material. One of the accounts was blocked a few times, then unblocked and one remains blocked. A strict interpretation of WP:SOCK would seem to forbid the current account to be used, but TheThingy has been editing for almost 3 years now, so I'm here looking for more input. I previously opened a discussion with the editor and have notified them of this discussion.

• The Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The-thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The.thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and look at the "guestbook" on his userpage. More likely socks are found there. This really needs a checkuser, there are probably hordes of socks. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like water under the bridge... If they're no longer socking there isn't really an issue. –xeno^talk 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK does not prohibit multiple accounts, only multiple accounts used disruptively or deceptively, for example to create a false appearance of consensus in a discussion, or to evade the 3RR. Have the above accounts been used disruptively? Making an open connection via the user page suggests otherwise. In any case this sounds like a matter for WP:SPI if for anywhere. DES ^(talk) 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person that we are talking about. Here's the reasons for the accounts: "The Thing" was blocked forever. I was being a vandal and deserved to be blocked. But, later I made the account The-thing. That one was also blocked, but I didn't do anything. I was later unblocked but I had already made the account The.thing. I'm not sure why I abandoned that one but now I'm TheThingy. I make constructive edits and no longer use my other accounts. You can check my current contributions. TheThingy ^Talk_Website 02:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread scared the hell out of me until I looked at it for a couple more seconds, heh... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe...sorry about that! Thanks to all for the input. —DoRD (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fraudulent referencing

User:Ash has repeatedly inserted "references" to a retailer site where the only relevant content is expressly acknowledged as being "from Wikipedia," and the relevant text is essentially a word-for-word match to the pertinent Wikipedia article. Since Wikipedia mirrors cannot, of course, be used as references, I removed such references earlier today. Ash is now reinserting the references, linking to the same retailer site, but providing a misleading description of the referenced source. The articles involved include Alec Campbell, Chuck Barron, Cliff Parker, Bo Summers, and Chance Caldwell. This should be a very simple matter; when a page describes itself as a Wikipedia mirror, it can't be used to reference a Wikipedia article, and it's grossly inappropriate, bordering at best on deliberate deception, to present such a page as a reference with a description that misrepresents its nature, claiming it comes from an independent source. (The site used as a "reference" is (NSFW, adult content) http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/DaveAwards1992.html , a site hawking porn videos, with text matching Dave Awards.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised this matter on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page but s/he seems to prefer raising an unnecessary aggressive ANI rather than discuss the matter in the normal way on article talk pages or user talk pages.

The source HW has repeatedly removed was discussed at length at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source when HW previously went through a campaign to discredit the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source. It is actually well supported by academic use as the information supplied by other editors in that RFC shows. Rainbowcollection is a handy additional URL which clearly sources the published information to the printed AGVD. Assuming good faith, I changed the reference style after HW's initial multiple deletions to make this explicitly clear. The format of the references most recently removed without appropriate discussion was:

The URL is a handy on-line representation of the information for the layman reader rather than only quoting the OCLC for the printed material.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz first reverted my citation, I amended it to include the OCLC. S/he has blanket deleted across several articles without further discussion and appears to be failing to assume good faith on my part by calling the citation "fraudulent". I request that these deletions are reverted and discussed in a civil manner rather than waste everyone's time with this sort of bullying and unnecessary escalation. Ash (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the third ANI regarding this user. SGGH ^ping! 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a blatant sales and advertising link to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So? If you mean me rather than HW, then both previous ANI's resulted in no action due to a lack of substance and were raised by Delicious carbuncle; a user with a topic ban in place history of unnecessary dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive206#Proposal_to_Ban_Delicious_carbuncle. I suggest you judge this matter by the facts presented. Raking through any and all past disputes involving third parties, myself and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz in different combinations would appear more than a little off-topic. Ash (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, did you look at the adult directory to confirm that the awards are listed there or did you rely on the vendor page (which mirrored wikipedia) to assume that's in there? If it's the latter, that is reckless and will cause other editors to review all of your citations with suspicion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was verified when the information contained in the article Dave Awards was sourced from it. The reference is identical, only the handy URL has been added for convenience. Its use in this manner falls within WP:RS (and WP:SPS for that matter) as the URL is not the key source document but presents the identical information, namely that these credited actors won these awards. Potentially the URL could be removed leaving the reference to the printed document only, however, we commonly point to commercial sites or catalogues (such as IMDB or AFDB) which are used as supplementary sources. I see no particular reason why gay pornography should be a special case and have to comply with higher criteria for supplementary sources than any other sort of BLP related article. You will note that this ANI is about "fraudulent" referencing.

I believe that it has already been made abundantly clear that there is no "fraud" at work here, particularly with a history of a prior RFC that addressed this matter and the use of the word is unwarranted and uncivil. If we are discussing the refinement of referencing then this is not the correct forum as no administrator action is required and this is not a forum to reach a general consensus on referencing. Ash (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reckless, Ash. The cited text in wikipedia states that the winners of the last year of the awards, 1994, was listed in the 1996 directory. No mention is made of the other years. Yet you reference the 1996 directory for the 1993 awards. I also had to giggle about the directory being used for a "2003" award.[23]. Yeah I know that one was a typo. You should not cite to anything that you can't verify yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have been the only editor to supply multiple OCLC's for the AGVD - that was verification that the source document existed in its different editions. If you believe the information about the Dave Awards might be false, and the AGVD (which was published in several editions as information was updated) was not verified, then the identical information in the Dave Awards article supplied by other editors cannot be trusted either. As you have chosen to go ahead and delete these references rather than discuss any further, I suggest you do the same thing, for the same data on the Dave Awards article. Presumably this means that all references to Dave Awards should be deleted from all articles as the AGVD is the original document as published by Dave Kinnick who created the award and it made a point of formally listing the Dave award winners based on his original column. The obvious consequence will be the eventual deletion of several more BLPs about gay pornographic actors, an area already remarkably under represented on Wikipedia compared to almost any other genre of film.

Note that with your recent deletions you are ignoring the prior consensus of the RFC mentioned above for the use of the AGVD as a source. Ash (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are blatantly mischaracterising that RFC. First, the RFC does not establish that the Dave Awards prior 1994 were published in that 1996 directory! Second, that local consensus does not trump the consensus established by wikipedia policy and guidelines! It is clear to me that you have not directly verified the material per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't cite to something that you don't even know/prove that's in there. That's why other people are characterising this as fraud. The burden of proof is on the person who adds the material. See WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of award winners at Dave Awards used the same original source (AGVD) to state the same porn stars as the articles I have edited won the exact same awards. Either it was verified at the time or it was not. I have used the same citation with the addition of a relevant OCLC to prove it exists in a library. I do not have to read paper copies of every citation myself in order to give each citation credibility, that is not part of wikipedia policy as we can rely on verification by other editors. If you believe the source was not verified correctly, the route you should take is ask for verification, not deletion. By claiming the source is "fraudulent" then it should be removed everywhere it is used, not just on the article I have edited.

By the way, a RFC is a wide consensus process, not a local consensus. Ash (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you did not read Dave Awards article correctly when you copy its citation. "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. A good editor has to verify things when adding it to wikipedia. You can not shirk this responsibility simply because it is inconvenient for you if it's not online. BTW, I don't call any consensus arising out of 3 editors participating which includes the one who called the RFC as being wide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

Thanks, could you provide a link to the policy that states that Wikipedia contributors must personally verify all source material for citations with their own eyes rather than relying on verification by others? I am only familiar with the basic RS and V and these make no such constraint. I am not sure you understood my point. All the information in Dave Awards was verified at the time to the sources quoted. I could add a blanket reference to Kinnick's original column in the Advocate if that makes you more comfortable but I would still be reliant on verification by other contributors. As for the RFC, it was publicized on RSN as well as using the normal WP-wide RFC process, that in the 2 months it was open, only 3 people took part did not stop an unknown number of people reading it and anyone was free to contribute if they felt strongly. If you feel a second RFC is needed, you are free to create another, the fact I created an RFC in the first place demonstrates my good faith attempt to satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original objections. Ash (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it's a reasonable interpretation of "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one" of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT along with WP:BURDEN's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A good editor would check his sources and not rely on heresay. I don't consider your editing fraudulent, just reckless. Further, commenting on the RFC even though it's moot since I don't think it applies, a wide consensus is not formed simply because the opportunity to do so was widely disseminated. Like you said, silence does not always mean agreement, it means people didn't give enough of a shit to contribute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to look at this BLP noticeboard discussion of Ash's sourcing on a specific article. I have also commented here on the use of the website noted by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, but nothing came of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC above started on 3 January 2010, was publicized on RSN and stayed open for two months, you were active on that talk page and never bothered to express an opinion or provide any relevant facts. Pointing to other discussions about different articles and different sources (in the case of the BLP discussion, I was not notified of the discussion existing) can only serve to take this ANI off-topic. If you previously had discussions and nothing came of it, perhaps there was a reason that nothing came of it. Ash (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Wikipedia is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Wikipedia's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Wikipedia citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag.[24][25][26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of WP:Drama which I am not interested in prolonging. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the Dave Awards article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met WP:PROVEIT nor WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when you reinstated that citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact Kinnick through facebook so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If only Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is calling me a fraud here, I suggest this ANI is closed as no admin action is required. Ash (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect people will pay any more attention to this here than they did on BLPN, but see the already linked BLPN discussion. In that case you used as references sources which did not contain the stated information. I chose to refer to your use of sources as "bullshit" rather than "fraudulent", but I suspect they mean the same thing. This suggests a pattern of undue care on sensitive BLPs and may require admin attention, if not action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Melesse

1. User:Melesse is doing a particularly excellent job regarding adding fair use rationales for images. For the vast majority, she is adding things that are missing and doing a great job at it.
2. However, she is tagging images that are exclusively text as copyrighted, when in fact they are not even eligible for copyright (i.e. those that are exclusively text and/or simple shapes. These should be tagged with {{pd-textlogo}} and {{trademark}} instead; example: [27]
3. She has asked that I not discuss anything with her on her talk page and, though I am completely at a loss as to why (and she refuses to discuss the reasons), I will also respect that request. Since I cannot discuss these issues with her on her talk page, I see little choice but to bring it up here or another such forum.

I ask that an admin pass along my compliments along with {{subst:The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar|For exceptional work above and beyond the call of duty on FUR cleanups! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''— ''BQZip01'' —'''</font>]]</span> ^{[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]} 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)}} and pass my concerns from #2 along to her.

Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User notified — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said I won't discuss the reason. The reason is that I do not appreciate your replying to inquiries on my talk page to undermine my (valid) reasons for deleting images with your misguided assumptions (examples: a fair use image with no license or source should be restored because the subject of the photo is deceased; and that a piece of public domain art doesn't need to cite a source because it is ineligible for copyright).

No one is trying to undermine you, but you are making a lot of questionable deletions. I'm not saying the fair use item should be restored simply because the subject is deceased, but because no noncopyrighted image appears to exist and there certainly is an applicable FUR that could be applied. While the source for PD anything should be there, simply because it is missing a source doesn't mean one can't be found. Furthermore, it is not merely PD, but ineligible for copyright protection in the first place as it is WAY too old. The source is irrelevant and is icing on the cake. While I would certainly like to credit the photographer and the website, it isn't necessary in this case. We also should use these talk pages rather than coming here. Would you mind discussing these? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, but Melesse, could you also please explain why you're prematurely deleting files at C:SD#Dated deletion categories? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean prematurely? I know it is a day ahead on my clock, but I follow the clock on the category page, which apparently is on a time zone that's several hours ahead of mine. Melesse (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also have some concerns about why Melesse is removing where the images are coming from. I always put where the image came from (direct link to the image) and what website it came from. Melesse seems to be removing this information and potentially making the images deleteable. I would like some explanation on why he is doing that before I go back and revert prefectly good FURs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, you're welcome to go back and revert or change any rationales I added that skip the website information. I would recommend adding the website details to them, because I believe a recent update in the wiki code prevents the old version of the fair use template from displaying the rationale properly, and the rationale is just as important as the website. I really don't know the technical details of it, the issue is in discussion at the village pump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Software_change_affects_older_.22Logo_fur.22_template.3F) and I don't believe it's resolved yet. I must admit that I started work on the backlogged category (Fair use images that transclude the fair use template but have no purpose stated) because I wanted to kill some time this morning, so I went at it in a very mechanical manner, depending mostly on a script that fills in the required information and most other pertinent details, but website is not one of the fields it fills in. Melesse (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a way to combine the FURs you added (cause they do have more information at the bottom of the FUR template) and mine (with the direct links to the images and websites they came from) that would be good. I understand software glitchs goof things up and if that was the case (and it seems to be in this case, I want to work together to get your version and my version together. Just makes sense. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Melesse. I have no doubt that you are trying to do the right thing. All I'm asking is that you slow down a bit. I'd like to help out on this, not correct you. My biggest concern is deleting images that may have a valid use (like File:Israel Kamakawiwoʻole.jpg) or deleting/improperly taggin those that are simply text/simple shapes (i.e. something that ISN'T copyrightable). No one is quesitoning the deletions, per se. You were within your rights to do so as they are missing critical information (I don't really care about a 24 hour mistake all that much as long as we can fix it). I'd be happy to help and I'd like the chance to fix the problems you've identified.

Additionally, would you have a problem with me putting the barnstar on your page? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 And Questionable unblock of same (AKA user:100110100)

IP 174.3.110.108 (talk · contribs) is engaging in deliberate wikihounding of myself. I first encountered this editor, when he was 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) and later as 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs), when he made massive changes to Wikipedia:Tables (formerly Wikipedia:When to use tables), Wikipedia:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and Wikipedia:Lists without any discussion nor consensus. As he continued these edits, despite warnings from myself and others, he was reported here and was blocked for 3 hours. During this event, he also filed a false 3RR report that resulted in his being warned again. After his block was lifted, he was again admonished by several admins, but continued on and the report went stale. Administrator User:Father Goose apparently deciding to adopt the editor and helped him make the changes he wanted. He was reported here again on March 3rd by another IP, but no response was given to that report.

On March 10, he pretty much straight down the list of articles on my user page, and making random bad edits to Meerkat Manor[28], Tokyo Mew Mew[29], U-Drop Inn[30], and White Dog[31]. All of his edits were reverted and I requested that Father Goose intervene, as he had clearly decided to "nuture" this IP and had assigned himself as the IPs "advocate"[32]. While Father Goose agreed that the edits were not improvements, he also asserted there were in good faith and felt no action was needed[33]. Further discussion followed on both Father Goose's talk page and the IPs, including some back and forth between the IP and myself where I reiterated that I wished him to stop hounding me and bothering me, primarily through the Meerkat Manor talk page, despite FG also objecting to his change.[34] He continued to do so and Father Goose finally asked the IP to back off and again noted that the edits were not an improvement.[35]

The IP has continued to ignore Father Goose's notes and my own requests to leave him alone, quickly losing my temper with his continued aggrevating actions and Father Goose's seeming approval by his lack of action.[36] Father Goose even went back to U-Drop Inn,[37][38] and made similar edits as the IP, to which the IP responded to by giving him "getting [his] changes implemented".[39] The IP tried to call my reverts of his edits WP:OWN and began using that as a pipped link every time he used the phrase "your articles". He admitted that he'd specifically gone to my user page to "came to audit your articles" to see if they met his idea of what they should be, and then as they had no tables, he just made random changes to "improve" them. He clearly stated: "If you are wondering what my motivation for editing your 4 articles, it is because considering you were the only person who objected to the changes to wp:table, and then you did not explain your objections, considering that you made no contribution the current version of wp:table, I did not think you had invoked the changes to "your" articles." though none of those articles have even one table. These remarks were made after Father had told him to back off, and despite the IP's stating "I won't post any comments on any of your articles' talk pages" he continued to do so.

After I posted to Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles suggesting the guideline be clarified to note what is not ownership, he followed me in his very first edit, after being offline, to opposed it.[40]. He had never edited that talk page before, nor WP:OWN itself, so it is clear he came behind me.[41] The IP went on to claim he'd done this before, editing Gossip Girl[42], however no edit was found with his IP range, unless he deliberately changed ranges. He also clearly recognizes that his behavior is disturbing and annoying, seeming to find it amusing and has indicate that he fully intends to continue doing so deliberately and claiming that any objection I make is displaying "ownership".[43][44]

Father Goose said he would speak to the IP[45], but nearly 24 hours, has not done so though he has been online. The IP's newest remarks have been to make his expression of his full intention to continue his harassment and random "auditing" of his articles. I am also concerned about the appropriateness of Father Goose's actions in this situation, after learning that the IP is actually 100110100 (talk · contribs)[46]. This user was blocked in 2007 for serious incivility, disruptive, and even making death threats. Apparently, he admitted at some point to Father Goose that he was this indef blocked user, and rather than reminding the IP that he was evading his ban, Father Goose decided to lift the block all together, stating "Assuming good faith; has displayed an imperfect but much more even-tempered manner as an IP since this account was blocked." Father Goose also seems very quick to jump to this IPs defense against any criticism[47] and after his earlier block as an IP, went on to do the IP's edits for him and explained why he could "get away" with[48].

It should also be noted that the IP is in an on-going edit war with User:Paul 012 at Wikipedia:Lists[49], and has been warned for doing various template changes without consensus (even being mistakenly blocked as a bot for how quickly he was doing certain changes. Also, as I was typing this, the IP filed a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts against me.[50]

At this point, it seems prudent to have some outside administrative reviewing of both the IPs actions, and the quite unblock of what appears to have been a very disruptive editor who has been evading his block with IP socks for weeks, if not longer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC); Modified 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is continuing his actions, going on to deliberately make edits to other articles, despite the those same edits being rejected by both myself and Father Goose as being incorrect and not an improvement to any of the articles.[51][52][53][54], and two more done under his user account[55][56] I find this person's continued deliberate targeting extremely disturbing. Father Goose purportedly contacted him OFF wiki, but obviously it had no results only to prompt this editor to continue this sort of stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot defend 174's continued editing of Collectonian's pages at this point. I've counseled him against it, but he has persisted. Being his effective mentor, I am reluctant to block him myself, as it would compromise our ability to continue to deal with him diplomatically through me. But while I have been offering him advice and assistance, he is not under my aegis, and if another admin feels his actions call for a block or any other administrative action, I will not interfere.

I'll continue trying to suggest to him what actions he could be taking that would be more constructive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you tend to be a very AGFing editor/admin, but I am curious as to why you choose to unblock his named account, rather than enforcing his indef blocked, considering the history and circumstances (particular the death threat which, as far as I could see, he never retracted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The broad principle here is that blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. His behavior is still not perfect (and his choosing to tangle with you in this manner deserves a rolled up wiki-newspaper to the nose), but I've seen him make positive contributions to the encyclopedia and his behavior has been far more communicative and cooperative than what caused him to get banned three years ago.

People are allowed to "come back" if they clean up their act. At the time that I unblocked him, his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed. Clearly we can't claim that he's a model citizen quite yet, and if he decides that hounding you is all that he wants to do on Wikipedia, then the cover should go back on the sarcophagus.

However, as pointed out by several people in the current Wikiquette alert ([57]), the intensity of your reaction here has not helped the issue. I'm not saying you should suffer a fool, but it makes it difficult for me to tell him to stop fighting with you when you're swinging back so hard. So far, this hasn't been going well for either of you.

I'd like to be able to stop this fight, but I'd need two calm people first.--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fight would stop if he would stop the hounding. Why he decided to start it in the first place is beyond me. And I am calm(er) now than I was the first day. I have little patience for that sort of behavior, particularly when I have it coming at me from three sides at the moment, thanks to this guy, User:Bambifan101 finding yet another range to get past the 4-5 rangeblocks on him, and User:ItsLassieTime making socks and doing their darnedest to try to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, including harassing a bunch of folks who supported or commented positively on it. And, quite honestly, your lack of response only made my frustration far worse, as you seemed to be condoning his behavior and at times I felt you were even encouraging it. I acknowledged in my original report that I had not been as clean-languaged as I could have been, but the issue was still on-going and as we have now both no doubt seen, he fully intends to keep it up. I don't think my being stressed and annoyed at his hounding and using more colorful language than I would normally would (which was far toned down from what I was thinking, believe me) should somehow excuse his behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And as an update, IP is continuing to push an issue at Talk:Meerkat Manor despite the notes above, it being rejected by multiple people, and folks in the Wikiquette alert that agreed he is acting inappropriate.[58] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Outside Tangentially related opinion

Collectonian, his behavior could be called into question. However, I'm still not seeing behavior rising to the level of hounding. He has made changes, but they appear to be good faith changes done IAW policy. While I concur that WP:IAR definitely applies at [[59]] and "The" is appropriate unless someone can come up with a better header. I have 4 articles to which I contributed that became FAs (as you are probably well-aware), but others still add a lot to those articles and change things, as they have a right to do.

However, even if someone else finds his behavior to be hounding, this doesn't excuse your behavior, which has been atrocious: from claiming ownership over articles, to excessive profanity, to inappropriate demands, etc:

[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

In short, I find your behavior to be worse and severely over-reacting. You should have simply brought your concerns here or to another board instead of reacting the way you did. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is your personal point view. As already pointed out in the Wikiquette alert, your are completely non-neutral in this discussion considering our disagreements over the A&M articles and my opposing one of your many failed RfAs. This is not the first time you have popped into a discussion that clearly showed inappropriate action by another editor to try to claim I was the one acting wrongly, despite no one agreeing with you. Again, whether or not I used profanity is irrelevant. I'm an adult and can use whatever language I choose. Further, it has already been noted above that this is NOT the first instance of this type of stuff. There is NOTHING inappropriate about telling someone hounding you to leave you alone, anymore than it would be wrong for me to tell you to get over the previous history and leave me alone. I walked away from almost every A&M article because of you. Be happy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan_Postlethwaite

Today, I had cause to completely rewrite an arbitration statement I had made, to reflect new material.

I started at about 10:30, finished at midnight. On the way, I had a couple edit conflicts. I thought nothing of them.

I then discover that I had gotten a warning User_talk:Shoemaker's_Holiday#Final_warning.

I went over to the clerk's page, and talked to him: I had noticed that the person I had initiated the case with had a much longer statement, so I challenged this. We talked a little, I post a brief note complaining about this unbalance, but when he agrees to see the other user redacts, I agree to start work on reducing it. User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#Arbcom

He literally immediately blocks me User_talk:Shoemaker's_Holiday#Blocked

He then holds the block over my head, and continues to insist he's in the right, because I said it might take a little time to finish redaction.

As it stands, the post put up as my statement is A. based on my first draft of the rewrite, not my final, and B. does not reflect my views well. HE forced me to agree not to attempt to bring it in line with my actual statements in order to be unblocked.

Have a read of User_talk:Shoemaker's_Holiday#Blocked. He spends literally 20 minutes arguing with me, while I agree to work on rewriting my statement to get it under the limit multiple times, but he...

This is a gross abuse of admin powers that actually serves to subvert an arbcom case, by treating getting under an arbitrary limit IMMEDIATELY, and out-of-policy blocking if you don't, as more important than letting the particiants have their say. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated clearly to you, I warned you 4 times about the length of your statement.[72][73][74][75]. I redacted you 4 times due to the length of your statement [76][77][78][79]. Yet, after my final warning, you still went ahead and readded over 2000 bytes of content. [80]. You had ample warnings, yet chose to ignore them. On your talk page after your block, all I asked you to do was make a promise not to add any more content to your statement - as soon as you did this you were unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to count two times where I was in the middle of a COMPLETE REWRITE OF MY STATEMENT, didn't see the messages, and would have reduced it as quickly as I could after. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd already been asked to redact it three previous times, failed to do so meaning a clerk had to do it for you, then went back over the word limit again. You'd had ample opportunity and disregarded a clerks warnings on multiple occasions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The first time it happened, by the time I had even seen a request to redact, it was redacted. What am I supposed to do, psychically know that an arbcom clerk is contacting me? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have known at the very least have known that after a clerk has had to refactor your statement three times (and warned you) that your statement should be under 500 words. God only knows why you went above it for a 4th time. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In the past, replies to comments weren't held against the 500 word count limit. If this is a change, then I'll have to remember this the next time FT2 posts..... 96.15.52.207 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Replies have always been included in the 500 word limit. As clerks, we've been enforcing the limit more rigorously as of late because we believe that it isn't fair to the users that try hard to keep their statements within the rules who are at a disadvantage to those who readily go out knowing full well they're over the word limit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan for the information. As the blocks for going over the 500 word limit are lining up, do you contemplate any future blocks for spelling mistakes? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been made clear, the block was made following multiple requests made over a 30 hour period that were largely ignored. Moreover, Ryan Postlethwaite made several redactions following Shoemaker's Holiday's failure to do so in that period, after which further edits were made by SH, including restoring removed material. It's difficult not to view that as edit-warring with a clerk. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not taking any sides on this conflict since I don't know the details. It just struck me as a novel way to get blocked. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since he does not mark his refactoring in any way, andm at best, all you get is an edit conflict, how on earth are you supposed to know he refactored? Are we supposed to be psychic, and know that our text has been changed, on a very active page? He mentioned he had refactored a couple days ago. I shrugged and moved on. He added another statement on the 11th in the old thread, which had had two newer threads posted under it since then, and such was easily missible - and was missed. All the other threads happened during the bout of editing. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you want us to do about it? The Arbitrators and clerks have fairly broad powers over how evidence and statements are handled at RfArb. A regular administrator really can't do anything about clerk actions. If you're really upset about something you were warned four times about and chose to ignore, I suggest you take your grievances to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks or to the ArbCom mailing list. AniMate 04:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not choose to ignore it. He did not give me TIME to get a major rewrite under the limit. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I could confirm that while I am in process of editing, I see no "new message" sign untill I do not finish the editing. The block was premature IMO. We need to wp:AGF--Mbz1 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

When did this terrible server lag start? If watchlists and RC are lagging by hours, I see no reason not to believe that the big orange message bar is lagging by hours too. Hesperian 05:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be gone now. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a meta point, the lag didn't start for around 30 minutes after the unblock so it didn't effect SH in the slightest. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian, if by "big orange message bar" you are referring to the notice that appears when someone has left a comment on your talk page, it's possible for it to be overlooked without any server lag. I ofen edit sections way down on a page and when I "show preview" or even save my edit, the page automatically hops down to the section I was editing, so the orange bar can be there for some time without me noticing it. Only if I'm editing the whole page will I notice the bar when I save my edit. I've had this happen many times. This can be disconcerting when back and forth editing is going fast and someone is trying to alert me in the middle of a conversation. I have no chance of factoring their information into my comments, and thus I might be reacting to something that has been cleared up or is irrelevant and old. If the orange bar was placed vertically at the side of the page, stretching the full length of the page, it would be noticed immediately whenever one saves one's work. Another option would be to also (in addition to the top or side of the page) have it appear in the editing window. Those are some suggestions for the programmers of the software, but I have no idea how to contact them. I've never had any luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ryan, come on. To use this case--contentious, emotional, a HUGE deal to the initiating party--to enforce rules which have been TOTALLY disregarded for approximately EVER--esp when you and this user have a history and it ain't a good one--you're coming off totally vindictive and out-of-pocket. Back down, drop the stick, let the man write what he wants--esp since it seems to be his last gasp as a Wikipedian. (And yeah, you can go down the "oh, he'll be back" road--but seriously, AGF a little. He says he's leaving, he's probably leaving, leave him some freakin' dignity and stop hassling him over procedural minutiae. GJC 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with GJC. The block, at the time it was made, and in these particular circumstances, was severe overkill. At least it's been lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of blocking people for overlong statements at arbcom. I assume that in all future cases statements over 500 words will result in warnings and blocks. Is my assumption correct? Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup - people will be given fair warnings, but if a block if necessary then it will be given out. In this case, SH had plenty of warnings before the block was issued so this case is probably at the extreme level. Generally speaking, people won't be blocked, but they will be warned and asked to refactor. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen Ryan do exactly that with other editors recently. There doesn't seem to be any inconsistency with the way he handles these issues. It's not really any different than most other forms of disruption, like spamming or vandalism; give someone a few warnings and if they keep doing it, block them. -- Atama頭 20:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan was also wrong to remove a comment by me, see my talk page for details about that. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was 100% correct with that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct in the sense that the text you've chosen for your link to your list of contribution applies here? Count Iblis (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. The OP has expressed a complete unwillingness to even try to patch things up with the other user, it's a two-user dispute and the arbitrators do not seem much interested in fixing it, and the OP is unwilling or unable to keep it brief as required by the rules, to say nothing of explicitly rejecting mediation and other alternatives. This is a complete waste of everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• : Agree, let's close this discussion per WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think an unfair block has been made!

Let's try this again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) whom I like to keep track upon, has blocked Qamsar (talk · contribs) indefinitely, for what seem to me to have (recently at least) to have been good faith edits, even if against consensus. Could someone else take a look at this please? Cheers, 86.176.170.210 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Odd addition to the article, but definitly not vandalism.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'd love to know what your interest in this is, beyond hounding me on my Talk page for several weeks now, in various guises, from this IP subrange, arnd others. However, Qamsar (talk · contribs) has persistently added content to articles, has consistently been reverted by other editors, and has not sought to justify his edits on any relevant article Talk page. In this case, indefinite is not infinite, and if Qamsar deals with the concerns of other editors, he may well be unblocked. Meanwhile, please deal with your personal harassment ("whom I like to keep track upon") of me, when you do not raise the issue on my Talk page, or the unprotected subpage thereof. And frankly, you and your unwelcome poetry and unsubtle death threats are the only reason that I feel it necessary to protect my Talkpage. I can live without it, and should be free to do so.Rodhullandemu 02:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I never claimed to have any interest all the thousands of unjust blocks performed every day, Rod old boy. You're entirely correct that this block came to my notice from monitoring your contributions. Indeed, it would be grossly insulting to you were I to deny it! But it is an unjust block, objectively. It's a Thursday night, you're probably pissed. Nothing wrong with that. We all make mistakes. But as for the broader issue - let's not personalise this at all. My (or is there only one of us?) problem is not with you as a human being. It is with your part... indeed it could be anyone's part, but at the moment it is your small (but not insignificant) part in the machinery behind Wikipedia. I suppose I can only reassure I mean you no harm, nor harrassment, of any kind - in reality, for poetry is only that - poetry. But sometimes wiki-injustices are very grave, and extraordinary measures are called for. The crudest things work. Do you understand what I mean? 86.176.170.210 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) If you mean me no harm, you've got a fucking bizarre way of showing it. In the words of Monty Python, "fuck off". I need sleep, but I don't get it because of twats like you. Perhaps I believe too much in this project but it's all I've got. As Frank Zappa said, Shut up and play your guitar. Rodhullandemu 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't mind so much if you actually had a defensible record of contributions here; but unless you're deliberately editing while logged out to make a point, you haven't, and I suggest that unless you can demonstrate a commitment to the mission we have here, you should shut up. Rodhullandemu 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Uhh...why do you like to keep track of Rodhullandemu? wikistalking? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC) WP:Hound. Toddst1 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Having seen this thread I would like to make one comment. This whole thread appears to have been started because user:Rodhullandemu made a very unfair block. Please can we return to dealing with this matter instead of squabbling over personal issues. 79.75.205.33 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) This IP is fairly obviously the same person who started this thread... what a waste of time. ClovisPt (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not convinced this was a great block. I see one attempt to engage this user on their talk page with a warning, and then the indefinite block. The edits certainly were not vandalism, though a short block for editwarring could have been applied. AniMate 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Can we please discuss incidents without incivility? We are Wikipedia administrators after all. Please, try not to respond to this. It was just a side note. You can remove what can be perceived as uncivil with this note as well and pursue discussions. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Block of Qamsar

Qamsar (talk · contribs) The section above got a little nasty, so let's try this again. Rodhullandemu blocked this user indefinitely for inserting this edit into Freddie Mercury 8 times from February 25-March 12. The user never violated 3rr and only received one warning for his actions. I think the block was too extreme and would like to discuss overturning it. AniMate 04:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I completely agree. The edits certainly weren't vandalism, so calling his a "vandalism-only account" is simply inaccurate. Further, he received exactly one warning for his actions (several weeks ago) -- and the warning applied to 3RR, which the editor never technically violated. He was "warned" a second time in a way, by way of an edit summary at one point, but that's hardly sufficient warning. Why did we skip the usual channels and steps in this case? At the very least, an indef seems extreme. I'm not even sure a block is warranted at all, without proper warnings. I agree that his continual additions of this content without seeking consensus, and against consensus, is disruptive, but I don't get the block. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Qamar added the same content seven times over a two week period, with no attempt to discuss, despite being reverted each time. If we could clone ten copies of Rodhullandemu, perhaps he could take an extra half hour with each problem editor in order to repeat the very clear message (Feb 28) on Qamar's talk page which included: "When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." I support the small number of admins such as Rodhullandemu who do an enormous amount of cleanup work. If someone thinks the block is excessive, please go to the blocking admin's talk and ask them to reduce the block (and consider offering to mentor Qamar). This topic can be assumed to be Rodhullandemu's most sensitive admin action in recent times because the notice was given by an IP with no other edit who has stated that they "track" Rodhullandemu, and anyone with a finite supply of AGF might infer the reporting user is simply trying to make trouble for the admin, something that we should not encourage here when a simple discussion on the blocking admin's talk would be the appropriate action. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the IP aside, I don't support this block. We don't jump immediately to indef. 24 hours with a strong admonition to use the talk page would suffice. This isn't an experienced editor, he's new and the only interaction we've given him is a warning an an indefinite block. I'm half inclined to undo the block now, but will wait for more opinions. AniMate 06:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And the best outcome for the encyclopedia would follow from quietly discussing the issue on the blocking admin's talk, or to irritate the admin by continuing here? I say "irritate" because we can all see the motivation for this report in this location. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For better or worse, the issue is here, and I don't particularly care to discuss the IP. I'm concerned about the block and would like further review. I'm sorry if this irritates Rodhullandemu, but this is the venue it's being discussed at. AniMate 06:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate here: these (good faith) edits are no way deserving an indefinite block. If Johnuniq doesn't like the way these type of situations are typically handled, then he should try to change the warning and block policies by discussing them at the appropriate place. This looks like a clear case of wp:BITE to me. Buddy431 (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reduced block to 48 hours (from now, just so I don't have to do math), and left a message on the user's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you three guesses as to what and where his/her first edit will be when he/she returns. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another unfair block was made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qwerty450 FayssalF, please help, you forgot about this blockee. Thank you. 79.191.99.90 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What has this to do with the current thread? Rodhullandemu 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They want to sell falafels? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Both users are with ARABIC inclination and both users are persecuted supposedly for their ARABIC original inclination, so both users must be liberated from persecution. They are having in common:

• Aminullah>Qwerty450 under good faith proviso, thwarted by FPAS
• Qamsar, thwarted by Rodhullandemu

79.191.99.90 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tell you what, I am in a generous mood and am not going to block you for the personal attacks you just made on the two above sysops. I would ask you to redact your allegations of a cultural or religious bias by the two editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First, my intervention above had nothing to do with the incident itself. Second, I can assure you that there's no cultural bias whatsover from the part of the two administrators you are citing. Third, I urge you to discuss the incident and avoid extending it. Please, concentrate on that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Groupthink and John Asfukzenski

Attention, the user Groupthink is content with adding undue weight in the Trent Franks article. I have been trying to condense it, but he keeps reverting it. He has been blocked once already and he apparently has not learned from that. I have tried discussing it, but he keeps going with his tendentious editing. John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only one who has been tendentious lately is John Asfukzenski. He is right on the edge of violating 3RR at Trent Franks, was very nearly blocked himself for violating 3RR, did not follow instructions in his original 3RR report, has refused to compromise in his editing, has removed references, and failed to mention the fact that the block "that I should have learned from" was lifted due to administrator error. His attempts at discussion have been token and minimal at best, and the blatant political bias evident in his edit history make it impossible to assume good faith on his part. Groupthink (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the article's history but have failed to see the "undue weight" whereof Asfukzenski speaks. Incidentally, the dispute led me to reread his own user talk page, which reminds me that he has a history of removing material that he happens not to like. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear friends, obviously the user groupthink is adding unnecessarily undue weight over a recent comment made from Trent Franks on abortion. A Google search shows about 28 hits, most of which are from blogs. The idea that is controversial is non-sense. There has been no outrage over it. I think it is important to note that Hoary seems to be only interested in changing the subject over something that has occurred in the past. John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." but the issue is a content dispute. I'm not sure exactly what you want admins to do? A better idea would be to use the correct forums for this. Try starting with Talk:Trent Franks and look at some of the suggestions listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. something lame from CBW 05:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While looking into Groupthink's unblock request, I seem to have uncovered an abusive sock farm involving the following users:

• Showtime2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Red Peacock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Asfukzenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 63.215.29.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showtime2009. Prolog (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Falconkhe and User:Asikhi

Resolved

 – investigated at SPI. result-confirmed

Falconkhe has just been given a 1 month block as a result of a "confirmed, unambiguous" SPI checkuser case. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe. Falconkhe and two sockpuppets or meatpuppets have been engaged in weeks-long edit wars/content disputes at several articles relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Younus AlGohar. See Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. The disputes resulted in three of the articles named in the RFC being fully protected.

Just after the block and after full protection was lifted on the articles, User:Asikhi has suddenly returned to engage in the same pattern of edits to RAGS and associated articles. edit diff.

Has also previously added to the other socks/meat support for the page renaming: edit diff.

Possibly WP:MEAT? (has a wider article editing profile than the others). The clerk (Spitfire) left a clerk's comment suggesting that this was perhaps for AN/I rather than SPI.

Advice, please? Esowteric+Talk 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently being dealt with at SPI, after all. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

All accused parties are of the opinion that I am not being fair in singling them out. Their own grievances against the "other side" in the disputes are stated at Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and elsewhere. Esowteric+Talk 12:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe checkuser: "confirmed, again unambiguous." Esowteric+Talk 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This problem has been going on for months, and it's time these POV pushers start getting taken care of. Woogee (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, five socks have indef blocks and a sixth, StrageWarior, had been previously indef blocked for thinly-veiled death threats against the subject of Younus AlGohar. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamsaa.

I don't think this guy is going to give up easily. Asking to be unblocked, StrageWarior gave the following reason: Please unblock me: "Because this is my aim of life to not spare the lier and Younus and MFI is a lie." Esowteric+Talk 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

KirkleyHigh/ 86.162.18.140, is currently circumventing his fourth block of his first account (KirkleyHigh) with his IP adress 81.155.22.183 : he contributes on the same articles and makes exatly the same edits (e.g. removal of content, references, improper capitalization, removal of templates...). Please see also the previous discussions.[81]. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This case has been submitted to sockpuppet investigations. -- Europe22 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme blanking articles during/before AfD nominations

Resolved

 – Multiple disruptive behaviors by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs), warnings issued. Toddst1 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) has an edit history that consists entirely of deleting good content from articles and/or nominating articles for deletion. In particular, one tactic he frequently employs is to delete the bulk of an article, then immediately nominate it for deletion on the grounds that what remains does not show notability. This behavior has hit WP:ANI lots of times before, but to little effect to date, sadly.

One recent article where JBsupreme has engaged in this tactic is Alan Soble. This case has an extra wrinkle of nastiness inasmuch as JBsupreme discovered the article by looking at my user page, and noting that it was an article I had contributed substantially too (maybe created, I forget). This is a part of a general pattern of Wikistalking by him, but that's not really the complaint here. On that article, he has repeatedly blanked the article, the first time immediately before nominating it on AfD. Then repeatedly thereafter as part of trying to force an AfD result. LotLE×talk 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of nastiness, please inform editors when you discuss their behavior on any noticeboard. I have notified JBsupreme. Toddst1 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured someone would. Since JBsupreme deletes any comments I put on his talk page (and then places attacks on my talk page), I gave up on trying to do that myself. LotLE×talk 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You know I don't think this case has any merit whatsoever. Looking at the difference between the first time JBsupreme edited the article and when he nominated it for AFD it doesn't support your accusations. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm almost inclined to agree with Toddst1 on this. LotLE, you might have had a much better case had you not used Twinkle to revert his edits as "vandalism". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Looking further, I see a pattern of inappropriate reversions and edit warring on the part of Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs). Witness these three reversions of supposed vandalism. [82], [83], [84]. That is not reverting vandalism and is in fact edit warring, and abusing WP:TW. Toddst1 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For context, another editor emailed me with info on JBsupreme's Wilkistalking and deceptive deletion patterns. After JPsupreme started the belligerence towards me on some software article AfDs, he then nominated David Mertz and List of Python software for deletion (the first because it was about me, the second because I created it). The latter closed as Speedy Keep, the former unfortunately deleted against the bulk of opinion and arguments. But then after I stopped watching it, these other stalking actions happened (copied from said email):

Further into the rabbit hole, checking with this tool http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=JBsupreme&user2=Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Eaters turns up a number of curious overlaps, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wavy_Gravy&action=historysubmit&diff=343339202&oldid=343079152 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=REXX&action=historysubmit&diff=343517748&oldid=334266871 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Soble&diff=347439133&oldid=347016958 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haun_Saussy&diff=prev&oldid=347670586 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doug_Bell&diff=347742423&oldid=332454973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Watkins&diff=349062229&oldid=347535295 (this is not even including all the David Mertz delinks and related information removals).
...So out of ~3.2 million articles (and nearly 800,000 known BLP articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Templates_with_the_most_transclusions) these specific overlaps seem pretty indicative of the exact same sort of wikistalking I've been dealing with from JBsupreme. In effect, he removes material (sometimes including references) and later nominates the article for deletion.

Yours, LotLE×talk 18:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unseemly behaviour from sysop Beeblebrox

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Resolved  – Much ado about nothing. This kind of behaviour from an administrator is unlikely to restore confidence in the integrity of the administrator corps. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC) That thread should be closed at this point, I'm not sure why it was revived after 2 days of mold grew on it. –xenotalk 19:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (e/c) Indeed. Perhaps the user talk page in question should be protected unless the editor returns; it's awash right now in testosterone and silliness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I generally object to user talk pages of admins who left being protected, as users trickle there to ask about admin actions (and hopefully there are WP:TPS'ers who can help them out). However, the thread could probably be draped in purple right about now. –xenotalk 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) What good would protection do? Beeblebrox is an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC) All I will say is that Malleus accusing anyone of "unseemly behavior" is laughable, his continued grave-dancing on Chillum's talk page is repugnant, and he failed to notify my of this ANI report, but I have no intention of continuing to feed this troll by posting there or here again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC) In short, it's par for the course for MF, whose very username expresses the contempt toward other wikipedians that he regularly displays, as evidenced by his block log, and his username never should have been allowed. Probably best at this point to collapse the discussion on that talk page. At best it tells Chillum who his friends and enemies are, although he probably already knew. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) His user name should never have been allowed?! What a ridiculously statement. Grow up you fool. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Funny you should mention that. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) For what little it may be worth, I believe that Malleus Fatuorum means "Hammer of Fools", and may be a reference to the witch-hunter's manual Malleus Maleficarum, or "Hammer of Witches". Cardamon (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC) And exactly how would that violate user name policy? It may offend fools, but since no one would seriously consider themselves a fool, no one is insulted. Unless your concerned that court jesters may be insulted. Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC) "whose very username expresses the contempt toward other wikipedians that he regularly displays" - that's funny, since I first met him on here he's been nothing but helpful to me, and to anyone else who asks on his talk page. The amount of article improvement he undertakes for others is astonishing. I don't call that contempt, and your continued barbs to MF are childish. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I've also observed that which you point out. Jekyll-and-Hyde. I'm on his bad side, and I don't even know why, but care not in any case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No, there's no dual personality about Malleus. Just complete honesty, and an intolerance for idiots armed with shitty sticks. Parrot of Doom 22:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I was about to notify you but Xeno beat me to it. I note that's twice now you've called me a troll in the last few minutes. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I see nothing incivil in what was written, Malleus, and I find it hard to believe that you genuinely consider Beeblerox's message inappropriate either. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) So it's OK for me to call you a troll (repeatedly), or a notorious user? I see, thanks for once demonstrating the double standard of civility that's endemic here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Agree w/Beeble and Baseball. Time to put an end to this, and move on.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I have collapsed the editorial comments. Anyone who objects is free to re-open that package. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'm surprised you're comfortable with thinly veiled threats. Nev1 (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC) There's no threat, real or implied, in that comment. Beeblebrox is reasonably pointing out that MF lives in a glass house. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I agree there's no threat. It's not entirely civil, but it's pretty mild. I'd call this thread much ado about nothing, and would advocate closing it, with no prejudice against MF. -- Atama頭 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'll try saying something here though I doubt it will do much good. Malleus is correct—the first comment cited above, made by Beeblebrox, is indeed unseemly. It could be read as a thinly veiled threat, but regardless it was completely unconstructive, particularly coming from an admin with a block button. Beeblebrox's follow up comment in this thread, "I have no intention of continuing to feed this troll," is likewise unacceptable. There is no need to ever use that terminology with respect to other editors, even if one suspects that it is true. This kind of incivility is not acceptable in anyone and certainly not in admins. Ironically, Malleus had made equally uncivil (if not worse) comments in the thread on Chillum's talk page (see here (arguably a thinly veiled threat) and here, the latter seemingly an unsubtle way of saying "I hope you die," which some might view as a bit over the top coming in the context of an anonymous conversation on a damn web site). I don't think civility blocks do much good (surely Malleus agrees with that so I doubt that user was asking for one here), however both Beeblebrox and Malleus (and probably others) are behaving poorly and should knock it off. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I took both of MF's comments as being funny, in his way. No offense taken. And I'm sure he will afford me the same courtesy, as always. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I have done nothing, as you would have seen had you taken the trouble to investigate. Let's hope that one day administrators and non-administrators are treated equally when it comes to this kind of nonsense, but I won't be holding my breath. Oops! There I go again, making a suicide threat. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Some might take my preceding comment to be an example of exactly the kind of thingermajig you are looking for—administrators and non-administrators being treated equally when it comes to this kind of nonsense. At least we can agree that it's nonsense, though I find it unfortunate that you cannot see that you are also party to said nonsense. If Beeblebrox thinks they did no wrong, then that is equally unfortunate. I have to run off to the annual Brooklyn Breath Holding Contest now (I took third prize last year!) but it's been a lovely chat. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sure this is very funny on Malleus's part too. However, calling someone a storm trooper (even though the user in quesstion has "storm" as part of his name) is a bit over the top. I believe it is just as illegal to call someone a storm trooper in Germany and other European countries as it is to call them a Nazi. However, if admins feel that MF should get a pass on it, well, so be it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Neither are illegal where MF lives so I presume your point will be arriving later in a follow-up message? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Are you suggesting that such a comment is something other than uncivil?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Look, with all due respect Malleus but calling someone a "Storm Trooper" is like calling someone a Gestapo agent. It's mean, rude and outright cruel. That was uncalled for. Now as for the situation at hand, is there really anything to be done about it? If so (which I doubt) then we can keep on going but there is not. Now I'll be expecting SandyGeorgia to come along soon and get pissed at me for being an "idiot" and "not takeing a look at diffs" and whatnot.....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Don't be a wally. You translated "Storm trooper" to Gestapo agent", not MF. I suppose he could have used "jackbooted twat" and removed all doubt, after all the Gestapo weren't well-known for wearing leather boots, just leather trench coats. Methinks you've been watching too much Von Ryan's Express instead of doing your homework. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I didn't call someone a storm trooper, I called someone Storm Trooper. Can you see the difference? In any event I thought this has been closed as "resolved"? The admin corps has once again closed ranks and all's well with the world. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Indeed Malleus, I guess that you do make a point. And Fred, comments like the one you just made will only fuel a case against you in the future. I would watch your mouth If I were you....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) What about your own mouth? You accused me of a calling another editor a Gestapo agent. Wehwalt's ignorant commentary is probably best passed over. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I never siad that. I said that it is like calling someone a Gestapo Agent (linked for you). While it is wrongly considered the same, regardless, it was not a constructing comment now was it? Look, I'm not mad or anything Malleus. I just think that that particular edit was a bit overboard. That's all...--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I do hope you don't get friction burns on your inner thighs back-pedalling at that speed! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I never backpedalled at all. Instead, I clarified what I said and prevented you from putting words in my mouth.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The ignorance of Coldplay Expert, a member of the MilHist project, and others on display here is quite breathtaking. Storm trooper is hardly pejorative, and in fact as WWI special forces could even be considered a compliment by any rational person. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Actually MF, I was'nt being ignorant at all. I knew that you'd use this as an excuse. Pop culture has defined storm trooper as a Nazi soldier that is likely a member of the SS. While this is not always the case it's still wrong one way or the other. Trust me Fred, I do my homework.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you should email George Lucas and tell him his stormtroopers are dressed all wrong and shouldn't be wearing white. They should have all been dressed in black leather wearing swastikas. It's a generic euphemism for heavy-handed behaviour. Sheesh, the educational standards are really slipping these days! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Or parhaps you should go off and make a constructive edit or two. After all, every other word that you utter is garbage that can be considered borderline trolling. Sheesh, civility standards have really fallen these days!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I've done my editing for the day, now I'm just chillin' reading your erudite and off the cuff repartee. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh! So your done makeing your 8 constructive edits for the day and now the menu for tonight is trolling with a bit of ageist insults and some uncivility on the side?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh my poor, innocent child, don't read anything into stats. Perhaps you should read more into what those edits were, not to mention the ones on Commons. There aren't just words on WP you know. So innocent, so naive, so young. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Um...no. (again your wrong) all of thoes edit took probably 15-30 minutes of your time. Like I said, you make 8 good ones and 8 trolling ones. Well at least you ballance out.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Have you noticed that the more wound up you get the worse your typing becomes? And I stand in awe of your sense of infallibility. 8 minutes eh? Your experience of Photoshop and Illustrator telling you that? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not wound up at all. If I was, I would have walked away. Right now I listening to music and watching the Hammer of Fools and the Anvil of Idiots try to explain away one single edit. Imagine what 10 or 100 of these diffs would result in.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC) You know just as much as I do Fred, that MF was not talking about the starwars movies. And for you to bring that up is to be honest, very disturbing in terms of your own jugement.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The point, my little fledgling, is that there are all manner of definitions of "stormtrooper", yet you waded straight in with "Gestapo". I'll go out on a limb and say that was slightly more disturbing, and perhaps is a strong case for taking a break from the wartime articles for a bit. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Um no. the point is that you will not drop the sitck (need I link it) and admit that your only here to cause trouble. Your first edit to this was to try to keep this going. Not end it. That right there is proof that your a "waste of space".--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Once again, naivete at its best. So you haven't noticed exactly what you are doing with regard to sticks? And you consider your fine words to be constructive? One day young man, you'll have a final word that is worth having. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) And one day (God willing) you'll be blocked. But we both can't get what we want all of the time now can we?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk Ah you see, that's the difference between you and I. I've already got what I want, yet you my young neophyte are still working out what it is that you actually want, let alone know that you're going to get it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh Fred. I already know what I want. I want you to take you head out of your butt, wake up and smell the coffee. Your only prolonging this thread's ending by running in cricles. One day you will realize that your not here to help out but to hinder. IMHO, your another Peter Damian.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh? Are you still here? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I cringe at the thought of someone smelling me after taking their head out of Fred's ass. ;) — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Now now, no need for personal attacks. Honestly, this is about an incident involving Beeblebrox, not a place to insult each other.  IShadowed  ✰  02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Coldplay Expert, have you ever read WP:NPA? oh, also - it's you're, your, you're and circles. Lern too speel. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh I see the preacher of the damed has arived. (Late as usual) Have you read NPA?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Coldplay Expert, as you're still learning to read, I see that you have misspelled damned. Oh... if only your mother knew how they were teaching nowadays in the classroom. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC) WP:NPA coffee. that was uncalled for. I can spell just fine. It's my typeing that sucks.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (outdent)Maybe you're just early.  IShadowed  ✰  02:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC) And maybe, just maybe, Ironholds is a hypocrite. But who cares right?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Ironholds is, although it pains me greatly to say it, a rather respectable editor. Keyword being 'editor'.  IShadowed  ✰  03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I'm rather worse as a human being. But you're right, I've made some horrible personal attacks, as evidenced by my massive list of NPA warnings and my enormous block lo- ohwait. Ironholds (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) CAn someone block that IP who is obviously Fred?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persecution

I don't know the entire guidelines of english Wiki, so I leave it to administration to decide how my story suits for this noticeboard. And please excuse my grammar.

To the story. It's all began on March 9, 2010, when User:Crusio nominated for deletion four articles of my edition, and navigation template: * Chris Adams * Bernardo O'Reilly * Calvera * Django * Template:The Magnificent Seven

Then came User:EEMIV and nominated six more articles: In the high attention area * Hit Back * In the high attention area 2 * El Shaitan * * Phantom (russian song) * 30th

Before they nominated these articles for deletion, they did not even try to edit them, nor to discuss something, as well as there were no advices to me, nor a recommendations.

Faithfully, all those articles were visited by hundreds of users, since Dec 2009, and nobody try to delete them, nor to remove the images from there.

So, when I told them about my concerns about their good will and impartiality, they had responded me in such way:

• User talk:Crusio#Check it
• User talk:EEMIV#Russian sources
• User talk:Crusio#Warning
• User talk:EEMIV#Warning
• User talk:SerdechnyG#Your warning

Let me cite them:

... It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related [and, really, most non-English] topics on English Wikipedia are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of [English] Wikipedia policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are [inadvertently] amusing. ... --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My lack of grammar is a good reason to edit my mistakes as User:Aiken drum, User:Badger151, User:MuffledThud, User:Phil Bridger, User:Chris the speller, User:Plasticspork, User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Skomorokh, User:Woohookitty, User:RadioFan, User:Mild Bill Hiccup, User:Eeekster, User:Stpaulelective2010, User:Piratedan did (thank you all, gentlemen, I appreciate it). But maybe I wrong, and it's really a solid reason to delete all of these articles? These articles are not my property - they belongs to all wikipedians. Didn't they realize it?

Their deletion nominations it's only a half of the problem. Together with nominations they start another sabotage, such as images deleting (instead of editing them), they deleted a references which provided evidence of notability to articles, reverted my edits (edit warring) and did another things, trying to reconvince those users, who had removed their deletion templates (e.g. User talk:Phil Bridger#El Shaitan). The whole picture looks like a tangle of troublemaking actions, and no signs of even try to edit, or act constructively. Only destructive actions: delete, remove, undo, etc.

To be honest, I don't know entire "legislation" of English wiki, and I suppose nobody really know it all. But, as I suppose, my linguistic defects or lack of knowledge of English-wiki proceeding are not a reasons to start this deletion war.

And I have nothing against User:Crusio and User:EEMIV, but I have a strong doubts about their intentions towards me. The most incomprehensible to me was that one user can nominate innumerable quantity of another one articles. In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy. I see no controversy in threads, which they had opened. In their actions I see nothing against articles themselves, I see only prejudice towards me. I suppose, if there were no list of my contributions on my user-page, they would give absolutely no attention to them. It seems like a badgering and nothing else.

Please, make clear for me: Am I doomed to pass this ordeal, and what a kind of ordeal I faced? Is this a rite of passage for all newcomers, or this is a kind of procedure created especially for me. Before this mobbing, I've got a whole lot of ideas what should I write next, some to-do list, but now I have a strong doubts about my further presence in English wiki. So, please tell me, what should I do next: Pack my bag and say goodbye to English wiki or what? SerdechnyG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning your good-faith contributions, nor is anyone "persecuting" you. However, your article and image contributions are problematic under several policies, e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NFCC. You excised several discussions about these issues in the talk-page quotes you included. Please heed the advice I offered you to review several policies and guidelines about article creation and maintenance. And, FYI, in an effort to at least help out a bit, I have made several useful edits to some of the Magnificent Seven articles you created/heavily edited; Crusio has done likewise. Whether deliberate or innate, myopia about how editors respond to your contributions isn't particularly useful to anyone. --EEMIV (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The links presented by SerdechnyG and his comments say it all, I have nothing to add. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note: this is Administrators noticeboard, and nobody ask your opinion yet. You've got an opportunity to write evetything on above mentioned talkpages, or retaliatory note instead. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the 'admin' noticeboard, but if you are so perseptive as to to see that, perhaps you would note that the majority of edits here are not all by admins, but other users trying to help with the problems being discussed here. You don't have to be invited to comment, nor do you have to be an admin to comment. Anyone can comment, and these comments are not judged by the user level of who wrote them, but rather the arguments themselves. So instead of outright dismissing an argument because it was someone uninvited or a non-admin, why don't you heed their advice.

WHAT ADVICE? SerdechnyG (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, wikipedia is everyone's business. Anyone can comment anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it clearly indicates their intentions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, dear friends, you see. They're following me even here. Actually I had no doubts that they would do so. Picture is clear. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• You announced very clearly that you would post here, even though you failed to notify us both when you actually did (as is your obligation, as clearly marked at the top of this page). Both EEMIV and I have been around here for a while and we know WPs procedures reasonably well. "Following" you here is nothing out of the ordinary. Posting here without notifying the people concerned is discourteous at the very least. Please stop your baseless accusations and start getting familiar with en.wikis policies; things obviously are being done very differently here from ru.wiki and you cannot just try to impose your ideas of how the rules should be here. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before advising me to "start getting familiar with en.wikis policies", You start it first: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

SerdechnyG, That is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is by no means binding. See also Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem andWikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I want answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In looking through the history here, I'm really not seeing any evidence of "persecution." You have, unfortunately, created a lot of articles for unnotable films that also use excessive non free images., as can be seen in the AfD discussions for those in which almost all are at a anonymous delete due to lack of notability. When an experienced editor notices a less experienced editor making the same error several times, it is very common to review their contribs to see if there are other instances that need to be dealt with. I'll also note that Crusio's remarks were not bad faith. They were actually commending your passion and desire to help expand coverage of Russian topics, while lamenting that you choose to focus on unnotable topics that cannot be sourced or brought up to Wikipedia standards. EEMIV also complemented you for the same reason, but again reminded you that this is the English Wikipedia, and that the articles you have made to not conform to its standards.

Their removal of the images is not only complying with Wikipedia policy, but the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate to keep non-free images uses in-line with policy. As far as I can see, they have been polite in their interactions with you and have tried to help you understand that this is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia probably has the most detailed and exacting policies and guidelines of any of the Wikipedias, in part due to its age, and in part due to its much larger and active user base. Even above, you have shown that you really do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as you point to Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built which is an editor's personal essay that has pretty much no meaning at all.

Above you note that "In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy." - that is not the case here at all. We would have no users with such a rule, and quite honestly, it is a bad rule. There is nothing controversial in their nominating unnotable articles for deletion, even if they were primarily created by you. As for your question of what should you do? I would suggest really sitting down and learning Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (including the difference between them and an essay), and perhaps getting a mentor to help you negotiate the differences between your home Wiki and this one. You can find the core policies and guidelines here. I'd also recommend you cease trying to see that neither Crusio nor EEMIV were hounding you, which is a malicious following of another editor for the point of harassing and stalking, but a proper reaction to noting a slate of articles from the same editor that are primarily unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of Animeking237

I indef blocked Animeking237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as in the process of checking out a change they had made to a link at Tammie Souza I noticed an attack made on 4 February by that account at User:Tammie.souza (now deleted). The editor says on their talk page in several unblock requests that this attack was not made by them personally, but happened when a friend was conducting remote computer support for them. They say it was done as a prank by this other person without their knowledge - they trusted them to do the computer support and stepped away from the computer. No less than five other admins have dismissed this as being far-fetched, but I'm inclined to believe them.
Why do I believe them? This edit was wholly uncharacteristic of Animeking237's editing, and contrasted with an earlier very friendly message that they posted to User:Tammie.souza in November. Also note that the editor is apparently openly editing under their real name, making such an edit extremely risky to their own reputation. However, due to the possibility that the account is compromised, I doubt that unblocking the account is wise.
I propose that Animeking237 is granted the benefit of the doubt to start a new account, with the old one redirecting to the new one. All in support say "aye". Fences&Windows 21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? ...okay, "Aye!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Robertvan1 compromised account

I just indef blocked Robertvan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the three recently created and deleted articles were way out of character for this fairly idle account. It looks compromised to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged it as compromised. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, A user once told me on an account I had before this one that you could request to have your edit history deleted if you are getting rid of your account. If that is true, I would like my edit history to be deleted as I am no longer going to use this account or bother with Wikipedia. A user has been harassing me and stalking me on past accounts, and when I made this one in order to get away from them, I recently found a post they made to a user's talk page how I now have the account Abby_94. The only way they could have gotten this is checking the articles I am known to edit, to see if any recent edits were made. If I am to make another account ever on here again I will not be editing the articles I used to edit, and if I do make any edits to those articles, they will be from IP addresses, not a user account, in order to protect myself from this user, which I will not name, since I don't want any more conflicts. So, if my edit history can be deleted, I would like it to be done. Abby 94 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit histories can't be deleted but accounts can be renamed in such a way as to help conceal the original identity if you're concerned with wikistalking and outing. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As Burpelson suggested, I would recommend requesting a username change under your old account. Doing so will change the name of the account, and the edit history of that account will show the new name. If your old account ever used a signature on discussion pages, however, that signature won't change. If you have left personal information on any pages in Wikipedia then you will have to request oversight to have that information permanently zapped, which is a different process. You can also request a deletion of your old account's user page and user talk page by placing {{db-user}} on those pages. You should be logged in with that account when you do so, otherwise it might be awkward to prove that you are truly that person when you make the request for deletion. If deletion isn't necessary, just put {{retired}} on your user and talk pages to let people know that your account is no longer in use. -- Atama頭 22:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. I'm not going to request a username change or anything, I'm just not going to use this account anymore. I don't know if I will continue to edit Wikipedia, due to this issue, however, if I do make a new account, I won't be editing the articles I used to edit, and if I make any edits to those articles, they will be done by IP addresses. This is being done in order to protect myself. Abby 94 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then this is my suggestion... Just put the retired templates on the old account's user and talk pages to let people know that the account is inactive. Then with the new account, if you create it, contact ArbCom or a checkuser per the advice at WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Then you should have the best of both worlds; you don't have to make it obvious that you're the same person as your old account, but if anyone figures it out and accuses you of being deceptive you can point out that you let someone know about it ahead of time. That might save your bacon someday. -- Atama頭 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting of course that it's an admin responsibility to take care of an editor wikistalking another editor, I realise that it's the easiest option for the victim to have to make all the moves, but wouldn't it be nice if an admin at least asked the victim who was doing it, when they wer doing it and what they were going to do about it. Just a thought, and not aimed at you personally. It just seems to me that WP is a victim-rich environment and the culprits just have a whale of a time doing their own thing. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If I was asked to, I would. For someone who is clearly wanting to keep everything confidential, no, I wouldn't, and therefore haven't asked for details about the initial problem. In particular, Abby had stated this request was "in order to protect myself from this user, which I will not name, since I don't want any more conflicts." My interest is in helping Abby and helping foster his/her comfort level with this issue, rather than punishing whoever started the trouble in the first place. I personally would like to know who it was, so that myself or someone else could prevent this person from harassing other editors, but not at Abby's expense. -- Atama頭 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What I would do in the OP's circumstance is send an e-mail to a trusted admin and fully explain the situation, and take their advice. What I would not do is advertise it, as here, since the wrong eyes could be reading it and put 2 and 2 together. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Any editor who would stalk another editor would just as easily stalk two as they would one, especially if the first disappears. I realise and totally understand why Abby 94 doesn't want to raise a stink, but all it takes is a quick email to an admin, away from ANI. It also wouldn't take very much, for an admin who was concerned, to analyse Abby 94's contrib history and maybe figure it out for themselves. It all depends I suppose on how much of a priority that sort of thing is. I'm particularly sensitive to this sort of thing as a mate of mine got blocked for dealing with a wikistalker in his own way (quite a successful way as it happened) because the admins who knew about it wouldn't get off their fat arses and left him to deal with it himself. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The other person in this dispute (and yes, I know who it is) is making the same, or similar, claims of Abby (harassment, stalking, etc.). They seem to know each other in real life, or at least outside of Wikipedia, based on some of the dialog I've witnessed. Rather than raise the WikiDramaMeter to 11, I'd rather just settle the simple request about how to start over again on the site. I suspected that if I dug into this a bit, that's what I'd find. So, again, it's best with a request like this just to give the help that's requested. Generally I move my fat ass in the way I see fit, on my own judgment. -- Atama頭 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Atama. The entire situation has already been to ANI before, and looked into, one or two weeks ago. Things are not quite as they are reported, and in this particular case, the minimalist approach of answering only the specific question is best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of User:Roman888

Hi there, could someone please block User:Mahahaha as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888. This is his third sock. His contributions have been to restore copyright violations removed from Malaysian Armed Forces to newly titled articles. Threads higher on this page show the blocking of both User:Roman888 and his most recent sock User:Orang77. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm blocking per WP:DUCK, and I'll delete the articles per G5. -- Atama頭 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Cay

I undid some subtle vandalism to the article. The talk page has been fiddled with; maybe some admin would have a look and see if a rollback is possible or necessary? TreacherousWays (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that just removing all the nonsense below the wikiproject banners will fix it....there's never been much of a talk page, so might as well start from scratch. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

IP adding placeholder images despite numerous requests to stop

User:70.106.58.181 - Four different editors now (including me) have asked the IP to stop posting image placeholders on biographical articles. Those requests and warnings have gone ignored, and the IP continues to add them into articles. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally haven't seen the discussion that makes these holding images undesirable, but I don't doubt it has been decided somewhere. That is assuming that this consensus actually moved into a formal discussion with a formal conclusion. The IP has continually refused to enter into any discussion. Continue to move towards final warnings and WP:AIV provided that a link to the discussion where the aforementioned consensus was obtained is provided before the next warning, therefore providing direct evidence that the IP is being disruptive. SGGH ^ping! 23:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion took place at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, and links to this can be found on any of the image placeholder description pages. Personally, I think all uses of these images should be removed and the placeholders deleted, but there was no consensus for removal of already existing placeholders, just that no new placeholders should be inserted into pages. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Huntster, but that's another issue entirely. As for the IP user, they're aware that their actions are disruptive and continue doing what they want anyway. As the reporting editor clearly stated, they've been warned numerous times and ignore all warnings. Like any good disruptive user, they know exactly when to stop their disruption in order to avoid a block. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Athenean

I am generally interested in Balkans history and because of that I edited the First Balkans War and the Demographic history of Macedonia. User:Athenean an user edit-warring in these articles reverted me [85], [86] are very offensive apart from being part of his edit-war with help from User:Alexikoua. Both users have been blocked recently for edit-warring. [87] He keeps following me here an article in which Alexikoua has frequently edit-warred but Athenean has had no edits before following me to revert me. Athenean's most recent block where he "promised" to talk before reverting but as you can see all he does is editwar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athenean#March_2010. Alexikoua has also a full block log [88] with a recent 3-day-block. Additionally note the "help" they provide to each-other in articles in which the one has no interest but "joins" to help the other [89]. Athenean also seems to follow around User:Kostja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushtrim123 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only harassment is on the part of User:Kushtrim123, an aggressive nationalist SPA who is almost certainly a sock (most likely of the banned User:Sarandioti). This account was created a few days ago, and knows how to use edit-summaries and is highly familiar with wiki-jargon ("pov-pushing", "synth", etc...), and even knows how to file an ANI report with diffs. The aggressive nature, hostile edit-summaries, edit-warring and level of English indicate that this is almost certainly Sarandioti. He is following me around, reverting me whenever he can, just to spite me. He has NEVER shown the slightest interest in First Balkan War or Demographic History of Macedonia, both of which I have edited extensively in the past. Yet, he reverted on those two articles, because he looked at my contribs log. The ONLY way he could have found out about what was going on on those two articles was by looking at my contribs log. He saw that there was a dispute between myself and User:Kostja, and decided to jump in and try to draw me into a revert war. When I warned him to stop following me around, this [90] was his response. I guess this bad-faith ANI report and canvassing [91] is also his response. Classic harassment, and very reminiscent of Sarandioti. SPI to follow shortly. I should note that Sarandioti was banned after I figured out that he was socking for block evasion, and filed a successful SPI. It is thus natural to expect that this individual nurses a pathological hatred towards me and is clearly trying to get me in trouble at every opportunity. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been filed here [92]. Athenean (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Offensive, arbitrary comments by Wikipedia editor Uxepat

Resolved

As a new User, I posted an article in my draftspace. After receiving comments I revised. When I asked for assistance making the page live, Uxepat agreed, but unexpectedly added tags to the top and bottom of the page saying the article "reads like an advertisement" and containing "peacock terms." In response to my requests for specifics and for collaboration, he said he wasn't going to help me and that I should go back to editorial pool. He did not direct me to the "dispute resolution" page or the "help desk." In fact, he sent me personally insulting comments as "You are missing the point" and "Once more, with feeling, there are no supervisors here."

Understanding that we are all volunteers and scholars working for the benefit of readers, there is no excuse for that sort of unprofessionalism. I can see that he has already deleted his posts back to me, as he must be aware they are unacceptable.

I do not think Uxepat should continue as an editor with Wikipedia.

Given the amount of revision I have already put into this article, the subjectivity of the editor's comments, and the inexcusable behavior, I would greatly appreciate an administrator to remove the tags above and below this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rabasa

I'm looking forward to being a future contributor, and I hope this first bad experience isn't an indication of what passes for professional behavior here.

Thanks, --James Cihlar (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, see: Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#George Rabasa; User talk:Ukexpat; User talk:James Cihlar and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#bad communication, poor reading. I have nothing to add. This is not a matter for admin intervention. – ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ukexpat's comments were completely correct. He bent over backwards to help you, yet you made an incivil comment on his Talk page and then brought this here? Woogee (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:James Cihlar and will respond on the article's talk page as well. DES ^(talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indian editor making inappropriate edits to Muslim related articles.

Please see 115.117.238.32 (talk · contribs) and 115.117.239.199 (talk · contribs). Same editor, obviously, adding offensive images to Muslim related articles and vandalizing User pages, as well. They've both been blocked, though it's pretty easy for them to come back and do it again. Is a range block appropriate? Woogee (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And now back as 115.117.244.84 (talk · contribs). Woogee (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

and was previously 115.117.246.237 (talk · contribs). Woogee (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And now 219.64.71.76 (talk · contribs) Woogee (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

All IPs used for convenience:

• 115.117.192.108 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.195.181 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.206.205 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.211.232 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.212.151 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.215.9 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.217.49 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.221.175 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.227.154 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.230.55 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.233.114 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.238.32 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.239.199 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.244.84 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.246.237 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.252.231 (talk · contribs)

I might have missed some, but rangeblock looks to much of collateral damage. Mass semi would probably be better or an edit filter. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 115.117.192.0/18 for 1 hour. Lets see if this drives the user away. If not, can unblock and semi-protect (may be difficult, given that there are 1000s of Pakistan/Islam related articles). Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be only targeting 30 or so articles and about 5 editors. But they might move to another page which could be a problem. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The editors they have targeted are the ones who have reverted/warned them, so I don't think they are discriminating (no pun intended) in their choice of pages to vandalize. Simply want an outlet to express their nationalistic/religious hatred ... <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the IPs Mkbdtu? After reviewing some of the edits from the list it would seem so. Could be several users. Mkbdtu looks to be one of them. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspected so for a moment, but this editor is from Andhra Pradesh, while Mkbdtu is from Pune, Maharashtra. Also the IPs are making anti-Muslim/Pakistan edits, while Mkbdtu socks mainly try to glorify Hinduism. Both are socking incessantly though. Abecedare (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by socking user

First, I am going to take a "chillpill" and relax for now :). Cos I am also a editor and have been for quite sometime. And for obvious reasons I am not going to reveal my id. I did not meant to vandalize permanently any content in Wiki (i know it can and will be reverted). I know by doing these acts , I can get the attention of some of the administrators whats going in an regional and little known article in Wiki called "Paramahamsa_Nithyananda". Everything started with a fake guru called "Paramahamsa_Nithyananda" got arrested early this month in India. Two editors "Off2RioRob" and "TheRingess" kept on deleting stuff (added by users) regarding the widely known and well documented arrest because a) it offended their beliefs (they were the followers of the Swamiji) b) they can do so cos they are "editors" c) This editor "Off2RioRob" even made a statement saying Indians are "sexually repressed". If he can say that and leave unscathed then whats wrong in me doing the same to his talk page ???. It can still be seen in the talk page !!!. I even tried to reason with these editors for a while (say about 10 days). You can see what has transpired in those days in the article's discussion page. Then I realized these editors use their powers to stop spreading the truth just because it offended their beliefs. So I thought if the truth can not be published , because it has offended two editor's beliefs, so let me also impose what I thought in these international and sensitive articles so as to get some attention from Wiki admins. Lets say someone X has got arrested or something sensational has happened, what do we do ? We go to Google News and get the info.But what if these X is not so uber famous, then we go to Wiki and get the true view of the person.But if the Wiki itself is not neutral and controlled by two editors, then why can't I impose my inner most thoughts on the well-maintained articles. And FYI, this article recieved over 15k hits in just a matter of days. So when the truth is not published does it not mean that Wiki has cheated those new users who looked towards for Wiki for a neutral point of view. ??? If I am a vandal, so too are they.... PS :If you can do a google search on this person named "Paramahamsa Nithyananda" you yourselves can know the truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.xxx.xxx (talk • contribs)

If you want to influence the content of the Paramahamsa Nithyananda article, edit using your regular account, and use dispute resolution if necessary. Your recent vandalism spree will not get you the attention you need. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edits made by this person have been grossly offensive and have been redacted per policy. The IP range this person is using has now been blocked for 48 hours. Checkuser shows some, but minimal collateral damage (it's a /18 block of a popular ISP in Hyderabad) - it should be okay to extend this if needs be - Alison ^❤ 06:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the oversighting and extended block. We may need to keep an eye on 219.64.79.124 (talk · contribs), which seems to be the user's new IP from another ISP. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

hi,i m mkbdtu,i m not glorifing hinduism,i m just protesting against spacemanspiff,he has blocked many of my innocent friends,like harryparkar,mayurasia,we all friends discssed on the same topic,and he blocked us for sock pepettry,we again make new account and he again blocked it for sock,finally we have frustrated and urge u all to keep spacemanspiff out of wikipedia--115.240.0.92 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• There was an unblock request from the above IP for Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mkbdtu that I just reverted. User also used 122.160.178.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the past. —SpacemanSpiff 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

you all can easily see above link which shows address 122.160.178.38 belong to delhi and 115.240.0.92 belong to mumbai,off course where i belong to,122.160.178.38 was a friend of mine and also made account,we together discussed on mahabharata article,due to our similar thoughts we generally edited nearly same text,but spiff miss understood and blocked our account. i request to you all administrator that kick off spacemanspiff from wikipedia,he has no sence of humour and continuously blocking many ip as i tried to talk to u and other administrator,what kind of person he is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.90.228 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To take a quote from Floquenbeam:

Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of Content on pages related to the Chinese Communist Party by User:PCPP

The below discussion was moved from WP:AE and the case adapted for presentation on ANI.

Multiple instances of Sneaky Vandalism, POV editing and violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. in spite of multiple warnings. A behavior the user has engaged in for years.

In presenting this, I hope to bring to the attention of admins the continual disruption and removal of content by User:PCPP on pages related to the Chinese Communist Party.

The user's editing pattern involves:

1. Repetitive blanking of vast amounts of sourced and centrally relevant material, with no discussion on talk, and often under edit summaries like “rv pov material.”

2. Distortion of sourced content and the addition of personal commentary, which he misattributes to sources already present in the article.

3. And, when under close scrutiny, the watering down of critical sources, with unsubstantiated claims to the effect that they are the content is “pov”, is undue, etc.

4. Attack of other editors to deviate attention when the issue is raised with him.

Even a superficial analysis can reveal his scouring of articles pertinent to the CCP’s human rights violations, from which he removes critical material, while simultaneously piling accusations against those attempting to contribute to those articles.

What I present below is but a sample of such behavior, all from within the past few months, by the user.

1. Article:6-10 Office

Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user.

The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article.

"According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong.""

The diffs:[93] [94][95][96][97][98].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[99][100] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking.

Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[101]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source.

2. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking of 12 paragraphs of sourced, centrally relevant material, with no discussion.

Shortly following the expansion and addition of sources to Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, PCPP blanks almost all the content added. He offers no explanation for this act. And his edit summary runs “rv POV material.”

3. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking

The above was preceded by a similar blanking of content here. Before this, an editor who has continually supported, worked with, and encouraged PCPP, blanks a portion of the content added to the article[102] with an argument to the effect that its good enough for the article to remain a “catalogue.”

4. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Whole-scale blanking

In the same article, the user, despite attempts to engage him in discussion, continues to blank a quarter of the article - 10K of content. He attacks the sources themselves, alleging their origin in US makes them anti-China and hence not RS. Kindly review the comments regarding this on talk:[103]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [104]

5. Article: Falun Gong

Nature of Disruption: Blanking.

Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[105].

6. Article: Falun Gong

Blanks almost the same content as above , this time labeling the sources “questionable” in the edit summary – no supporting discussion on talk. [106]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[107]

7. Article: Media of the People's Republic of China

Nature of Disruption: Blanking of material under a misleading edit summary

Content removed in edits with misleading edit summaries: [108]

8. Article: Mass line

Nature of Disruption: Repetitive addition of unsourced material and blanking of sourced content.

Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [109]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[110] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [111]

9. Article:Thought reform in the People's Republic of China

'Nature of disruption: Removes an entire section.

Edit summary makes no mention of it and no discussion on talk. [112]

10. Article:List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China

Comparatively minor disruptions such as repetitive changing of “Persection of Falun Gong” ( term used by academic sources, HRW, UN, Amnesty, US Congress reports, etc) to “Banning of Falun Gong”[113] [114][115]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [116]

11. Article: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Blanks a para while falsely claiming in his edit summary that the content he blanked is a “misattribution”:[117]

12. Attacking reliable sources on talk to justify blanking of material .

The editor routinely attacks sources which do not align with his POV. Here, as a justification of his blanking of content from that source, the user attacks a Freedom House article by China expert Kurlantzick with claims that : "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts"[118] and here he attacks a Reporters Sans Frontiers source on 'grounds' that: " A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS"[119]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[120]. The user also continually engages in personal attack on those attempting to contribute to the article.

--

The above are just a few instances illustrative of the kind of the disruption the user engages in. The arguments the user presents on talk are often of a disruptive nature as well, and often invovles personal attacks on those contributing to the article.

PCPP also repeatedly changes the words from sources to weaken or distort the claims they make, the case often being the latter - distortion of the perspective of the source. These edits he labels: "clarifying", "per WP:NPOV", etc.[121],[122],[123]. In all these cases, the sources said those precise words as were in the article. He provides no other explanation for the changes he makes to them.

PCPP also rarely, if ever, adds any research to the articles. He focuses pulling apart these articles and simultaneously discrediting the contributions of others. This behaviour of his has gone on for a long time and above are but recent instances. I request admins to kindly review PCPP's contribution history. In it is apparent a clear pattern of removal of material critical of the CCP from articles through out wikipedia.

In addition, I would also like to draw attention to a systematic blanking of critical content and images on articles related to the CPP and its human rights violations which, I notice, has been happening on articles throughout wikipedia. Academic and news sources state that the Chinese Communist Party employs an army, hundreds of thousands strong, targeting Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikipedia, Twitter and youtube[124]. My intent is not to imply that editors involved in such removal of material are all directly related to the CCP, but, to point out that the presence of research and reports, which uncover such activism by CCP’s propaganda departments, makes the issue deserving of further attention of the Wikipedia Community. I humbly request a careful analysis of the issue be done, before any judgment is made on the merits of this concern I raise, and if evidence is found of such activity, the necessary steps be taken to counter it. A lot of evidence exists in Falun Gong related pages themselves. For instance, the Persecution of Falun Gong article has had almost all information regarding the persecution( sourced to Amnesty, HRW, UN CAT, Congressional Executive Reports, academic sources, etc.) , blanked from it. Blanking has been done to the point that in the lead of the article itself, it is made to seem as if this major international crisis is but a mere claim made by practitioners. I point out the issue here on talk[125] In the past, these articles have witnessed attack from self-declared propagandists such as User:Bobby_fletcher. Identified by David Kilgour, and David Matas, and articles such as the ones here: [126][ http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2436], as a major online activist for the CCP, “Bobbly Fletcher” engaged in presenting CCP propaganda on talk, de-tracking discussions, removal of content from the articles, etc. His presence on Wikipedia, and his disruptive activities were continually encouraged and supported by User:PCPP, who himself, as evidence above clearly demonstrates, has blanked vast amounts of info critical of the CCP from these articles.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [127] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)
2. [128] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
3. [129] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
4. [130] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. [131] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) # [<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]])

Since the user is obviously active on these pages with a political agenda of white washing the CCP, and since the behavior has continued for years, I believe a topic ban from articles related to the Chinese Communist Party is in order.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, in another recent instance of dishonest editing / "sneaky vandalism", the user removes a sentence completely under the edit summary "copyedit"(In the article: Media of the People's Republic of China) Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that almost all of the below claims by PCPP are distortions and lies, as may be verified. FOr instance #1 is not an acurate summary of the content he removed. #2. The source he mentions is an article by Kurlantzick, a China Expert. He plays on that some political website hosted the article. The rest are not even replies to the issues raised - but mere statements made for diverting attention from the real issues. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning PCPP

Statement by PCPP

I really don't see how the FLG sanctions can apply to any CCP-related article, as Dilip claimed. Dilip's personal attacks again Bobby Fletcher and rant about the PRC's "web spies" demonstrates exactly why I have difficulties working with him.

1)

I in fact shortened the paragraph to:

The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."

I summarized the statement into proper English, which is perfectly acceptable within editing guidelines. When Dilip doesn't agree with with such changes, he reverts the entire article, along with everything else that goes along with it.

2-5)

Dilip himself added a large amount of questionable statements from a single unverified source from a political website [132], and completely destroyed the POV balance of the article. The only source I ended up removing was his; which is neither peer-reviewed or have any results on google scholar per WP:RS. I've rearranged most of the article in a more readable fasion, and restored and attributed several others.

5-6)

That was a content dispute between me and another editor. I've since discussed with the editor, [133] who agreed that my edits has merits.

7)

All I did was shuffle a couple of paragraphs around and removed one sentence that is not relevent to the article topic. I only edited that article once, and was immediatle reverted by asdfg in its entirity. [134]

8)

Asdfg removed a large amount of material regarding Maoism, including the template and two web sources[135]. I restored the sources and properly attributed them.

9)

And ignore the fact that I added a large amount of info regarding the thought reform movement. The source I removed was from 1969 and no longer up to date, and contradicted by the info I added. I even searched google scholar for asdfg's claims, and found nothing as it claimed.

10)

The terminology itself was highly disputed, the sources themselves didn't even come to an conclusion, and an AFD on the terminology didn't even come to a clear concensus [136]. I referred to the Chinese's government's official label of the campaign per WP:NAME

11)

The source is disputed on talk page [137] and reached the concensus that it is misattributed.

12)

I am within my right to question such sources per WP:RS, and within my right to remove sources that lacks peer review or citation and is used to push a single POV.

I find the current situation utterly ridiculous. No matter what I add, the FLG camp always find minor excuses over a couple of paragraphs or labels, and revert my edits entirely because of it. Dilip himself has a habit of disappearing for months, completely ignore the changes and concensus that has since ocurred, and revert back to his preferred version with little discussion. It's even more ludicrous that I have to document every change to single-purpose accounts that are used to promot Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP

Comment by Asdfg12345

PCPP focuses on picking apart the contributions of others, and watering down the parts that aren't too friendly to the Chinese Communist Party. His behaviour is consistently destructive, and it, along with the explicit and implicit support he receives for it, has seriously eroded my will to contribute to this project (among other things.) Recently he has refined his methods, too. Instead of outright blanking, he just blanks some parts and weakens others; instead of saying nothing, he says a few perfunctory words and discredits the other editors intentions; instead of doing zero research, he does a bit. He is a drag on contributing, and exerts a net negative influence. He only destroys the value of others' contributions, rather than bringing his own ideas and sources to the table and working together for how to incorporate the different viewpoints. He only says the viewpoint of this or that scholar (it would seem, actually, every scholar who has documented the crimes of the CCP) is POV and tries to delete it or weaken it, without any regard for NPOV, which calls for all significant views to be represented. He has recently deleted swathes of material from several articles, then writes misleading edit summaries and notes on the talk page. What's even more bizarre is how the editors calling for my downfall don't care when he does this stuff. It's a bit farcical. I have left maybe a dozen notes to PCPP saying how I would like to work with him, asking him to explain himself, asking him to bring sources to the table that support the POV he wants to see introduced. But he doesn't play ball and just rebukes it all, going right ahead with the deletions and whatnot. It's a very effective technique, to be honest. At the very least, it's dampened my usually boundless enthusiasm--at least enough to take a break from all this for a while. I'll be back, but hopefully he won't be around. (Note: if he changed his approach and started doing research, and discussed his changes nicely, I would love to work with him. He has robust opinions on these subjects that, if sources can be found to support them, need to be represented and explained. But his focus on destroying my work really gets to me. I asked him to just paste onto the talk page stuff he deletes from now on. Maybe that will help. Though his deletions of any mention of the word "indoctrination" or "struggle session" goes on.) --Asdfg12345 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight

The only relevant evidence is that which relates to the Falun Gong. The rest could be relevant to the user conduct Request for Comment, but shouldn't be listed here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I second PhilKnight. Long-term behavious is better addressed through an User RfC. ANI is more appropriate for dealing with issues that require more immediate admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfCU has not seen a lot of traffic, and it is mostly the usual suspects who have commented. I would urge uninvolved administrators to look into the allegations properly, and either clear PCPP's name or substantiate the allegations. --JN466 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I present here conduct, as recent as a few days back when the such behaviour of the user escalated. RfC has proved ineffective since there is a group of editors covering him up for and encouraging these edits. They win by democracy. This is precisely the cover that has allowed for such behavior of the user to carry on for long. I hope that admins would take a careful look at the case as many of the diffs I present are just a few days old, and constitute evidence of clearly disruptive behavior( for instance, the large-scale blanking in "Propaganda in the PRC" article) which calls for admin intervention. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche

The nom raises some points here that deserve close examination (which I've not had time for at the moment), and if which accurate should likely be addressed in some manner, though I agree with Phil that the only relevant information is that which relates to the Falun Gong, which does not appear to be the focus of many of the above diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor

Would be interesting to see if this guy's IP resolves to a Chinese government server. Jtrainor (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jtrainor, I have had concerns along the same lines, and the issue is certainly worth investigating. But having explored this subject a bit, I have a feeling the issue could be more complex than that. You may want to skip through these articles:[138][139], and this material ( a significant portion of which was also recently blanked by PCPP). Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protection request

Resolved

I've filed it over at WP:RPP, but no action yet, and this page is getting an obscene amount of traffic: 75th Ranger Regiment (United States). Need some stability so we can figure out a clean version of the page (the one I kept reverting back to wasn't perfect either). Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

• Truthseeker666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• [140] off-wiki canvassing
• AMSCPC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tidgeypudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.33.193.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.154.240.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Time this was stopped, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting abusive email

Hookahhookah (talk · contribs) is sending me (at least) abusive emails, signed by the "SUE MAY TEAM", also attacking user:Starblind. I'd appreciate it if another Admin would block his email, thanks. It's all to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue May. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you a be a bit more specific about what's going on? Is this a 'we're going to block your email for a week or two until you get a clue about how Wikipedia works' email block, or a 'we're blocking your email indefinitely because you're obscene/threatening/whatever and have earned a permanent disconnection' block? Obviously I'm not asking for gory details, but a bit more idea of what we're responding to might help.

NB — I also deleted (CSD G4, sort of) a subpage of her userspace (User:Hookahhookah/Sue May) which contained the draft of the Sue May article. (The article should have been deleted on copyright and (self?)promotional grounds anyway, as it was almost entirely cut & paste from May's web sites.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fairly standard subject promoter's reaction to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue May, I'd say. Courtesy-blank the AfD and block email would seem reasonable to me. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• User blocked. Blueboy96 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy. Insults for being mail, suggestions as to what I was doing with my other hand as I was typing one-handed and that I was getting back at women for being ignored as a teen (little do they know!). Ditto towards Starblind (mainly attacking his old webpage). Thanks, Blueboy. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)