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

Canvassing

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has canvassed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination) by notifying a group including ARS regulars ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) about the AfD renomination (some of whom weren't even involved in the previous discussion) without notifying everyone involved in the previous discussion. The user's response to notification of this has been wikilawyering with no attempt to notify further participants in the original discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

it should also be noted that all those alerted by Richard Norton are editors known for only !voting at bilateral article AfDs. This is one of the most blatant violations of canvassing I've seen in recent times. The fact that Richard Norton as an experienced editor pretends this is not canvassing with responses like this, shows that he is deliberately trying to conceal obvious canvassing and a deliberate disregard for WP rules. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This happened 48 hours ago and has already been raised at the AFD. Norton has already been warned for this and I briefly considered blocking him for it yesterday but decided that it was a little after the event for this to be anything other then punitive. Add another day and block looks even more punitive and I'm afraid you just have to wait for the AFD to be closed and for the closing admin to make allowances for the canvassing. If this doesn't happen then you have a prima facie case for the close to be overturned at DRV and the article relisted. Not really sure what else you can reasonably expect us to do here right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that he is a very experienced editor and knew exactly what he was doing. yes I warned him after this spate of canvassing, however the bigger issue here is his deliberate disregard of WP rules, when pressed on canvassing. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it wasn't reprehensible, it was was, but the time to raise a complaint is at the time of the event not 48 hours afterwards. Blocks are not punishments but preventative. What does a block right now prevent? If he canvassed further then I would block in a milisecond but unless he does that its really down to weighing the keep side against the fact of the canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea this far down the road might cross from preventative into punitive, but I found the "well everyone showed up anyways" response to be the troubling part. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

and to everyone, this is his most recent comment on this [7] and [8] which seems more disregard for WP process. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that this report is too late to be valid, but I did not become aware of it as it occurred, and after looking around this morning I felt that it had not been raised in an appropriate forum after the lack of a meaningful reply on his talk page (as AfD should be about the article, not other actions). Personally, I'm a fan of blocking purpose #3: "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated", but then that's what's used most often (as far as I can tell) when it comes to copyright violations (where policy violations are often not immediately discovered) which is where I usually work. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite many people pointing out to Richard it was clearly canvassing, he continually tries to pretend and deny it was canvassing. If he said, "sorry I won't do it again" then that would be end of story but he persists with this attitude that such "notifications" (masquerading blatant canvassing) are acceptable. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article canvass squadron permitted space to exist? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it was started with he best of intentions and was not intended to just be a hardcore inclusionist voting block. Somewhere along the line most of them lost their way and became obsessed with keeping any old piece of junk as a "tactical maneuver" as opposed to actually improving articles so that they meet our basic criteria. I've been knocking around an essay on this at User:Beeblebrox/Adding sources as a tactical maneuver, maybe I'll move it into project space... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was started with the best of intentions, but I've been wondering for a while, having seen it on other AfdS, if it has changed to the point where it is no longer helpful to the project. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that some of the people who actually do the work of constructively improving and adding sources to savable articles have gone it alone. There has always been a 'turn up and vote "keep"' element within the ARS and that tends to be people's perception of the project.pretty preppy prose, pablo!   pablo_hablo. 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• To ensure a representative sample is drawn, the remaining participants from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations not already canvassed (if any) should be contacted in a suitably neutral fashion. –xeno^talk 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  I've done this. –xeno^talk 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard A Norton has been given final warning. I don't monitor AFDs often, so editors that notice further behaviour along this line should drop me a note.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• When I wrote "let the wars being" in your near-unanimous last RfA, I was anticipating something like this. Glad you haven't let me down. Popcorn! Pcap ping 05:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Wikipedia: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I believe he only contacted people who were involved in the previous AFD for that article. Libstar is nominating the same articles he failed to get deleted a year ago, we having the same AFDs over again. Everyone from the previous AFD should be contacted, regardless of how they voted. If he failed to contact some of the participates who hadn't already found their way there, then I believe it was done in error, he not understanding the rules, they not all clearly written. I don't know if everyone contacted was a member of the Article Rescue Squadron or not, but that wasn't the reason they were contacted so isn't relevant. Dream Focus 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus you are clearly wrong, here is the original Afd, I can note that Richard canvassed these users who did not even appear in the original AfD: Namiba, AlanSohn, MichaelQSchmidt. Richard failed to contact any of the delete voters in the original AfD. clearest case of canvassing I've seen. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb for this is pretty simple: don't talk to anyone about AFDs anywhere but on the AFD and the talk page for the article that has been nominated. That way, no one can ever accuse you of canvassing. There's no reason to invite people from similar AFDs, previous AFDs, or even people that have edited the article. The goal of an AFD is to get an unbiased cross-section of editors, not one sorted by any criteria, no matter how objectively reasonable that criteria seems to be.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Did they give you the power to impose new policy by fiat in your RfA? I missed that part... Perhaps you should speedy delete WP:DELSORT as well, because it attracts editors that might care about certain articles as opposed to completely random ones. I've been "canvased", and have "canvased" myself w.r.t AfD a good number of times. The guideline seems to be WP:CANVASS, last I checked. Pcap ping 06:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my advice, not policy. Norton violated WP:CANVAS, and that's what he was warned about and that's what he will be blocked for future violations of.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuse-making. This is an experienced editor, not a green-thumbed newbie, and WP:CANVAS has a very easy to read table to help determine the difference between proper and improper notifications. Norton only notified noted inclusionists such as yourself, and quite clearly knew what he was doing. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dream Focus, the only reason Richard Norton contacted those people is because he wanted them to come and vote keep. He selectively contacted only people he felt would vote the way he wanted, but excluded people who voted to delete last time. That's pretty obvious canvassing, and to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone who responded has missed my point. Richard is a long-time & experienced Wikipedian; he knows about canvassing & that he can be sanctioned for it. Yet he felt this issue was worth risking a ban for doing this. Why did he do this? The reason is obvious: the unresolved dispute over "notable" bilateral relations. So it is reasonable to suspect that even if Richard is permanently banned from Wikipedia, this dispute won't go away. Attempts to resolve it by finding a consensus have been unsuccessful, to put it mildly. Yes, WP:AN/I should focus on behavior over content, but unless the deeper cause is addressed -- lack of an explicit standard for notable bilateral relations -- other parties in this dispute will become featured guests here. Which I assume no one wants. -- llywrch (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We did have consensus--we had an approximate standard, much less inclusionist than I would have liked, but a moderately self-consistent set of decisions nonetheless, at the original rounds of discussion on these. The recent afds are renomination of the articles that survived, and I see them as an attempt to disrupt the admittedly fragile tacit settlement that had been achieved . DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "don't talk about AfD anywhere but the AfD discussion. It is permissible to inform Wikiprojects with a neutral notice that "article X" has been nominated for deletion. Members of that WP then have the opportunity to look at the article, and decide whether it should be kept, deleted, merged or turned into a redirect. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why the simpler approach of indef blocks for those users who continue to turn AfD into a battleground (there are less than a dozen, and three of the most high-profile have thankfully left the project recently anyway) is best. Then people can continue to argue for a more sanguine approach to notifying other editors of AfDs without acting as useful idiots for the hardcore disruptors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

• It is time for an unequivocal ban on ARS canvassing. They can use a transcluded notification page and/or watchlist a noticeboard. This keeps happening, keeps causing drama, and keeps being an unacceptably one-sided form of canvassing. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thought there was an "unequivocal ban" on canvassing, period. Or is this a proposal along the lines of the old warning, "Offenders will be shot. Repeat offenders will be repeatedly shot"? -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've never understood the long-standing battle over these relations articles - they don't seem to warrant the fuss that is made over them either way. Anyway, the comments of the usual hard-core deletionists above seem neither helpful nor unbiased as they just seem to represent one side of this battle. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAMEcup? Pcap ping 08:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is ridiculous canvassing. Getting inclusionists to vote on that AFD is definitely not neutral, and especially because Arthur is very experienced around here, this is clearly canvassing. Wonder why he hasn't posted here yet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the "usual hard-core deletionists" are getting just a wee bit tired of the ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs? You can't shoot the messenger just because someone got caught so red-handed. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Call a spade a spade. Whatever the intentions when created, the ARS has beomce, to a degree, the Canvass squadron. Posting a notice there invites dozens of "the usual hardcore inclusionists" to run to an AfD and start claiming that "one source passes GNG" or something like that. If there was a Article Deletionist project, it would be the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• And if someone did start a hardcore deletionist wikiproject, you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• At this point, although members occassionally improve article, I regard ARS as little more than a subtle canvassing project. Just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• You & I both, Colonel. I was hoping that the discussion I linked to above would have created some kind of consensus about the matter, even if in a negative manner -- e.g., "If two countries do not have diplomatic staff resident in each others countries, nor any explicit reason why this is not so, then their bilateral relations are not notable." Instead, the two camps remain at loggerheads. -- llywrch (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Has it been canvassing? Yes, perhaps. However when AfD's etc. are discussed here, for example, and armies of deletionists come consequently to sink articles, canvassing complaints are immediately dismissed (see [9]). Double standards? Also: I am an outspoken inclusionist, yet I've still to see "dozens of the usual hardcore inclusionists" in any AfD discussion. I would absolutely love to see examples of that, it would give me back some faith in the WP process :) --Cyclopia^talk 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  Anyone with more than a brief experience of XfD who claims to be unfamiliar with the dominant clique involved with inclusionist disruption is being wholly disingenuous. Full stop. This goes double for anyone who reads enough of Wikipedia Review to be linking to discussions of the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  I have more than a brief experience of AfD, and I really see no "dominant inclusionist clique". I instead see a dominant deletionist bias, especially (but not only) in dealing with BLPs. Perhaps we read two different AfD's? --Cyclopia^talk 01:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I've just seen Jimbo's comments regarding your attitude towards unreferenced BLPs. I rather think we're on different planets. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia Review has been tremendously helpful for identifying and focusing editors to flock to discussions and greatly sway events regardless of the disruption and invasion of privacy. In fact it's so very helpful to disrupt Wikipedia time and time again to make a point, right? We don't need a deletion canvas squadron as Wikipedia Review does that quite effectively with zero accountability and unencumbered by our pesky policies. Comfort shoe (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Our"? An odd word to use for an account's first edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comfort shoe is clearly somebody's sock. A Nobody/The Pumpkin King/Elizabeth Rogan/Wikipedian, Historian and Friend has been socking again so it may be him. But it's definitely somebody'sBali ultimate (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo ;) Jack Merridew 11:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, all that's needed is another web site, Wikipedia Unreview, for inclusionists? Pcap ping 08:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every aspect of Wikipedia gets criticised on Wikipedia Review anyway, so one has to do some pretty selective reading to suggest that it's some deletionist holdout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a Wikipedia Review Reality Check would help or a template warning that specific discussions are poisoned by offsite canvassing. We can pretend it's all noble to critique editors and policies on other websites but when editors show duplicitous signs of disruption and defend banned users making a point it gets tired. Eroding the academic work of volunteers may be great sport however the end result remains the degrading of human knowledge by intimidation rather than utilizing the consensus processes worked out over years. Comfort shoe (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not saying anything which hasn't previously been discussed. Indeed, even the "Wikipedia review is sending people to delete our articles" trope is a well-walked road: Le Grand Roi was fond of that one for a while about a year ago. I'm still curious as to why you chose this thread as the location of your first registered contribution to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, with the exception of a very few (i.e. Everyking), I'd say most WR regulars are leaning on the deletionist side. While I can link lots of WR threads where successful AfD's are collectively cheered with smiles and hoorays, I've yet to see WR actively taking side to keep an article. --Cyclopia^talk 11:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that you believe that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to link me some example of the WR community being happy and relieved of an article being kept at an AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Discourtesy break

The discussion in the section above is a perfect example of why this canvassing has to stop. It stokes persecution mania and militancy and reinforces the false belief in "inclusionist" and "deletionist" as mutually exclusive opposing camps when in reality there is a spectrum of inclusionism and a broad range of personal views on where the threshold should lie for any given topic. Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom. Was that intended? Probably not, but it happened anyway. So: no more ARS canvassing. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What about no more canvassing in general? Skewing consensus is bad either way, isn't it? I am not an active ARS member, but ARS has a noble objective at least -improving articles to make sure valuable material is not deleted. How can this cause "division and venom" baffles me -all what I see in this disgraceful thread is venom thrown against ARS. --Cyclopia^talk 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are more than welcome to rescue articles (Uncle G is one of my favourite Wikipedians of all time, and he has a long history of doing just that). The problem is canvassing. By ARS, by WikiProjects, by anyone. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the issue is not that the use of the ARS is inherently bad, but that the ARS is open to abuse, e.g. where the article was already well written and referenced and so had no need of rescue. It's cases like this where rescuing an article could be considered votestacking as it then only serves to attract !voters as opposed to editors to improve the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Bingo! This is my sentiment as well. To the extent that ARS members canvass (as is alleged here) they should be reprimanded. To the extent that NON-ARS members canvass, to whatever end, they too should be reprimanded. The anti-ARS rants are pointless. I reiterate my position that ARS should be a core, volunteer function like 3O, not a wikiproject with membership and leadership. Everything that CAN be improved instead of deleted should be; that which cannot, should not. ARS should be a tool to that end, and neither anyone's pet canvassing forum nor anyone else's pet punching bag. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango. This really isn't about the ARS at all, since the concern is canvassing of individuals by R.A.N., not the addition of a rescue tag to the article. If/when ARS volunteers simply vote keep without explanation, the vote should be suitably discounted as any other similar vote would be, and votes with valid reasoning should be considered; when ARS members actually improve an article, then it might be worthwhile for editors to consider the changes in the AfD when !voting.

llywrch has one of the few constructive comments that could solve the real problem here: "What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Wikipedia: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?)".

It appears that LibStar renominated an article for deletion that they had nominated a year prior, and which was kept. The renomination makes no mention of the the prior keep. When that happens it tends to irritate people because there's no explanation for why there is a new AfD -- it smacks of a simple deletion canvass (because every AfD asks editors to consider whether an article should be deleted, that's the nature of the AfD process). Renominating articles without a rationale for it invites drama. R.A.N.'s response is more understandable in that light, though not excused. It takes two to tango (tangle?). In any event, I'd prefer we solve the underlying problem -- the lack of consensus on how to treat these bilateral articles, because areas like this will consistently cause AN/I threads with varying labels.

Since I am an active ARS member, I should disclose that I was not canvassed for the AfD--I noted it independently while scanning recent AfDs (not even those marked for rescue), and !voted about 12 hours ago. Cyclopedia recently noted the existence of this ANI on the ARS talk page.--Milowent (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

LibStar has been doing these renominations for a long time now. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philippines–Romania_relations_(2nd_nomination) for instance. Pcap ping 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that s/he has two barnstars that were given for the exact reason of having nominated for AfD, what I would assume to be, numerous bilateral relations articles. Silverseren^C 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And considering that the last two of the three nominations of that article were "keep", the barnstars only show that an extreme deletionist camp exists, and that they frot barnstar each other. Pcap ping 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Try and tone down the language a bit, please. :/ Silverseren^C 21:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction The result of the previous AfD for the article in question was "no consensus" not "keep," so accusations that Libstar's nomination is somehow ill conceived are ill conceived. A year ago we couldn't find consensus on the notability of this article, so it seems perfectly reasonable to come back a year later and try again. Community views may have changed in the meantime, certain disruptive editors may have left or been blocked/banned in the mean time, new sources may have become available, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Philippines–Romania relations, which lists 3 noms, as I said (the first was part of a group nom.) Pcap ping 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another more recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination); previous two nominations were "keep" as well. Pcap ping 09:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Milowent's comment, not yours. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shame on all of you

• I am deeply, deeply offended about comments made above about the ARS. I would have thought that such long-standing members would have even a hint of civility. What, just because you're talking about a group of people, instead of individuals, it's okay to use personal attacks? That's one of the worst cases of Wikilawyering i've ever seen. I, for one, have always tried to improve an article, if it's something that does need improvement to be worthy of inclusion. If I can't improve an article at all, I don't vote, there's no point, I believe it to be non-notable. The insinuations and comments made above by other users have been absolutely reprehensible. Though I suppose it's not surprising at all, since the comments are composed by the usual outspoken critics, the deletionists. I'm just shocked that other users have just let them go on and on and not say anything about their incivil remarks. If this is the state of Wikipedia, where we just allow crass remarks and titling of sections with "Discourtesy break" to be said by established users, just because they are such, then the project is far closer to crumbling than I imagined. Silverseren^C 17:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While heated, I think this thread is already going along just fine without the dramamongering. --Smashville^talk 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the entire section dedicated to spewing abuse on ARS members? How is that "going along just fine"? I would think that an administrator would actually want to stop incivility. Silverseren^C 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to counter anything they said or are you just going to go on about how "offended" you are and "reprehensible"? That's what I meant about dramamongering. Would you mind giving us some diffs of personal attacks and abuse? --Smashville^talk 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

[10] "ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs"

[11] "you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. "

[12] "Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom."

All of these comments I find offensive and laughable, especially the insinuation that this is the ARS' fault, when it was Richard who contacted individual members. Taking that to mean the entire group as a whole is incredibly offensive. Silverseren^C 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you any diffs that you haven't pulled out of context? Granted, Tarc is pretty abrasive sometimes, but the fact of the matter is that you're not exactly disputing the validity of these claims other than repeating how horribly offended you are that someone dare question ARS. --Smashville^talk 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out and discussing behavioural problems from a group of editors is not a personal attack. The fact is that the ARS has frequently been used as a keep vote canvassing vehicle. You yourself used it that way not so long ago. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a method of getting more people to look at the changes I had made. Would you say that the article is non-notable after my changes to it? Silverseren^C 20:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was canvassing. That's why it ended up being redacted by WereSpielChequers as obvious canvassing. Whether or not you made changes to the article is irrelevant: asking people to turn up and vote your way is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:CANVAS. The fact that hardly anyone in the ARS has a problem with it is embarrassing. As long as the Article Rescue Squadron tacitly supports inclusionist votestacking, they'll continue to be regarded as a dubious phenomenon and any good rescue work they do won't get the respect it deserves. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• The ARS' initial goal of article cleanup and retention may have been a noble and well-intentioned goal, but that got lost along the way. The current squad, the one who rallies the loyalistas to keep the most horridly abusive BLPs (Miriam Sakewitz, Eric Ely, Bigoted woman incident), the blindingly-obvious WP:NOTNEWS (2008 Passover margarine shortage), and the amazingly crystal-clear case of fucking a non-single song with ZERO 3rd party coverage (Money (Michael Jackson song)...yea, the current wikiproject is a cancer upon the project. A dangerous mix of blind devotion and extreme short-sightedness. Disband this fiasco for the good of all and to prevent further harm. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • • LOL. What rubbish. The very idea that 'bigotgate' was even given the chance to be 'rescued' is absolute bollocks. It was deleted and salted within the hour, a decision rightly condemned eventualy at Drv as an abuse, not that that has reversed the damage or rescued the article. If those other examples are even remotely comparable, the "cancer" is not the ARS. Still, shut your eyes Tarc, don't look!. don't look!. She never existed, yesterday's chip wrappings, not notable, beneath contempt, yadder yadder. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Might I suggest that folks calm down a bit? Anyone can join ARS, and anyone can participate in AFD, and no one's being shot at... --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nuujinn's valid comment aside: Oh, what drama. I think Tarc is the cancer. Nanny nanny hoo hoo. (Shall I be blocked for repeating Tarc's slur?) BTW, I am one of the most active ARS members and fought hard to get Ely deleted, and though that AfD had a few 'keep' votes, there was no unified ARS opinion there, not even a colorful Dream Focus-signatured keep. Stop using the ARS as a proxy for attacking inclusionist viewpoints with which you differ.--Milowent (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• It's a shame that there's no Deletionist Squadron to counter the influence of the ARS. Of course, there was one, but they unanimously voted to delete it. Just so you know my intention is to be constructive: Here's a question to consider: What is the difference between the ARS and institutionalised canvassing? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can really only speak for myself and not the group as a whole, but I know that I go into an Afd with the intention of improving the article first. If the article already appears to have reliable references and is notable, then I will vote Keep, with policy backing. But, otherwise, I will do my best to make the article better so that it fits the notability guidelines. If there's nothing I can do for an article, I leave it alone and stay out of the Afd. In a manner, Afds I don't participate in, at least the ones I look through, have an unofficial delete vote from me, because I would be voting keep if I thought it was worthy. I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not remove content from it. That's my viewpoint, at least. Hope it helps. Silverseren^C 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not remove content from it." Srsly? That's one the most shortsighted comments I've seen in a long time. What about nationalistic POV monuments, businesses nobody has ever heard of, hoaxes, or even plain gibberish? Even DGG !votes delete once in a while... Pcap ping 22:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then others will vote delete. Almost all of the time the AfD is already tending toward delete as it is, what's the point of voting delete? I just move on to things that could use my help. Silverseren^C 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, there is an institutionalized deletionist group, its called "Articles for Deletion." Yes, my comment is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but AfD is deletionist by nature, because that is its purpose. (I recall seeing comments from long time editors about how they opposed AfD even existing, or that it should be put on hiatus. I wish could find these right now, but the process is now institutionalized.) AfD works generally well, only a small percentage of discussions become battles. And over time these battles lead to working rules and guidelines to eliminate battles.--Milowent (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Such as this one, hopefully. I remember the guideline discussion surrounding Wikipedia:Software notability after some mass nominations that also led to a WP:RFAR (somewhat inaptly named Tothwolf, after one of the participants). Pcap ping 07:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians apparently got moved to meta and discarded some of its operating procedures. I remember laughing at the wp version because it was basically inclusionist despite its name. AfD is not remotely a deletionist institution by the way. It operates within a highly incluionistic framework and makes no attempt to contest that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, make an Association of Überdeletionist Wikipedians, for great justice. A more appropriate name would be the Association of G11 Wikipedians, though. I've managed to have deleted articles with over 100 potential references with a well placed G11 tag. Others have done much better, managing to rid us of article with potentially over 1000 references, but they had DRV help. I haven't graduated to that cabal, yet... Pcap ping 11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Association of Überdeletionist Wikipedians...or as members of Anonymous call it DELETE EVERYTHING!!! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Delete fucking everything" is the correct terminology. I'd give you a link to it too (ED), but it's on our WP:BADSITES list, and the software won't let me enter the URL. I'm sure you can find it using the google. (Apology for the foul language, but it's part of the official canon.) Pcap ping 11:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re {{rescue}}-tagging an article at AfD

There are obviously divergent views on whether ARS is a net positive or negative to WP, and further discussion here on the project's merits is probably only going to raise tension. But what about the following, which is perhaps a more clear cut abuse of the ARS's {{rescue}} tag? The first time Iceland–Mexico relations was AfD'd, the tag was added to the article. Maybe this was "stealth canvassing," maybe it wasn't, but I assume it was done in good faith to improve the article. But when the article was reAfDed, the tag was readded. Here, the purpose of tagging seems more obviously to be about canvassing--after all, the article had already enjoyed the ARS's attention a year earlier, so it's less likely that the squad is going to be able to do much with the article. (In addition, the tagging editor's very next set of edits was the canvassing that is the subject of this thread.) So anyways, I guess what I'm suggesting is that applying the {{rescue}} tag to an article that's previously been tagged with it should be discouraged or perhaps even disallowed, and any editor should be allowed to remove the tag. In other words, re-tagging carries the high potential for abuse (i.e. canvassing) but low potential for additional, incremental article improvement, so articles should only be eligible for ARS improvement once. Thoughts? Yilloslime ^T_C 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The same arguments can be used for almost any tags - the tag per se is not a problem AFAICT. The problem is that any group which "believes" in its purpose on WP can be just as culpable in making a false consensus. WP is ill-served by any such group (whether formal or informal in nature), and admins who view consensus set by any such group should ignore any improper consensus. A few of the ArbCom findings are at WP:False consensus. Collect (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I wouldn't see this as a problem in itself; I'd rather {{rescue}} were given a concrete overcoat, but while there's no consensus for that I don't see the harm in applying it again if it could theoretically help. The bigger problem is that the editor who re-tagged happens to be engaged in regular brinksmanship regarding the boundaries of canvassing, much like Ikip did (when not simply flagrantly overstepping the line), and even editors like user:Silver seren above (who are strongly in favour of ARS even though they aren't part of the infamous bloc of inclusionists who follow each other from AfD to ANI to RfA) appear to be neither concerned about said canvassing nor even particularly aware of what the point of participating in an AfD actually is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, would you mind clarifying who are the components of this vague "infamous bloc of inclusionists" are? Apart that being inclusionist and following AfD is not a crime (yet), it seems something vaguely existing only in your mind. What are exactly the problems? --Cyclopia^talk 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A crime no, but it skews AfD if you're not being truly objective about the article and simply voting to keep it because you !vote to keep everything. Frankly its a disservice to the community for anyone to !vote without being objective.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't concerned about the canvassing. I was just saying that Richard is the culprit in this and the ARS shouldn't be blamed just for the mere fact that he canvassed some members. Blame Richard, not us. Silverseren^C 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the tag, it's the culture. The group is well intentioned but has morphed into a separate identity outside of being a Wikipedia Editor. It's Esperanza all over again, and it will end the same way. To invoke and paraphrase Twain 'History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.' --M^ask? 23:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The "rescue tag", like most processes at WP, works well most of the time. It alerts people that an article, which currently is so bad it may be deleted, might be especially worthy of inclusion. Most articles tagged so do in fact need some help. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I do not know of any responsible editor who misuses the tag. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The question I posed is not about the tag in general, but rather about re-tagging articles with it. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think retagging is a significant problem. A lot of articles are kept on the basis of the idea that an article has implicit promise. A second AFD occurs because that promise has not been fulfilled. There really isn't anything saying that sources didn't appear in the intervening time period, and perhaps a second rescue attempt will be successful. Rescue tags aren't immoral or evil, and the worst of the abusers have left the project or been blocked. Hopefully, the image of the ARS will be rehabilitated as a result.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally a sane comment. There's nothing wrong with ARS in principle. Many of the editors there are actually improving articles instead of trying to rally some kind of political force. Focus on the canvassing by Richard Arthur Norton. Even then I'm sure that only a clear warning is necessary to improve his behavior. Arskwad (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all he received, and I haven't seen any signs that anyone thinks that more would be necessary.—Kww(talk) 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: start a guideline discussion

All I see in the various AfDs on this topic are reiterations of the same positions, which leads to WP:BATTLE among small groups of editors. I suggest that the party who wishes special (different from WP:GNG) rules to apply to this area draft a guideline and follow the usual ratification process. This should settle the core argument. After it's reasonably well drafted, advertise it widely, and conduct a RfC for its adoptions, so uninvolved participants can join an express their view once. Look at what happened with Wikipedia:Software notability; this was proposed during another fight over a large group of articles, a fight which also led to an arbitration case. Pcap ping 07:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's already ongoing, and isn't something which needs to go to ANI. The problem is that some editors aren't willing to stick to the regular process of gaining consensus and end up resorting to demagoguery and dirty tricks, which has unfortunately become closely associated with ARS because the editors in question have been deeply involved with that project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A key question is who closely associates these dirty tricks with the ARS? Answer: an admittedly sizeable proportion of those community members who are politically active within our encyclopedias internals. Taking a broader view, the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users. Externally, Journalists have wrote positively about the ARS and inclusionists, while taking a much dimmer view of deletionists. The squad is also aligned with the Foundation who still wish to foster growth, promote diversity and a friendly collaborative project - values which the ARS reflects. The squad represents the original m:Vision of this project, which is still used in our marketing material Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. So a very credible alternative view is that its those who are overly aggressive in pursuing their contrarian elitist and deletionist vision who are casing needless hostility. A lot more could be said, but this doesnt seem the best forum, can someone please resolve this needlessly inflamatory thread? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So? wikipedia has constantly been made a laughing stock the amount of space it devotes to fictional topics, like say.. pokemon. That is immaterial and so is what "journalists" think. What is a journalist anyway? Anyone with a heart beat and access to a computer who wants to start a blog/twitter/etc? The community here long ago decided there was a threshold of inclusion and the sum of all knowledge wasn't it. Perhaps it is simply those who can look objectively at a subject and the applicable guidelines and policies and decide whether or not an article should go. But now that I'm done taking pot shots at various groups and opinions, can someone lock this so I can have the last word?--Crossmr (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's split roughly evenly between people who see inclusionist-related drama on ANI and attribute it to ARS because it's from someone active there (which is most uninvolved admins), and the disruptors themselves who attempt to portray any criticism of hyper-inclusionist as an attack on the ARS as a smokescreen. And oh yes, "the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users" indeed: that is evidently why your brand of inclusionism is so popular here that it requires the coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace (XfD, ANI, RfA) to achieve your aims. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace"? Gee, Chris, your delusional ranting is making me roll on the floor laughing. --Cyclopia^talk 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And that will be your last personal attack. I don't know you from Adam, which rather implies that you're not one of the editors who is really being discussed here. It's not my job to provide you with a full history of this two-year dramafest on demand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't attack you (sorry if it felt this way). I am only criticizing (harshly, I agree) your point of view on the situation, and the way you present it. You are talking about vague conspiracies, and when asked for information (implicitly or explicitly) you just answer that it's not your job. Well, if there actually is such a conspiracy, it would be perhaps not your job but a courtesy to inform unaware WP editors of what is going on, so that we don't get caught in shady things, and to provide evidence of that. My experience in AfD gives me a completely opposite picture, that's why I am so incredulous and surprised. --Cyclopia^talk 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can conclude with n-th law of Wikipedia: "The cabal is always the group you're not associated with." Pcap ping 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, this is approximately the hundredth time that one of this group has been the result of ANI drama in the last two years. I am being deliberately reticent about naming names a) because I've no time for the mock outrage and heated denials which would result from that, b) because it's a group behaviour which is the problem here and a correction there would be far better than individual sanctions, and c) because frankly anyone who has been following this at all closely should be able to name most of the parties in question without too much thought. If you're not in a position to do that then great; you've not been editing in quite the same circles as the problemative editors, so pretty much all of this discussion is inapplicable to you. I would far rather not have to go discussing this offline, so this is the compromise I've found. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and apologies again for the excessive sarcasm. That said, if someone else wants to explain me what we're talking about, I'd be happy. --Cyclopia^talk 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Pcap above, I think there's a move towards a consensus on this issue (look at Sjakkalle's close) although it's happening without anyone noticing it, which means the WikiDrama is unnecessarily continuing. All that I -- call me an inclusionist, a deletionist, Yet Another Pain-in-the-butt -- want out of these discussions is to know what the community truly thinks are notable articles in this area. Until that happens, I'll spend my writing time on articles which have nothing to do with bilateral relations, & wait out these two camps while they fight it out. As for ARS, as long as its members limit their efforts to rescuing articles which could be saved with a decent rewrite, no one should have a problem with that WikiProject; if individuals go beyond that then the individuals deserve sanctioning, not the entire WikiProject. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Delsort queue fixed

I've noticed there was a delsort queue for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, but it was badly formatted, and it was never approved at WT:DELSORT. I've fixed it and added without prior discussion as an emergency measure. Hopefully, interested parties can now watchlist this instead of the more arcane and less transparent means of AfD notification. Pcap ping 09:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem

If members of the ARS (or anyone else for that matter) are Keepspamming AfDs with dubious rationales, then the closing admin should just be ignoring them. Exactly the same way as they should be ignoring "Delete - not notable" comments. The problem is not the ARS or any other voting bloc, it's the fact that too many AfD closers are still vote-counting because they're terrified of being taken to DRV. If that's you, there's a simple answer - stop closing AfDs. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think you know better than that. It is very easy to abuse the good faith of a closing admin, and deleting articles after a series of pile-on keeps is inevitably going to lead to deletion review and further drama. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, as has been stated, the closing admin shouldn't be the closing admin, but should vote Delete themselves with as persuasive a rationale as they can manage. It is incredibly likely that that would be more than enough for the another admin who comes along and closes it to feel firm in their decision to Delete. If it goes to DRV after that, it is highly likely that they will concur with the rationale and endorse it. It's really not that complicated. Silverseren^C 21:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the chilling effect which the disruptors were hoping to enable; a situation where any admin who dared to close a debate that they might personally feel one way or the other on (i.e. in most cases which are being discussed, to delete against the will of the disruptors) would feel too scared to do so. Eventually you get a situation where the very people most suitable for closing contentious AfDs are scared off them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it go for both directions though (controversy from both Keep and Delete blocs). What do you think the best method is for fixing it? Is my idea I put above your comment a sound one? Silverseren^C 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning Drama mongers and opening RfCs on admins who consistently close debates against consensus? After a few heads roll you'd probably find the inclination to try and disrupt AfDs (at least by regular users) to drop. There is a serious problem with some AfDs where admins do nothing but count votes when most of the arguments amount to nothing more than "keep, I'm wearing blue pants!". Frankly we're not remotely tough enough on canvassers. Anyone genuinely caught canvassing should be blocked for the duration of the AfD the first time. The second time they should be blocked for a year.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Black Kite. There's very little backlog at AfD, which has been the case for a very long time. Admins who get routinely overturned at DRV and those who cannot stomach standing up to bad rationales can direct their efforts elsewhere with little chance of problems arising in this area. 86.45.155.132 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis, GK1973

Resolved

_{DP retired... again}

• Draganparis (talk · contribs · logs)
• GK1973 (talk · contribs · logs)

...and GK1972 (talk · contribs · logs) and 95.89.18.134 (talk · contribs · logs), 87.202.19.91 (talk · contribs · logs) and 87.202.48.23 (talk · contribs · logs) (I think all Draganparis, many make posts with his name) have been fighting and battling in their various incarnations across my talk page, several ANI threads and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, as well as edit warring at Saints Cyril and Methodius. Draganparis had a NLT block which has been removed but I haven't issued anything more than warnings and words of advice to both parties - largely to Draganparis at this time. The discussion is all over my talk archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 and most recently here. I'm posting here, again, because I'm tired of having to deal with this myself - it is beyond my meagre skills and I plead for another admin(s) to take a look.

I proposed an interaction ban a while back but consensus showed that to be too harsh. However, the users and their various IPs have turned all sorts of places into a pointy battleground, and despite a number of attempts to make both parties step back, have tea, drop the stick, desist, RBI, words of advice and so on, (see [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). This sniping has got to stop, I'm having my username thrown about the discussion pages in reciprocated accusations of "he did this against me but nothing against you" etc. Neither of them are innocent, and I need another body to assist! SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All above users notified. SGGH ^ping! 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem here is. What have I done that is deemed incivil in any way? If this is about my removing the following comment [[18]], I think that anybody who reads it will agree that the "discussion" initiated was off topic bordering on incivility. My explanation for removing it was : "removing senseless potential battleground" which was exactly what it was. Some IP that has nothing to do with me engaging in a senseless uncivilized discussion with another IP (presumably Draganparis). I did not say anything about anyone having to be blamed or something, I just protected the discussion. If SGGH is suspecting that I have anything to do with any IPs, I encourage him to check me out, although there is no statement about any socks here and I clearly state that I have not made even ONE contribution as an IP, so I do not know nything about any "sniping". I also did not occupy myself or any other user with my unresolved case against DP considering it obsolete, especially after DP (again presumably) retired. Someone (an IP, DP?) wrote on SGGH's discussion page that "The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now?" What civility appeal and what does this have to do with anything? I guess that every concerned user's duty would be to check this fight before it escalated. Is there anyone among you here who would not consider this particular exchange of words "a potential battleground"? Well... whatever... just check it out, check me out, check anything out and let's formulate some, I don't know, charges for me to know exactly what to answer...

Oh... and it seems funny, how DP uses third person first in his "complaint", as though he is some neutral editor (albeit IP) and then proceeds to make a second comment in which he claims he is DP... GK (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

..And GK 1972 (plus all the other Greek IPs) is also NOT me but someone mimicking my name. The slight difference in the number used should be a clue, but if there is any doubt, again, please check me out. GK (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

GK1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for username violation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed GK1972. As for GK1973, I don't suspect you having anything to do with the IPs, I know they are Draganparis. Secondly, I am not bringing any "charges against you", I am bringing the situation in its entirety here because I have too much else going on to deal with it satisfactorily on my own, and I am tired of DP throwing my name about in the continuing arguments between all parties. I don't know how the proportion of responsibility for this continuation of battling lies, I brought all parties here equally so another admin can decide. SGGH ^ping! 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK SGGH, I understand. There is no problem on my side. If there is anything I can help or anything that any admin would like to ask me, I will be happy to answer. As far as I am concerned, this is another disrupting effort on the part of "retired" user Draganparis to attack me (presumably because of my removal of his "discussion" above, in which actually the other part was the problem) and yet another admin (that is you) of impartiality etc... I stopped giving his accusations any credit or importance long ago, and refrained from answering him as you already know and anybody can check. If there is anything I can do to help, please message me. GK (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If the rule is that one should let be insulted on these pages and should not complain - I admit I acted against such concept and would admit of an error of opposing to such a rule. However, I do not think this to be the spirit of Wikipedia. A small effort by the administrators to warn for uncivilized tone would have, I believe, beneficial effects on these pages.

BACKGROUND. This is a sequel of the dispute that I have let go. here is just a short comment, for the administrators to understand the motives. The disputes on Cyril and Methodius pages and on the number of pages on Ancient Macedonia are politically biased. In fact on the C&M the current dispute about Greekness of the missionaries (just about one word!) lasts already for over 4 years. One group of the editors, a group of the same editors I presume, constant for many years now, have been changing their user names, collaborating permanently in various not verifiable ways, all this with the intention to maintain one concept, a concept that they, missionaries, were Greeks, that the Alexander the Great was “Greek king”, that the ancient Macedonians were “more Greeks then the Greeks themselves” – something that is actually claimed! The user’s name change serves a trivial purpose: to misled the new-comer administratiors I would think (Xenovatis-Anothroskon, Miskin to may be GK1973 and to GK, and may be some other names). This missionaries problem is of course of little relevance for the others who are not Greeks or may be not “modern Macedonians”, the modern Macedonians who are also quite eager to call them, the missionaries, not Greek but, for example “Macedonian”. But the mention group is a Greek group and is particularly effective, although small. Every “intrusion” if more serious, they try to remove. I pushed the issue of strict evaluation of the sources and this broke down the concept of the group, incited them to start insulting me and made the entire issue hard to resolve. Now I practically accepted not to change the term “Greek” (although not documented but somehow natural) for term “Byzantine” (what is more neutral expression and I think better). However, even after the end of the discussion, they continued with the insults and I rebelled. This what we find now here is a sequel of the mentioned dispute. The sequel being just a problem of the civility on these pages. This is important because the method that the group uses against some successful contra argument is, between others, intimidation and personal insults. If the user would then react with more intensity, the group would, acting in concert, try to remove him. This case is therefore a sequel of a successful removal of one “intruder” – me.

Therefore, the issue is simple. Some editors have been insulting me, I called for civility. This did not stop them, they intensified the insults and my edits have been PARTIALLY removed by the same user - I presume with the intention to remove some expression of my goodwill and make the administrators judge in their favor. The administrator(s) permitted this all and have been warning only me for “disruptive editing” (which, these editing, were my calls for civility!) and were not warning the party that produced EXPLICIT insults.

More specifically to the above problem raised by SGGH:

I ISSUED THE WARNING that GK1972 address may be a misuse, so there is no point discussing it here. The mentioned IPs belong as follows: 95.89.18.134 - is my lab computer; the IP 87.202.19.91 is in Athens; the IP 87.202.48.23 is also in Athens.

GK (alias GK1973) and Simanos have been insulting me for months (at least 10 times they called me a “layer” and used other insulting names without even showing where the untruthfulness was. This was at various placed, talk pages, mentioned administrator talk page, ANI investigation page… I just complained against incivility. My complaints were interpreted by them as disrupting editing and new insults and incivility mockery continued. I disclosed my personality hoping that this would make them behave in more civilized way. The insults continued. No administrator EVER reacted. To denigrate me, I presume, GK1973 started removing parts of my friendly calls for civility!! I know for three occasions, there could have been more, it is hard to follow all of this. I retired then from Wikipedia. The insults unfortunately continued even in my absence. Since my personality has been known now I could act as an UNREGISTERED known user. I complained again. GK removed my call for civility again. The Administrator(s) were permanently warning ME instead of the SIDE that was permanently, over 3 months, insulting me in spite of my not being anonymous any more.

The cause of this situation: In my opinion the administrator(s) missed to warn the editors for incivility and this made them confident to continue, what produced then that the entire issue exploded. Solution is also simple and logical: The uncivilized party should be prevented from insulting me, and I will not have reason to complaint on Wikipedia discussion pages. The problem will then disappear. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand... Does DP claim that this edit as well as these were made by someone else and not him? If so, then this IP should immediately be banned for disruption and usurpation of the identity of another editor, posing as DP all the time... GK (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake.The 95.89.18.134 is my lab computer. Sorry for the confusion. I now corrected MY OWN edit above and corrected some English also which was quite bad, since I wrote it in hurry. (Draganparis)

Excuse me, to the administrator: did GK1972 use MY LAB COMPUTER (IP: 95.89.18.134)? This is almost impossible and if this was the case, his comment was trivial, but this may amount to a very serious personal privacy affair. I am entitled to know this, please. Thank you. Although... our computers are set to acquire the IP number from the server and it is theoretically possible to acquire some number that some other computer previously had... Yes, this will be no proof, but I am just curious. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The above evidences the problem, can someone step in to assist? SGGH ^ping! 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to look into this. DraganParis, if you're going to contribute, please log in. That will make this a lot easier for everyone. SGGH, don't doubt your sanity. You know the players here and if you think a block is merited, make one. Everyone, stop making personal attacks, stop making allegations unless you post a diff so that it's clear what you're talking about. If you can't agree on what should go in the article, follow our dispute resolution guidelines. Can't you just neutrally report what reliable sources say on the subject? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with the article. Proper procedures were followed, an admin was called in to judge the arguments presented sometime in February and he ruled that "Greek" was the word to use Here admin Tom Harrison clearly states his opinion. After this ruling, there were minor disputes which of course did not change the ruling and there was no more formal dispute by any proponent of the other POVs. User DP thinks he has made his point, as most times is the case with those who disagree, yet other users seriously doubt that he has. He has never properly called for outside neutral input, as far as I am aware, nor has he followed any other proper channels. He chose to resort to blame some organized pro-Greek cabala, hurling attacks and innuendos against a number of editors and admins and especially against me, who, in his mind, along with 3-4 other users represent some kind of uebernationalistic gang. He chose to parade through various discussion pages posting self-made warning notices against us until I brought the case to ANI. There he even blatantly used legal threats, which resulted in his getting banned (for a third time in a matter of a few months, after getting banned once for disruption and once for sockpuppetry - three confirmed socks). Then he retracted and days after he dramatically retired. Since then he edits from 2 IPs, again mainly to criticize me and other editors/admins (this one is good), one such critique being the reason (as I understand) why SGGH has again opened this ANI case. I do not know what the real point here is, I have long now stopped to interact with user Draganparis as well as giving any heed to his endless whining (to him this is a really serious personal attack, to me it is the politest way to describe his contributions). Of course ex-user Draganparis continually complains how I and other users insulted him, called him a liar, replied with "blah blah blah" to his usual allegations, my feeling is that I have been more than patient and as civil as humanly possible regarding his trolling and his spamming. Anyone is welcome to look into this case, should anyone really think this story worth looking into... GK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you need a better proof from this sincere text above that we have two very different concepts of civility? (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning DP from Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius might be a start, it is his IPs that are continually posting there. GK hasn't edited the page since May 7th apart from reverting one WP:BATTLEesque edits. DP needs to go elsewhere in the 'pedia or I shall start issuing blocks. Likewise, is GK1973 starts appearing to take liberties and go after DP then the same may occur. Both parties must stop editing anywhere near Saints Cyril and Methodius or related topics. Don't go around reporting each other either, because that will very much count as not letting it go. SGGH ^ping! 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I had an email stating I had violated some logical principle of Socrates in my resolution of this incident. To be honest I am tired these appeals to humanity. This is Wikipedia, not humanity. Email stated the use has left, so that's a resolution. SGGH ^ping! 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess from DP... I have never seen a retired user being so active before... You have my sympathies... GK (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll mark this resolved then. But I will take User:SheffieldSteels advice should it come up again. Happy editing. SGGH ^ping! 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks in Hungary

Could an admin take a look at this please. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) unilaterally decided to userify it (it's now at User:Samofi/Slovaks in Hungary), and this to my mind amounts to an out of process speedy deletion and as far as I can see it meets no speedy delete criteria anyway. I notice that the page creater (Samofi (talk · contribs) has now been blocked but given the input by Baxter9 (talk · contribs) I'd suggest the page needs to moved back to main space and proper deletion procedures followed if someone wants to go down that route - the mess with speedy deletions and moving the page more than once means I can't revert things. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's a monograph with sourcing and WP:SYN issues (plus the user's English is not great), userfying is the best way of helping the user to develop the article while avoiding an otherwise inevitable deletion debate. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to a policy or guideline on userfication? While I accept that userfication may be the way to go this should not be done without the user's permission as otherwise it's a speedy delete in all but name and a user should have the option of following the normal deletion process if they so desire. It is my opinion that involuntary userfication should only occur in lieu of a proper deletion (either by speedy or AfD) and then done by an admin. I am also of the view that this is the only course of action in keeping with current policy. In this case the page was not a speedy candidate, nor had an AfD been completed and the userfication was not done by an admin. This case is also complicated by the fact that another editor has edited this page and they may wish it to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:BRD?

Loook, I don't see the problem here. The article was a mess, clearly not ready for prime time. There were empty sections, poor writing, lots of bad formatting, eerything about it said "work in progress." I could have deleted everything in it that was wrong, or spent an inordinate amount of time trying to fix it up, but instead I went with B and userfied it. If people think that's a mistake, they should R my action and the D can begin -- I'm certainly not going to edit war to put it back in userspace. I do think that the creator should be aware, though, that if it's moved back into mainspace, there's every probability that it will be AfDed and deleted. (That's not a threat, I wouldn't nominate it, but given the condition of the article, it's almost a certainty that someone will.)

I think the only real question here is whether the article, as is, is an improvement and benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the answer is clear that it is not. It certainly can be, with some amount of work. If it's not beneficial, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and I don't believe it takes an admin to make that determination. In general, we don't insist on process for the sake of process, so if (as you seem to agree) userfication is the best course of action, it's rather irrelevant how it was arrived at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel your actions were wrong as they amounted to a speedy deletion and speedy deletions which don't fall under any of the criteria are generally frowned upon and additionally I've never heard of BRD being applied to deletions. In the case of deletions I do think we should insist on process. It's also clear precedence at AfD that the bad state of an article is not a reason to delete. That said that's just my personal view - as there is currently no policy on userfication I am happy to accept others will have a different point of view. I would not have brought this here if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't revert myself. (As an aside I've now started a RfC on whether the current userfication essay should become a policy or guideline). Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a deletion, it's right there in userspace, in exactly the same condition it was, ready and available to be worked on. If the creator wishes other editors to help in developing it, a note dropped on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page will surely bring some. As I said, if you disagree strongly, get an admin to move it back. (You could have moved it back yourself if you hadn't prevented the speedy deletion of the cross-namespace redirect I requested.) I don't think that's in the best interests of the article or the encyclopedia, but YMMV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've missed understood WP:MOR I could not revert as your addition of the speedy delete tag meant there was more than one line in the page history. I generally take very complex deletion requests (such as this) here rather than speedy delete tag them so that I can explain things properly and discuss if need be. As I say it was not meant to be a complaint about your conduct as at the moment there is no policy or guideline on this so we're all free to do what we think best.

(As an aside it is my view that userfication should be treated the same as deletion as it removes the page from the view of normal readers although I accept views may differ on this. Although only (currently) an essay WP:Userification states "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article" so I'm not the only person that holds that view. I may have been more willing to let this one slip by if it wasn't for the fact that two editors appeared to be working on it.) Dpmuk (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious, userfication is not the same as deletion because with deletion the article is no longer available to anyone except administrators, while with userfication it's off the beaten path, but it's still around and available for development. It is, in fact, no more "deleted" than any category, template or image, which all exist outside of mainspace in their own namespaces. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken is correct; this isn't a deletion, so there's no problem with BRD. I've deleted the cross-namespace redirect; if you want to move it back to mainspace, go for it. If someone wants to nom it for speedy/PROD/AFD, they can. This userfication was a polite way to try to fix things, IMHO; BMK should realize by now that no good deed goes unpunished. (struck by request) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly. (Nothing to respond to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree that it shouldn't be treated the same as a deletion and from the essay I am not the only one, so I don't like the tone of Floquenbeam final comment, we obviously disagree but that's no need to accuse me of "punishing" Beyong My Ken. As I've said I brought this here to get the move reversed not to attack a user's conduct - we may disagree on the correctness of his move but I understand their point of view and can't fault them for doing it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Move reversed and AfD started here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is pure process wonkery. Have fun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you've AfDed an article while the creator is indeffed and will not be able to speak for it. The only real reason to insist on the strict application of process is in the interest of fairness to all parties -- In what way is that fair? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, so I haven't got round to notifying people a whole five minutes after I started the AfD, give me a chance! Now notified along with the other user that had made significant contributions. Given the creator's banned status I'll keep an eye on his talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a badly misjudged action. The article fails core policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V since the sources are mainly unacceptable) and against the weight of those policies you are erecting some pettifogging objection about process. The result is that the user gets a WP:BITE for his pains, since the article cannot possibly remain as it is in mainspace. Instead of allowing a period for the user to fix the several issues, you have placed a thoroughly non-compliant article back in main space where an AfD is an inevitability. I really cannot see how that is a good result for the user or the project. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well sorry, although I respect your view and can understand it, I completely disagree with it for two reasons. The first is I think new users would find it more bitey if an article is userified without any discussion or indeed explanation on their talk page. I also think it would make them wonder how wikipedia is run if a single editor, who doesn't even have to be, and in this case isn't, an admin, can unilaterally removed their article from the encylopedia. Personally I think newbies would prefer to see an article end up at AfD where there can be some feedback and they can properly understand the process. If delete and userification is the result of the AfD at least they'll know why and understand that it's been done by WP:CONSENSUS, another one of wikipedia's core policies. Secondly I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent if we allowed anyone to userify page just because they want to. There is currently no consensus on userfication and so I think it should only happen when a page would otherwise be deleted (i.e. after an AfD or if it's eligible for speedy). Dpmuk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it really doesn't aid any editor to have their work removed from the encyclopedia without informing them of how they might make it better. At least a deletion review will have participants, discussion, points and suggestions and things. Allowing users to get around the deletion process and establish a consensus all on their own to userfy, but at the same time not help with the improvement of the article, is just wrong. No-one has mentioned the third option that someone might come across the article in mainspace, if it were there, and decide to help make it encyclopedic, if possible. Not everyone rushes to delete. Userfying without discussion gives no room for improvement, allowing random people to userfy things they don't like just gives them free reign to bypass normal procedures of improvement or deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(out)So let's sum up here: 12 hours after I userfied it, an obviously deletable article is again userfied, at the cost of the time and energy of a number of editors. I'd call that a complete waste of resources, and exactly the kind of thing that WP:IAR – a frequently miscited policy – was designed to prevent. Sure, we've had Process (with a bold capital "P"), all the eyes are crossed and the tees are spotted, and a fun time was had by all as we walked our big Circle of Liff right back to our starting point ... and I guess that's what's most important, right? (sheesh) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was userfied to someone else (User:Nuujinn/Slovaks_in_Hungary), and after the consensus for that formed at the AfD. Had it been userified to its creator, it would not have improved, regardless whether its creator were indeff'd or not. The article might have gotten longer in Samofi's unser space, but that's about it. So, the AfD did have an positive effect. Pcap ping 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The same people - meaning everybody - who can edit it now in the userspace it's currently in could have edited it in the userspace I put it in, so that's pretty irrelevant. Instead of dancing around 360 degrees, we danced 359.999 degrees. It was still a waste of time, and process for the sake of process, which I see went on even more, as the same editor took the AfD result to DRV. Damned if I know what's going on here, because it seems someone's going through a lot of bother for the sake of ... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Except User:Nuujinn might have never found it, or dared to work on it in somebody else's user space. Pcap ping 10:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems that some people are being process wonks and asserting that userfication equals deletion therefore this is out of process deletion. It's not. I really cannot see how leaving a grossly noncompliant article in article space for a week and then deleting it is better by any objective measure than moving it to user space to be made compliant and potentially moved back. If the subject is good then userfication will yield a compliant article rather than a week with a noncompliant article followed by deletion. If the subject is not good then userfication is a speedy removal from article space of an obviously biased treatment of it. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See below for an explanation of how none of that actually happened - the article wasn't left for a week or deleted, it was moved to somewhere where it might get improved, along with suggestions, comments and the like, none of which was accomplished by BMKs taking process into his own hands. Weakopedia (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually your summing up is not quite as comprehensive as it could be.

An editor created an article, which over the space of three days was edited several dozen times by up to four different editors. On the fourth day you removed that article from mainspace to the creators talk, and left a note telling them "it is not yet in good enough shape to be in the encyclopedia proper. Please work on it here, and when it is ready, move it back into mainspace."

In short, you didn't attempt to improve the article, nor express any specific concerns you may have had about the article. You didn't assist the creator in understanding what they had done wrong, you didn't attempt to show the creator how they might improve the article.

Wikipedia:Userfication says "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it generally is inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process.".

Since this page was worked on my several editors, was not created by accident, and simply didn't meet your quality standards, you had no basis for userfication. The deletion process is there to stop editors from making out-of-process deletions based on views they have which are incompatible with the views of Wikipedia.

Note that Wiki policy says that there are alternatives to deletion. Specifically about userfication it says "Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. The incubator provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit."

The "easier to find and edit" bit is important. By userfying you placed the article in a hard-to-find place, and at the same time left no indication about your concerns or what the creator could do to address them. You placed responsibility for improving the encyclopedia squarely on the article creator, in violation of Ownership.

The founding principles state that we should use "discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism by consensus for all content.". IAR wasn't designed to overcome the founding principles. Userfication without discussion is not helpful to the encyclopedia, it does not promote discussion, it does not aid article improvement. Userfication is not reccommended by policy, and in fact is discouraged.

The deletion process is there to stop editors moving content out of mainspace that they simply don't like and don't wish to assist in improving. In this case the deletion process resulted in a discussion and eventually an editor agreeing to work on the article in their talkspace, an editor with a fair idea of how to improve articles. That is an example of consensus, an example of collaboration in improving the encyclopedia. By undertaking the deletion the process the articles problems have been partially identified and are being worked on. Your method of deletion/userfication did none of these things, and put the article in the place least likely to aid in it's improvement.

Reccommend reminding BMK that the deletion process is there for a reason, that userfication is specifically discouraged, and that IAR does not extend to acting on a personal consensus that the community had no say in, nor ultimately felt able to uphold. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Recommend reminding Weakopedia that non-neutral articles by people banned for tendentious editing are not really an asset to the project and placing them somewhere out of the article space while they are remediated is better than waiting a week and then deleting them. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You were the closing admin for that deletion review, and your close was not to wait a week and delete it. After discussion about what was wrong with the article you closed with "Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework.". Discussion, consensus, suggestion, improvement. That is in stark contrast to a non-admin userfying content they don't like without discussion, consensus, or suggestion, and with little hope of improvement. You seem to be arguing that the end justifies the means, and no discussion was necessary, but firstly that creates an awful precedent for everyone to randomly remove from the encyclopedia what they don't like, and secondly is against the principles of Wikipedia, in this case both in letter and in spirit. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not close the deletion review. The article fails core policies. It is now placed in user space for rework. This may result in an article which, unlike the current one, is compliant. End of. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't close it?

"The result was Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)"

Then someone is impersonating you, and they have the sourgrapes bit perfect. Weakopedia (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy closed the AfD, not the DRV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My first response is that it would have been better to move it to the Article Incubator. What sort of articles should be placed in userspace rather than the Incubator? Too many articles in userspace still show up in Google, which is not a good thing IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, I won't object. I have no real opinion on the merit of the subject, only the content. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

174.140.102.231

Over a period of ten days, this person (i.e. static IP) has blanked and/or repeatedly inserted unsourced material. Requests for reliable sourcing via discussion, revision history page and user talk page have mostly, if not all, been ignored. Differences: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Akerans (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

user (talk) has insisted on stating that this man is alive, when he has clearly passed on. His company's own website announced his death: http://yellowmanblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/peter-mui-founder-of-yellowman-1953—2009/ and footage of his memorial service is easily available through a simple google search. Respect the man, and either delete or fix his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.102.231 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on deleting most of the article whether than just change the tense? raseaC^{talk to me} 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They've insisted on retaining the current text until a source is provided so that readers and other editors can confirm what you claim. You need to discuss sourcing with them until you've found a good source.

You need to continue the discussions this editor has attempted to have with you in the past, specifically at the article's talk page.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Simply removing material is considered vandalism. You need to use a reliable source to cite your changes/edits, instead of just making the change. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears the page has been edited again, without sources.([19]) Even after attempts for further discussion. Akerans (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If they do it again, I'd suggest (by which I mean: I will request) semi-protection. If that doesn't work we can try full protection. Hopefully, one or other of those approaches will drive the IP to discuss first. TFOWR^propaganda 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm a little concerned about the article and WP:BLP. I've been googling for "Tungtex" and "Yellow river": Tungtex doesn't mention Mr. Mui at all, though he's supposed to be a co-founder. finance.google.com returns nothing relevant for "Yellow river". I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about the accuracy of the article. TFOWR^propaganda 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I did find information about that here. I'm guessing that Peter Kan Mui is his full name, as there is also a redirect page here on WP. I'm not sure who are Investor Relations Asia Pacific, or if the information is reliable. Akerans (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

More on Slovaks in Hungary

There's no particular drama here, just a procedural question on which Spartaz and I are disagreeing. (For the avoidance of doubt I quite like Spartaz and I often agree with him, just not in this case. Spartaz advised me to raise the matter here, so I'm doing it with his full knowledge.)

The situation is that following Guy's early closure of the AfD for Slovaks in Hungary, about which there's a long drama above, Dpmuk wanted to raise a deletion review to examine whether the process had been correctly followed. He did this here. Spartaz pre-emptively closed the DRV on the grounds that the article has been userfied. Spartaz's view is that because the article has been userfied, no deletion has taken place, which means that DRV has no jurisdiction. Spartaz thinks the correct venue for Dpmuk's request is WP:RM.

My view is that DRV is the correct place for challenging a deletion decision, and that RM has no jurisdiction to decide whether Guy followed the procedure correctly. I therefore think Spartaz' early closure of the DRV was inappropriate.

Please could uninvolved people decide which of us is correct?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with S Marshall: if an article has been deleted at AfD and then userfied, DRV is the correct forum for deciding whether it should be allowed back into the main space, relisted for AfD, or stay out. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It has never been deleted. It has been moved to user space. A move is not an admin action and does not have the effect of an admin enforcing a consensus with tools. Its an editorial outcome that can be changed by any new consensus. As such a deletion review is nugatory and this can either ne resolved at RM or by gaining a new consensus on the article talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A move isn't an admin action, but deleting the resulting redirect is. But the main point is that a fresh consensus about what's to be done with the article does an end run around what is undoubtedly a DRV function:- to oversee whether Guy followed the process correctly. Admins are empowered to make emergency decisions and judgment calls, but if they do, they aren't above scrutiny of their actions at DRV afterwards.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I also brought the matter up at Spartaz's talk page. Userfication is basically the same as deletion (in fact it normally happens after deletion) and has never been a reason to stop a DrV in the past. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• My view on this begins with "F" and ends with "uck process". Here we have an article which, after significant discussion, everybody agrees is seriously noncompliant with core policy. It fails WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and is also in very poor English. The creating user has since been indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing due to POV-pushing in precisely the area covered by the article's contents. So we have now spent a significant amount of time and energy arguing about whether this should sit in article space for a week before its inevitable deletion, or whether it is somehow a terrible abuse of process to move it to user space where someone has expressed an interest in fixing it. I am utterly bemused by the determination of some people to keep what is by common consent a terrible article in mainspace, rather than userspace, while we decide to nuke it. That is plain silly. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Slovaks in Hungary is a redlink. Clicking on it gives me the option to view or restore 7 deleted edits. Typing "Slovaks in Hungary" into the search box does not find it. This is exactly the same situation as if the article had been deleted and userfied: Article gone from WP / article present in userspace / no way for a regular user to find it. I don't think it's a very good argument to say that "it hasn't been deleted" because effectively - very effectively - it has. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, DRV would be the right venue if you disagreed with Guy's closure. Technically Guy did close it as delete, but userfied the article in the same action. No, DRV is not necessary if someone is going to work on the article in their userspace and move it to the mainspace once it's suitable. At that point, it would go to another AFD. Whether Guy's early closure was suitable invocation of IAR is an exercise left to the reader. –xeno^talk 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I feel that Spartaz' early closure of the DRV was correct given that the drv was clearly process wonkery. I don't feel that Spartaz' reason for closing the drv was good, since reversing any decision made by AfD is presisely what drv is for. So I think the closure should be "closed as beeing a call for procedure for procedures sake", or WP:SNOW. Taemyr (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• That, at least, is a fair point. Perhaps Spartaz would like to change the closure summary. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen no comment in the AfD or DRV that states the current content should be in the mainspace; at best, some think there is something to salvage with heavy work needed. Frankly, I see both the AfD and the DRV as process for process sake. All that should matter is that the content be sourced and updated to maximize its encyclopedic value so that it can be evaluated in the mainspace. Who cares if the TPS reports were properly filled out in the interim? The optimal outcome—a properly-sourced and relevant article in the mainspace—is still achieveable and another discussion about the intracacies of proper i-dotting and t-crossing will not help with that. Move on, everyone. These efforts would be better spent at the userified article. — Scientizzle 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What's the point of process, Scientizzle? It's a serious question:- Why do we bother to have AfD discussions? And why do we bother to have a DRV process for reviewing whether they're closed properly?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a balance thing - enough process to assure consensus and a modicum of fairness, not so much process that we're all spending our time filling out forms in quadruplicate. What WP:IAR basically means is that the right result is to be more highly valued than which pathway is used to achieve it, so if the procedural niceties are getting in the way, it's OK to jump the line. It answers, for Wikipedia, the age-old question of whether the end justifies the means: here, at least, it does, when the end is important enough. Certainly improving the encyclopedia is important enough, and I've yet to see an argument in all this silliness that the article in question, in the state it is in, improves the encyclopedia. The correct result (or some version of the correct result - perhaps Dougweller is right and it should have gone to the incubator) was achieved, and nothing got broken in the bargain, except maybe the desire to elevate process for its own sake to a more important status than advancing the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this thread is about Spartaz' early close of the DRV, and not about Guy's deletion of the article, is it your position that enough process to assure consensus and a modicum of fairness took place?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz' decision seems to me to be exactly right: there was no deletion, therefore nothing to be reviewed at DRV. A controversial action with no specific forum designated for discussion is therefore dealt with at a place for general discussions of controversial actions, i.e. AN or AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of process? The Wikipedia processes exist to serve the needs of creating a better encyclopdia only. Processes like AfD are for gathering feedback towards that end, which may be best acheived by eliminating content or spurring the relocation and/or improvement of that content. Speedy deletion exists for when the content is unlikely to ever meet reasonable inclusion criteria. DRV exists because AfDs are not always clean and easy to close, speedies may be overzealous, conditions may change in the real world that may reasonably alter the fate of a deletion discussion given a second look, and admins are human and prone to make mistakes.

It seems abundantly clear that reasonable, knowledgable editors don't think the current content of the Slovaks in Hungary article is ready for Prime Time, therefore it should not be in the mainspace. It's also clear that some reasonable, knowledgable editors think there is some work that can be done to possibly shape it into an appropriate article, which is recommended to be done in userspace. Therefore the optimal transitional state has currently been acheived: the content is now in userspace to be worked upon by those interested and capable, thus increasing the liklihood of creating an encyclopedic article. I've seen no indication of a reasonably-likely process outcome that would be clearly superior to this. If someone can provide one, I'd like to know. Process can get in the way when sensible actions (such as userifying marginal content for improvement) are inhibited or actively opposed.

And to head off any concern over ends justify the means extremism: this only applies to reasonably sensible outcomes acheived through reasonably sensible—if out of the ordinary—actions. Naturally, any action or outcome should be open for critical evaluation, but my view is that the means should be optimized to meet the ends, that the means should never be an end unto themselves, and that the optimal approach is sometimes out-of-process. — Scientizzle 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I came back to make exactly that point, that process is most important with marginal cases, where it helps determine what consensus is. In this case, at all points along the way, the consensus concerning the result was never in doubt: no one has disputed Guy's litany of the things wrong with the article, and everyone seems to agree (in broad terms) with the outcome. This is not a marginal case, and it is exactly those situations in which WP:IAR encourages us to "just do it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• And that's exactly my view as well, Scientizzle. Would you agree with me that when you say, "any action or outcome should be open for critical evaluation", the correct venue for critical evaluation of a deletion is DRV?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• The entire point of that DRV, it seems to me, was placing the process ahead of the outcome. Dpmuk even stated in the AfD "I would have no problem with a userfy close", which, incidentally, was the close. Your comments in the DRV, S Marshall, were similarly concerned with process over outcome: "follow the process properly, so that the article can be deleted in a correct and orderly fashion." If deletion/userification is a reasonable outcome, and that outcome has been acheieved, what is the point of further process? What do you want out of this, S Marshall? What is there to gain at this point? — Scientizzle 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  
  To expand upon my thoughts here...DRV should be used iff the outcome and process were both questionable. To expand upon BMK's points above, the processes exist to expand the liklihood of a useful outcome in those gray areas of editing and to provide a sort of quasi-anarchic checks and balances-type control against actual abuses. I have yet to see a strong, clear objection to the actual outcome of all of this, or that some aspect of editing process was damaged, thus I see no need to worry much about whether the outcome was acheived by-the-book. — Scientizzle 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What do I want to see? Well, there's a main point and a subsidiary one. The main point isn't specific to this case. I would like to see it established that in principle, an AfD close as "userfy" can be challenged at DRV. Spartaz' close states that it cannot. In other words, to take Spartaz' close literally, there are no circumstances in which a "userfy" outcome is subject to DRV—and that's not okay.

  The subsidiary point is in sympathy with Dpmuk, and it's about FairProcess. And before we all start being snide about processes again, the word "fair" is the important one. Dpmuk hasn't been treated fairly here. He's effectively been told that even though he objects to Guy's out-of-process close, it can't be challenged in any venue. That's not collaborative; it's kafkaesque.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

it can't be challenged in any venue - This is the community discussion on those actions. An unnecessary discussion, IMO, but a discussion nonetheless. Dpmuk hasn't been treated badly, his actions, although in good faith, were ill-advised, and the result commensurate with their (lack of) usefullness to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Amen. There is no harm in letting the DrV go forward, and the reason given for the close is a horrible precedent to let go forward. By closing this early we spend more time on this, not less, so it's self-defeating on top of everything else. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • How's that, then? –xeno^talk 19:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I personally don't see the reason for not allowing the discussion to go forward. Let the day in court happen. I realize it's bounced all around, but frankly there were serious problems, in my opinion, with the AfD close. I've not followed the whole case in detail, but a speedy closure by what appears to be an involved admin is never a good idea. I may be missing something, but I think it's better to have that discussion rather than sweep it under a rug. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Xeno, that improves the outcome considerably.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we are all here, supposedly, to build an encyclopedia. The administrative and logistical "tail" that is necessary to support those "front line" activities should be as large as necessary, and not a whit larger. Any energy which goes into these kinds of conversations is energy that is not being applied to editing the encyclopedia, and is therefore to some extent counterproductive. The actions that were unnecessary in this case were (1) undoing the initial userfication, (2) tagging the article with a "procedural" AfD, (3) bringing the AfD result to DRV and (4) asking for review of the DRV result. These actions sapped energy to the detriment of the project. The other actions (i.e. my initial userfication, Guy's closing of the AfD and Spartaz' closing of the DRV) were all geared towards the most minimal possible action to achieve the obviously desirable result. To say that they provoked all this palaver is ridiculous: at each point along the way, it was the objections to those actions which caused additional discussion – this is yet another example of why the focus on process over result is detrimental, and why we have IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this breakdown of the situation and Floquenbeam's take. We're not arguing against process, we're arguing against the repeated use of progress for no perceived gain to the project. — Scientizzle 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody comes to AN/I to build an encyclopaedia, BMK. People come to AN/I to talk about how a collaborative encyclopaedia ought to be built. Which, I'm afraid, involves processes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been deliberately quiet on this whole issue (apart from asking for comments on my user page) for quite some time so as to reflect on everything. I have two points I wish to make:

• I'm happier with xeno's close of the DRV but still not completely happy. JgZ's close of the original AfD was, in my opinion, an atrocious very bad abuse of process. I take on board the comments above about the end result being correct but we have to draw the line somewhere as to what abuses of process we allow to get the right result. In my opinion this clearly crossed the line as he was not even close to independent. This was my reason for taking it to DRV in the first place. I would still like to see JgZ's closure of the AfD vacated even if it is then immediately closed by a neutral admin with the same outcome.
• Several people above have accused me of going through a pointless process with no gain to the project. Respectively I disagree. I will admit to the amount of drama this has generated being excessive but I don't think the whole process had no gain. As I state on my user page where I give my reasoning I think that ensuring process is followed is important and has a gain to the project - that of not alienating editors. Yes this is less tangible than making sure we have good articles but the two go hand in hand, without any editors we would have no articles, be they good, bad or indifferent. It is obvious that peoples views differ on the importance of this but I'd ask that people stop making it sound like my actions had 'no perceived gain to the project' is a given and instead acknowledge that it is just their view and that other's may differ. Dpmuk (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stop using hyperbole. Atrocious? Is moving aside a biased article in bad English by a now-banned user really an atrocity? If you genuinely think it's an atrocity then God help you if you ever visit Rwanda or Zimbabwe. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that in common usage "atrocious" and "atrocity" have come to mean different things, the first (at least from my point of view) meaning "very bad" whereas atrocity has come to have a more specific meaning of murdering / killing as you describe (which is my book is much worse than "very bad"). I know that's not technically how things should work, but in my opinion that's how the two terms are commonly used, and I definitely meant it in the "very bad" sense and in no way meant to link it the the atrocities you mention. With hindsight it was probably a bad choice of word, due to the connection between the words, but it didn't occur to me at the time that people would make the connection as you did. Have refactored. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another chance?

A new account, STAND-UP-2-P (talk · contribs) has come to my talk page and apologized and is taking responsibility for their past actions. They have self admitted that they are a sock of a blocked user Force101 (talk · contribs) and I don't have any doubts that they are lying. He is asking for another chance and I would like to know what everyone else thinks. As a note, the main account Force101 is currently blocked with talk page privileges disabled and the account hasn't been directed to alternatives of getting unblocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a wee bit concerned that Force101 was last blocked only 8 days ago, but they appear to be open, honest, and genuine. Worse case scenario is an unblock, trouble, re-block (and remember this event if the editor requests a fresh start in the future). Best case scenario is that they're genuine, and we gain a good editor. TFOWR^propaganda 12:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not an admin, yada yada.

Force 101 is indeffed for block evasion, presumable there is another account behind this. Per TFOWR, it may be worth entering dialogue with the editor. It may also be worth restoring talk page access to Force 101 to allow an unblock request. The editor should be under no doubt that should they be granted an appeal, their editing will be under scrutiny and further problems will lead to a block being reimposed. If the editor wishes to become a constructive contributor, that is to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would unblock talk page access and begin a dialogue. Easy enough to reblock talk if needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Force101 granted talk page access, STAND-UP-2-P requested not to use that account for time being. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a good indicator of their intentions… VernoWhitney (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that comment on the end on the diff does not look like constructive editor material. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Chance given, chance blown. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this briefly yesterday, but I didn't have enough time to comment. Ever since he's been allowed to his talk page, I haven't seen a slight indication of competence. He maintains that he will make constructive edits, but I have not seen him demonstrate that anywhere in his past accounts. As Mjroots mentioned above, the user is not using this opportunity wisely. I'll keep watch on the further development on his talk page, and if his attitude changes, I may reconsider. Goodvac (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering he did that in his request to be unblockled, I think I'm more likely to find pirate gold buried in my garden. Troll account is trolling; wash your hands of him and continue. HalfShadow 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

The periodic edit war on this page has flared up again. I have no clue which side is "right", but one keeps adding some stuff and another keeps deleting. Probably several 3RR violations by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Per tradition, can I suggest that you may have protected it at The Wrong Version? It looks to me like several editors were reverting one Special:Contributions/Lawgazer SPA. No objection to protection, but I suspect right now one editor is thinking "brilliant!" - and it's possibly that editor that should be encouraged to talk... TFOWR^propaganda 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject now is the same as it was a year ago - some dispute over that firm having laid some people off. There's someone with an axe to grind, and someone else who doesn't like it. But I don't know which one is "right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the links in your post, TFOWR. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! TFOWR^propaganda 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, we've got dueling SPA's. A one-shot redlink added this stuff on April 7, then today another SPA redlink started deleting it, while some bluelinks kept restoring it. But who's "right"? My recollection is that the stuff about layoffs was considered POV-pushing a year ago, so leaving it out (as it stands right now) could be the "right" version after all. But I'm not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This does indeed go back to a feud that was running through much of last year, particularly through the summer months, as one can tell from the history. It centered on the now-indef'd user Lathaminfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s efforts to make the article a coatrack about layoffs (it would be reasonable to assume he was personally affected by those layoffs). There were various apparent socks and other redlinks that got their mitts into it. It quieted down fairly much, once Lathaminfo was sent to the Phantom Zone, but it was apparently still simmering and has now boiled over again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued

I restored this from archives as I spoke too soon - the edit war has resumed, with a redlink posting the layoff stuff again, coatracking the article to be mostly about that particular event. That stuff needs to be deleted and the page protected again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nycbl1y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on some sort of crusade regarding law firm layoffs. I've informed him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits made are both noteworthy (largest law firm layoff in US history) and well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone agrees, so you need to take it to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

173.16.14.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently the IP that user was working under before creating his user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the admin has put the article on ice for 3 days. My guess is that the guy will wait out the protection and start up again. We'll see on Friday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been chuckling at the contents of WP:ROUGE and felt duly inclined to thwack it with the icy hammer. I'll have a look at some of the contributions in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Do the rouge admins watch cabal TV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Their favorite film is Moulin Rouge!. –MuZemike 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And,of course, their favorite videgame is Red Dead Redemption. Booyah, bitches HalfShadow 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All the TV programs in fact feature them. I have taken a look. This seems to have gone on at least as far back as September 2009, with User talk:Masslayoffs. There's clearly a lot of SPAs being created, and some meaty socks I have no doubt. I have, as a first measure, ramped up the protection to 2 weeks in the hope that they will have a change in life circumstances between now and then. SGGH ^ping! 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude. "Meaty socks"? That needs to be on WP:PLEASEDONTEVERSAYTHATAGAIN. Barf-o-rama. GJC 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact I have been even rougier, if you try to edit the page... SGGH ^ping! 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Good job. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is now discussing on the article talk page, so hopefully this will all work out well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another edit warrior

LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come into this discussion from out of the blue, and instead of taking it to talk as I advised him, he reverted and accused me of "edit warring". I advised him to come here and give his side of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit based on a consensus of the talk page. Baseball reverted. I looked to see what his previous edits were, and he seems to revert a lot of edits which were sourced. So I reverted and put a note on the talk page. I don't see how this rises to the need to be discussed here. And this certainly doesn't make me an "edit warrior".LedRush (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (Bugs, would you consider striking or renaming this section?) I reverted LedRush and we've been discussing over at the article's talk page. TFOWR^propaganda 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Superiorname23 - good cop needed

Superiorname23 (talk · contribs) is a new editor who doesn't seem to understand copyright, or notability, or verifiability, or (possibly) COI. They've created a couple of articles, had them deleted (one by me) and re-created them both. They haven't communicated with anyone or responded to the messages/templates on their user page. If an experienced editor or admin is willing to play good cop, assuming good faith, Superiorname23 might become a good contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah... Good cop, bad cop is no fun. I prefer bad cop, worse cop. –xeno^talk 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that there's an arbcom decision that "threatening to set annoying user on fire" and "setting annoying user on fire" are excessively WP:BITEey admin responses even in extreme cases. Even if you bring marshmallows. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the user is having problems and you've been cleaning up after them, but is it necessary to revert an unsourced change when nothing in the article has ever been sourced? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced numerical alterations are a common form of vandalism and, as such, are revertable without making a commitment to improving the article as a whole. Otherwise many admins - and most RC patrollers - would never get anything done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

G.-M. Cupertino block review

G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for one year by Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino), basic for chronic incivility and edit warring. Reviewing his edits since his return, I note edit warring with four editors on five articles, replete with edit summaries describing things as "idiotic" and "stupid". I've blocked him again due to his apparent utter lack of comprehension of the reason he was banned previously, pending an agreement to agree to a 0RR restriction. His edit summaries are a step up from a previous one, but that edit may be construed as "previous involvement", so I'm bringing my block here to be reviewed.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef. If a one year arbitral ban wasn't enough to get the point across, nothing short of an indef block can help.  Sandstein  20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef. (nb. I was asked for an opinion on this editor at my talkpage in relation of an unblock request they made in respect of an ip address they had previously used; I wondered if such an ip being blocked for over a year would mean it to be a proxy, but the discussion lapsed at that point). It appears they have waited out the year, and then resumed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why he is requesting unblock on his userpage as opposed to his user talk page? Or why he is treating his userpage like his user talk page? –MuZemike 05:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I propose that the ban be indefinitely reinstated. –MuZemike 05:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request on the user page that he is treating like a talk page is for a block that didn't actually exist. I'll deny that unblock with instructions to do any further unblocking requests on his talk page.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block indef, ban for one year. Let him ask nicely in a year's time and we'll assess whether he's grown up yet. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'm about as rouge as they come, but the fact that G. M. Cupertino apparently respected his/her 1-year arbitration ban before coming back was itself a somewhat positive sign. While the new indef was probably inevitable I'd have preferred to see a little more engagement and/or a shorter block before it happened, to decrease the likelihood of a subsequent sock rampage if for no other reason. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• He socked during the ban:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, again

Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Blocked twice[20] then topic banned from Obama pages.[21] Has just returned from five-month near hiatus[22] and a few dozen edits later is doing a WP:BATTLEGROUND in multiple forums on the exact same point:

• Talk:Barack Obama[23] - series of edits shows edit-warring on talk page, WP:AGF / WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL violations (accusing "liberal editors" of plotting, cabal behavior), WP:SOAP posts (building long screed accusing Obama of murder over abortion stance, not being US citizen, etc)
• Wikipedia:CNB[24] - uses content forum to accuse other editors of bad behavior, disparaging perceived opponents' "disciplinary histories"
• WP:BLP/N[25] - uses noticeboard to accuse other editors of misbehavior, soapbox about Obama's "dirty laundry"
• User talk:Jzyehoshua[26] - uses own talk page as an attack page to build case against perceived editing enemies, reinserts after I removed it and warned him about it.[27]

Reviewing the incident, other editors made comments that could have inflamed Jayehoshua (e.g. using the "T"[roll] word[28], or seeming to endorse the cabal theory in the guise of support[29]). As always, I think a more dignified, polite response is more helpful. I don't know if that would have helped or not in this case but it's worth a try. In the interest of disclosure, I tried both before their first topic ban and again now to counsel the editor to contribute productively, and archived some threads I saw as tendentious, for which the editor has pegged me as one of the pro-Obama cabal. This being a place for dealing with future disruption, it's pretty obvious that whatever brought them to this point, if the editor doesn't get on the straight and narrow soon they're heading for a longer term ban or block, so if we can cut to the chase could someone please give them some strong direction on the bounds of acceptable editing behavior, and deal with them sooner rather than later if they won't change course? Incidentally, given their threat to file retaliatory complaints here against me and others[30][31] I'm going to section off any complaints about others, and probably ignore them - if we don't manage this one firmly it could become messy. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua response

User:Jzyehoshua:

I originally came back to the page and noticed many of those I'd previously bumped heads with were not active in the discussion. Only after I began speaking did BrendanFrye and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) both come onto the topic and begin flinging insults about racism and conservatives and the Tea Party.

Jzyehoshua diff list, collapsed for readability of the rest of the page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
01:35-36, 17 May 2010 (UTC): When a user (TheiGuard) who asked why the page did not mention why the page did not cover controversies about Obama, and was told to search through the 69 pages of archives for the answer, I responded, saying I did not think the page covered controversy, and suggested that it was being covered on rarely viewed subpages but not allowed on the main page.[32] 03:32, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye, who had not been previously active in the conversation, came in suddenly denying that conspiracy theories could be criticisms, and telling me I was "full of it".[33] 05:23-59, 17 May 2010: I responded that the claim conspiracy theories could not be criticisms "shows a need for further education", and perhaps a harsher tone than I should've used. I furthermore stated, "For one thing, if they can't be criticisms, then I think you'll have a tough time explaining why his citizenship is mentioned on a page of its own. So it has its own page, but not because it's a criticism? You haven't thought this through well enough." Wikidemon then entered and denied that the citizenship was important or relevant enough for inclusion.[34] 14:18, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye eloquently responds, "Ha ha. You're a troll."[35] 15:15, 17 May 2010: I simultaneously respond to Wikidemon and BrendanFrye, questioning whether the definition of criticism has to mean a basis in fact, and subsequently making the argument that regardless of whether a controversy is factual, if it has notability and reliability sources, then it should be covered. In response to Brendan's constant insults, I admittedly respond a bit peevishly with "Yeah, right, the guy here since February 2007 is a troll because the guy here since December 2009 said so."[36] 15:31, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye comes by to offer his usual constructive criticism, stating "Your argument (like your logic) above is basically gibberish and just a huge waste of time... I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Have fun spinning your wheels."[37] 15:44, 17 May 2010: TheiGuard, whose comment I'd originally responded to, replies to me and says, "I feel he deserves a criticism section, he is one of the most controversial presidents of all time."[38] 16:03, 17 May 2010: Wikidemon responds to my comments about criticism, and falsely claims (albeit politely) that I am proposing "that we include negative facts about Obama for the sake of including negative facts, which is not criticism at all."[39] 16:08, 17 May 2010: Scjessey, like BrendanFrye, comes out of nowhere to play the role of attack dog, telling TheIGuard, "That's a load of old cobblers, quite frankly. Obama has been among the least controversial of presidents by any legitimate measure. His policies and actions have been entirely predictable and mainstream. Just because a tiny band of ill-educated racists and a few political opponents regard Obama as controversial, this does not make it so. While there are indeed legitimate criticisms one can make against Obama, they are minor in scope and have attracted little notoriety. Certainly there is nothing substantive enough to warrant a criticism section."[40] 17:04, 17 May 2010: Editor Threeafterthree reverts Scjessey's inflammatory edit, with revision title "(not a forum, maybe reword to adress improving article?)"[41] 17:31, 17 May 2010: Scjessey promptly re-reverts, with revision history, "(don't do that. It was a direct response to requests for a crit section)". 17:43-49, 17 May 2010: I, having been oblivious to the recent edit war, was meanwhile working on a lengthy reply to TheIGuard, and another to Wikidemon. The reply to TheIGuard begins "Indeed. I have found in the past that no matter how notable a criticism of Obama, or how well-sourced it may be, that the editors on the Obama page will fight it tooth and nail, bringing in other liberal editors from elsewhere on Wikipedia and then claiming 'consensus' regardless of past editors who provided opposite consensus who just aren't present at the time. I would think consensus alone should not be enough to block mention of topics that are notable and reliably sourced." Obviously this is a reference to the suspicious appearance of Scjessey and BrendanFrye, who appeared for no apparent reason other than to insult and cause trouble. However, the post is afterward quite productive, for I then cite 22 Wikipedia pages showing that the controversies of Obama's "Voting record on live birth abortion", "Citizenship", "Knock[ing] off all candidates in 1st election by disqualifying petition signatures on technicalities", and the fact that he "Asked Emil Jones, head of Illinois Senate, to make him a U.S. Senator, following which he was appointed head of high-profile pieces of legislation worked on by other Illinois Senators", are all mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, and end with the point, "Supposedly, though worthy of mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, they are somehow not valid on the page of the person they most concern." At the same time, I call out Wikidemon for his earlier misportrayal of my arguments (which point he has yet to reply to), stating, "I never said that we should include negative facts for the sake of including them. Where are you getting this from? What I actually said was that if criticisms are notable and reliably sourced, then they should be included, and that consensus without a valid objection, such as on the basis of sourcing or notability, should not be enough to prevent the subject's mention."[42][43] 18:08, 17 May 2010: The edit war between Scjessey and Threeafterthree continues, with Threeafterthree reverting once more, this time with revision title of "( still not a forum, reword without ranting, try to comment on improving article)"[44] 18:08, 17 May 2010: Scjessey defends his racist charges, re-reverting again with revision title of "(with respect, this "rant" is no worse than anything else on this page.)"[45] 18:18, 17 May 2010: Threeafterthree reverts a third time, just like Scjessey was baiting him into doing, with title of "(please don't use other's bad behavior to justify your own. I 'll be happy to remove other forum type posts. Also, now at 3rr, so please stop...)"[46] 18:13-27, 17 May 2010: Scjessey, as per his style, has been leaving warnings on Tom's (Threeafterthree's) page so he can afterwards claim the proper warning procedure to make himself look good and the other one bad. Scjessey and Dayewalker both go to Tom's page, one after the other. DD2K, another of Scjessey's longtime affiliates, shows up as well to help deal with the new threat. Scjessey warns Tom, "With all due respect, leave my comment alone. It is a perfectly legitimate response to specific requests for a criticism section. I will accept the entire section being collapsed, but selectively removing my comments will not be tolerated... You are wrong. The comment, while acerbic, specifically addresses the attempt by others to add a crit section (frowned upon by Wikipedia policies and guidelines). Furthermore, your 3RR claim is ridiculous. I have reverted your edits twice; however, you have violated 3RR yourself by removing my comment 3 times. If you are unable to count to 3, may I respectfully suggest you are not qualified to be deleting anything anyway."[47] 18:20, 17 May 2010: With their motive accomplished, and Threeafterthree now at 3 reverts, and Scjessey at 2, Dayewalker now switches off for Scjessey, reverting back Scjessey's edit with a revision title of "(Rvt to readd comments which deal with a "criticism section.")"[48] 18:32, 17 May 2010: At this point, I decide to intervene and revert, for 2 reasons.[49] 1, I don't want Threeafterthree to feel he needs to revert, and hope to avoid him getting in any more trouble with them playing musical revert chairs like that. I don't know him, but feel bad for him, he doesn't know what they're doing and was just trying to do the right thing, I'd prefer he get out as soon as possible. If I take up the reverting instead, hopefully he stops getting himself in trouble. And 2, as I state on my talk page, when warned by Dayewalker for stepping in, "You and DD2K both showed up in December 2009 to help out Scjessey then, and I believe when his edits got reverted you were one of the ones helping out there as well. As for why I reverted, I simply wanted to make clear my objection to them later on, even though I knew his associates, like you, would drop to make sure the comment stayed, just like you did before. I didn't want him to be able to say afterwards that only one person objected to his playing the race card, and defending his accusations of racism in the conversation afterwards by saying nobody objected." I wanted to establish that there had indeed been more than one person objecting to Scjessey's obviously inflammatory edit, so Scjessey could not state later that just one person had had a problem with it. My revision title surely got Dayewalker's attention - "(Reverting due to apparent ad hominems. Isn't this at least the 2nd time I've seen you protecting Scjessey's edits?)" I was referring to December incidents where Scjessey had used the exact same tactic of inflammatory remarks with musical chair protection of the edit to keep each from getting to 3 reverts. They must have forgotten I'd seen that I guess, and was familiar with how they did things. Or maybe they just didn't realize I have a long memory (possibly photographic in regards to what I read).[50] 19:00, 17 May 2010: Scjessey now oddly makes a 3rd revert - I'm not sure if that broke rules, with revision title of "(restore comment that specifically addresses YOUR concerns)"[51] 19:07, 17 May 2010: I revert Scjessey's revert with a revision title of "(Reverting once more to establish objection. And I see nothing posted worth responding to.)"[52] As I would make plain in my conversation with Dayewalker at 19:58, "As for the comment in question, it obviously violates Wikipedia neutrality and other rules, but I don't really care if it remains. There's nothing in it worth responding to, and until Threeafterthree reverted it, I was just going to let it sit there and ignore it, continuing with the conversation - just as I intend to do now. I reverted it, following that exchange, more to make my dissent clear than because I wanted it gone. After all, it reflects more poorly on Scjessey and those like you defending it, than myself, so I am perfectly happy to let it remain."[53] As such, I established I did not care if the comment remained, and was reverting more for the 2 purposes established previously, than because I wanted it gone, and had no intention of responding to such a pointless ad hominem attack by Scjessey. 19:10, 17 May 2010: Now DD2K steps in to revert my revert and try to stop this before it gets out of hand and becomes obvious how much opposition to Scjessey's comment there is with a revision title of "If any other users delete other editors comment without due cause, they will be reported. This is absurd and needs to stop now)".[54] I afterwards, now at 2 reverts and having established objection, simply leave it at that and continue with the conversation. 19:10-30, 17 May 2010: Scjessey, apparently thinking I will fall into the same trap they got me in back in December, drops a warning template onto my page that I am at 3RR.[55] That way, if they can get me to break the rule, they will be able to claim they warned me with the templates. I delete it, and drop the same warning on his page, knowing he's also at 2 reverts (which he also deletes).[56] He then drops another warning template telling me not to abuse warning templates. I delete this and put it on his page as well, to make a point (which he again deletes).[57][58] Scjessey then puts yet another warning template on my page and I simply delete this one, tiring of the charade, and figuring he'll use it against me somehow if I continue with it too long.[59] As seen from my talk page history, he did this exact same thing back in December to try and get me in trouble using the exact same tactics (how they managed to finally trick me into a violation so they could topic-ban me for a month).[60] They must have really thought I was stupid or something to not remember that, or else didn't recall themselves. 19:31-49, 17 May 2010: I spend the time adding another 31 independent sources to my previous 22 Wikipedia sources, to establish that these are indeed major controversies.[61] These are all prominent sources, as you can see: FactCheck.org/Newsweek[62], New York Times[63][64], CNN[65][66], FOX News[67], National Right to Life Committee[68], New York Sun[69], Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog)[70][71], Chicago Tribune[72], National Review[73], MSNBC[74], ABC News[75], PolitiFact[76][77], Chicago Tribune[78][79], Washington Post[80], Time Magazine[81], New York Sun[82], Huffington Post[83], Chicago Sun-Times[84], CNN[85][86], Chicago Tribune[87] , Boston Globe[88], New York Times[89], Time Magazine [90], CBS News[91], Boston Globe[92], Houston Press[93]. Despite this, and the fact that no one poses a specific objection to any of these sources, Wikidemon, BrendanFrye, and others will later claim that this is not controversial/prominent and that I did not provide good sources. 19:51, 17 May 2010: Their tactics are working, for TheiGuard expresses disappointment in the conversation, responding to Scjessey with, "I would appreciate if you would reframe from calling me a racist. I will no longer be engaging in this conversation. You are guarding this article as if it is yours. Wikipedia is about sharing information, and I plan to share plenty of knowledge on this article."[94] 19:59, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye now accuses me, because I provided the 50 sources to prove my point of controversy not mentioned, of posting 'walls of text':"Going for another topic ban Jzyehoshua? Your last topic ban on this page was what, three months ago? You were doing so well. Please stop posting walls of text, if you can't make your point succinctly than it probably isn't a point worth making."[95] 19:59-20:17, 17 May 2010: Tiring of the repeated personal attacks, I reply to BrendanFrye with "It's been a while since Scjessey and others here (whether you were one I don't know) got banned/disciplined much more seriously for your attacks on members on this topic. I know you can't address the points other than to try and distract by focusing on the person rather than the argument, so I'll humor you for now." 20:19, 17 May 2010: BrendanFrye, having just accused me of posting walls of text for citing 50 sources showing controversies on Obama are mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and prominently in the news, now claims I didn't make any points.[96] 20:21, 17 May 2010: My reply is, "I suppose your disregard for 'walls of text' led you to overlook them." 20:25-42, 17 May 2010: Unidentified IP address begins making attacks on the page which are quickly reverted, including one very vulgar and non-sensical attack on Obama/Biden.[97][98][99][100] I of course am concerned that it could be trying to falsely appear that an anti-Obama person is making attacks on the page, to try and raise sentiment against people like me posting thorough sources and using logic to make points about a need for coverage of prominent controversies on Obama's page. I could easily see someone, unable to beat the sources or logic, trying to use such attacks to suggest they are from the other side, and the timing of course is curious. 21:47-54, 17 May 2010: I make plain my disapproval of ad hominem attacks and vandalism attempts on the page, stating: "I realize I'm acting a bit edgy, but then so too would most people, I'm sure, who'd just provided 50 sources on controversial material being excluded from an article, only to be told they hadn't made any points. One wonders, was there a right answer? I provided too many sources, and got accused of making 'walls of text'. And had I provided no sources, I'd have doubtless been accused of not providing sources. It seems, no matter how much sourcing or facts I provide, I cannot generate any response from critics other than personal attacks about racism or Wikipedia history. Instead of answers, there are inflammatory remarks followed by edit war attempts to prevent said remarks from being removed, and vandalism attacks on the page."

Furthermore, both Wikidemon and User:Abrazame refused to moderate this, and would criticize me for going off-topic when trying to respond to these attacks.

My original comments dealt with controversies not being adequately mentioned, and in good faith, I even provided over 50 sources showing they were already mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and in the news. Not only did no one bother addressing these sources, or the reliability of them (not a single one was criticized individually as unreliable, or a single argument made about notability), but they began piling on insults and requesting the topic be closed. While I reacted defensively, suggesting they were not addressing the material/content proposal, and simply were resorting to personal attacks, I tried to get the focus back on the material. Nobody took me up on the offer. BrendanFrye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey tried to start edit wars by protecting Scjessey's racist charge comment and reverting my edits. I thought I did a good job of avoiding this attempts to bait me into a rule violation, but Wikidemon is closing the conversation and all my attempts on other noticeboards as well.

Rather than stating what part of the conversation is unacceptable, and seeking to allow discussion, he simply ends all conversation and refuses to even allow discussion about the inclusion of controversy on the article. Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a longer history of discipline on the article, along with Scjessey and others, including their involvement in the famous 2008 Obama articles case where Scjessey got a 6-month topic ban and Wikidemon was admonished for edit warring.[101] [102]

My discipline came as a result of them closing conversations and using inflammatory comments in December to bait me into an edit war the same way they tried to do here, and, unfamiliar with such tactics, I fell for it at the time. The conversations are archived on pages 65-69[103][104][105][106] of the talk page archives. They've been involved in a number of confrontations with other members on the talk page as well in the past, as I learned from reviewing archives and arbcom records, and it's true, I have begun believing that the numerous accusations of a cabal[107][108] seeking to silence calls for controversy mentions on the Obama page are indeed accurate, and not overblown as one might think. While I try to remain cool-headed, it is difficult in the face of such constant attacks, and to not state what you believe concerning what appears very clear discriminatory bias at a high level in the Wikipedia structure.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a summary of what is now established beyond a shadow of a doubt for the most recent incident:

collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A) I provided over 50 sources showing 4 controversies relating to Barack Obama (his voting record on live birth abortion, citizenship, his disqualification of all 4 political opponents in the 1996 election on technicalities, and his well-recorded deal struck with IL Senate leader Emil Jones to take credit for other Senator's legislation), are not being provided on the page, despite reliable sourcing and prominence in the public arena. These included 22 Wikipedia citations establishing the content was already addressed elsewhere though not on the main Barack Obama page, and 33 independent sources from major media organizations (CNN, New York Times, FactCheck.org, et. al.). These can be seen at Talk:Barack_Obama#Citizenship_conspiracy_theories B) These sources were never addressed by anyone. No one posed objections to the reliability or prominence of any of them. Nevertheless, Wikidemon and others continue to erroneously claim the controversies in question are not prominent enough, and/or the sources were not sufficient. C) From the minute I arrived, not only were my points about content not addressed, but I was repeatedly attacked, as was user TheiGuard. Scjessey threw around claims of racism, while BrendanFrye repeatedly applied the troll label, and failed to provide anything constructive to the conversation. This is discussed in the 2nd archive, "A very lengthy history of what actually happened at the page". D) Dayewalker and DD2K helped Scjessey protect his edit accusing other editors of racism from being removed by user Threeafterthree by playing 'musical chairs' as it were so none would reach 3 reverts. Dayewalker, Scjessey, Wikidemon, Abrazame, and DD2K would invariably visit either mine or Threeafterthree's pages dumping template warnings and personal warnings not to revert Scjessey's edit. This is discussed in the 2nd archive, "A very lengthy history of what actually happened at the page". E) Wikidemon and Abrazame both then had the section closed because I changed the sourcing to bold formatting with some red font, even though I promptly removed it within minutes upon objection, stating it was merely to distinguish between headings and subheadings. When I objected to the closing, Wikidemon finally intervened and stated on my Talk Page my objection was inappropriate.[109] BrendanFrye then deleted both my objections to closing the thread, and used the revision title to throw the troll label around once more.[110] F) Wikidemon, after I mentioned one of the AN/I threads, additionally sought to have both my AN/I threads closed,[111][112] and finally made this one. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

---

With all due respect, the question isn't why Jzyehoshua lost their cool, but how they can remain cool should they continue editing. The article content proposals were rejected, and extremely unlikely to gain consensus at this point - they're specifically addressed in the article FAQs. The accusations against others don't have a place in the editing process, particularly not on article talk pages and other content discussion areas - so I won't respond. If Jzyehoshua can edit productively despite that, great. Launching broadsides against other editors and trying to prove they're in a conspiracy is not going to get anywhere, and is the exact stuff that Obama article probation is supposed to address: it sounds like a broken record. I hope other editors can calmly reset the record player when it happens again and not get in such a fuss over it. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that a view of what has been happening certainly bears similarities to a 'Wikipedia mafia', nor am I going to apologize for that term, either. A historical view of this, when examined upon closer scrutiny, will show none so kind a portrayal to yourself and your associates as you'd like it to appear. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR. Try summarising. If it can't be summarised then it's not a matter for this noticeboard and needs to go to dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To whom is that addressed? The editor seems to want to add rejected content and complain about a cabal. There are forums for that but the outcome is inevitable, and the chance of anything productive happening that way is slim. I have no dispute to resolve at all, just asking for someone to make one last try setting an errant editor on track before there is a flame out. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, hello again JzG. It's been months since you last came around, this little incident brought you out here to find me I see. We haven't talked since you played that role in the December incident. It seems the next step would be an arbcom of some kind but I know nothing about filing them, and any kind of dispute resolution, if not proving an utter waste of time, would be welcome. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. As an active administrator this is one of my most visited pages. I don't even remember this "December incident", there have been many thousands of reports since then. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

• Honestly, I saw this(the battles from Jzyehoshua) coming once again, but decided to try and ignore it. Unfortunately, other edits decided to engage. I doubt that ignoring the situation would have worked with this particular editor but it may have produced better results. In any case, when an editor puts what must be hours upon hours of work into writing so much material it is near impossible to read and forming attacks on other editors(1,2,3,4), I don't think that there will be any real resolution short of a permanent topic ban on the editor. The BLP violations themselves(accusing a living person of murdering babies) are enough, but the endless stream of battleground behavior should be enough to convince any that something definitely needs to be done here. Dave Dial (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, hello again DD2K, or Dave Dial, whatever you choose to call yourself now. I see you are all coming by to cast your voice against me once more. Who next? Scjessey, LoTLe, Grsz11, Sceptre, or Tarc? The gang's not all here yet. Like I said before, it's not a BLP violation if it's reliably sourced and prominent. Do you care to dispute the sources, or just throw out more BLP violation accusations? Furthermore, as the above history bears out, you had your cronies starting attacks on me once again long before I ever made this an issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You sat by while multiple people threw insults and personal attacks around all yesterday and today as they tried to start edit wars, and did absolutely nothing except close the thread so discussion could not occur. You closed another discussion on a noticeboard, and asked for yet another noticeboard discussion to be closed. You closed all the old discussions as fast as you could in December once it started getting admin attention to try and prevent them from getting looked at. And now, while all your friends are asking for me to be perma-banned, when I respond a bit defensively, you're telling me I'm not being civil enough? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how once I start posting what actually happened, with sources and diffs, suddenly it's necessary to summarize, and all my old enemies come a'running. You'll have to pardon me if I'm just slightly suspicious. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Old enemies? Have you been editing Wikipedia under different account names? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but I saw all I needed of them back in December. Those few weeks saw them throwing every attack at me they could, while you administrated. Guy of course continues to call for my perma-banning. I tried several dispute resolution processes, in case you forgot. And in the process, I ended up going through the archives to prove that there had been past consensus for including the controversies - remember? In the process, I also discovered the old arbcom files, and how many of those now seeking to get me in trouble had done the same thing to others as well. And now, when I come back and get bombarded with personal attacks and edit war attempts, surprise, surprise, I start acting a bit more defensive than I did when I originally arrived. After all, I've seen you guys use these tactics before, and reading the arbcoms as I do, I'm recognizing how you can wipe people off Wikipedia one after another. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing there worth responding to. For me to engage at all is giving you the benefit of the doubt but I'm not going to respond to provocation. If you are here legitimately and wish to stay, you need to cut it out and find something productive to do. Taking up the grievances, tactics, aims, and attack targets of indefinitely banned editors and their sockpuppets is not going to go anywhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if I'm right, and this is a series of tactics you've been using to drive editors off the board, and I'm simply the next one in your way, then there's (a) not much I can do to avoid this coming up again except hide from the topics you guys inhabit, or you'll try to get me in trouble; and (b) you'll be so good at using those tactics that unless I do bring up past history, it will be very tough for me to make it plain that this is indeed what you are doing. A historical perspective often helps, after all, in not repeating past errors. When I went to the board, Scjessey and BrendanFrye were nowhere to be seen, and suddenly come back after what you yourself admit was a long absence to sling insults as though I was never gone. And now, look at this, 2 more members who at the time were the most vocal in calling for my banning, JzG and DD2K, have suddenly emerged as well. It seems you guys had forgotten, with all the members you've gone after in the past, just how familiar I would be with them all. Furthermore, you've got to admit, you each play very clear roles. Scjessey and BrendanFrye can be seen playing attack dogs with inflammatory comments. Others come in to play musical chairs in reverting edits like Daywalker and DD2K did, so that each never gets to 3RR while they can get others in trouble. JzG and Tarc then scream for the banning on admin boards - JzG I've noticed is very good at it. And you and Dayewalker of course play Mr. Neutral, acting the impartial admins - though the facade breaks down when seen how biased you are in closing threads to prevent the admins from noticing. Me, I just go where the facts take me. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This was posted on your talk page some time ago by Brothejr. Since you don't seem to mind huge walls of text, please read it again and try to take his advice to heart.

• Understand your own biases and passions. When editing neutrally, you need to understand your own biases and passions and try to keep them from ruling you. It is hard, I know, but if you know what you lean towards, you can make sure you don't edit that way. (One way I do, is sometimes I just won't edit or comment on an article that I might feel passionately for or against.)
• Understand where others are coming from. If someone disagrees with you, fully understand where they are coming from. Do their arguments make a valid point? Did they raise a valid reason?
• If it seems that you are the only one tooting that trumpet, and the majority of the community does not agree with you, then maybe it's time to back off on that issue.
• If you find yourself starting to call others names or groups of editors names, then that also might be a sign to back away from the issue.
• If you can, avoided walls of text. Try to say what you mean in a succinct and brief manner. Editors will be more likely to read what you say when you say it with as few words as possible. If you really need to delve deeply and explain a subject, maybe use a collapsed box around it, and the editors will be more likely to read the extra information at their own leisure.
• Also, take a couple hours and delve deeply into the archives of the pages. See what has been brought up, see what reoccurring arguments that have been brought up over and over again, and see why the community has grown more pissed over certain things. (I could do in depth, but I want to be brief.)
• Finally, be interested in other things then just Barack Obama and politics in general. Work on other non-political articles as a way to take a breath and relax a bit. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well now, that truly is ironic, since your first words on the talk page served no other reason than to label me a troll. You did nothing to aid the conversation constructively at all, only throwing names and accusations around. Perhaps you should be taking your own advice to "If you find yourself starting to call others names or groups of editors names, then that also might be a sign to back away from the issue." --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCKBrendanFrye (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please look into the above complaint and make a comment, so this can be either acted upon or collapsed? I'm not crazy about Jzyehoshua bringing up perfectly good edits of mine, and attempting to tar them with unsubstantiated allegations. This was too long to read hours ago, and Jzyehoshua has been building this wall of text for seven hours straight now. Will someone please step in and either act upon it, or end it? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I second that, as the more eyes on this the better. So far the only commenters are those who've been personally involved themselves. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me correct you, I am not "personally involved" with you. I noticed my name, and some of my edits, in your manifesto above. I've never been blocked or topic banned, nor do I make personal attacks. I'm not one of your "old enemies," as you put it, but you seem determined to paint me as such. The sooner this ends, the better. Dayewalker (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet you worked with Scjessey on getting 194x144x90x118 banned in the 2009 Dreamhost case. As for who was involved last time, I can bring that up if you want. JzG/Guy did the reporting here[113]. Scjessey, Sceptre, Grsz11, and Tarc were all around, along with Wikidemon (who confused me for a long time since he never campaigned against me as much as you guys). Two others, BaseballBugs and Woogee, are mentioned there also, who I noticed were in the archives for the 2008 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles case.[114] JzG/Guy, Frank, and Woogee reported this one also.[115] Frank and Tarc were the ones involved here[116], and in it, I can be seen stating, "At the time the discussion was closed, perhaps half a dozen different users, yourself included, had all replied to the thread in question. It was very much active. There were several users doing nothing constructive but calling for me to be banned or blocked, and the discussion closed. DD2K, scjessey, Guy, Dayewalker, averagejoe." I could go back to the talk page archives on page 65-68 I'm sure and see exactly what that role comprised.

Furthermore, if you take objection to any of my bullet points above mentioning you, then by all means feel free to challenge them and state what you disagree with. You could start with explaining why you felt inclined to prevent the removal of Scjessey's comment that seemingly accused other posters of racism, and then try and pressure both me and Threeafterthree into not reverting it on our talk pages. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, while i'm not an admin, i am completely uninvolved. May i suggest that you reread Dayewalker's advice, and take it to heart. If you don't like Dayewalker, let me give it to you: Step away from this topic for a while, edit something else, prove that you are a good, reliable editor. Make a name for yourself and your NPOV attitude. Sometimes it has to be done (i speak from experience), and it's not possible to edit just where one would like, purely because of who else edits there. No matter, this is a huge place, and i can offer you a dozen suggestions off the top of my head of things you might turn your hand to. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for sharing your input here, it's much-needed. My problem is this: how can I seek to improve Wikipedia elsewhere while knowing that a malicious band of editors will do everything it can to block changes to the most prominent pages on Wikipedia? Isn't that like doing evil, that good may come of it? In other words, why improve a project's lesser pages until sure that it isn't simply allowing bias for its major pages? Why should I improve Wikipedia, if it will allow rampant bias to go unchecked for one of its prominent pages? Would that not be akin to putting forth my efforts to improve something that will ultimately serve only to preserve bias, and prevent the flow of truth? It's not that I want to stick to this page alone, merely that I have trouble conscionably focusing on other pages while I know this one, one of the most prominent on Wikipedia, to be clearly engaging in what is immoral and dishonest. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, until Wikipedia shows it can stop the clear WP:OWN violations occurring at its most prominent political article, how can I be sure I am not simply supporting a biased and evil institution. I want to work hard for good organizations, and until this is resolved solidly in my mind, I will have difficulty in good conscience focusing elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your intentions, but I just don't believe in hiding from this issue for no other than reason than avoiding conflict. All that's needed for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing. As Martin Luther King Jr. once stated, "in the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." By doing so, I would simply be serving to give credence to their actions, and by my negligence, to allow what I know to be wrong. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, their intervention helped topic-ban ex-admin Stevertigo in August 2009,[117] who since 2002 had actually helped create the modern Wikipedia rules on civility and fair treatment. I don't fool myself into thinking that any accomplishments on Wikipedia that I might achieve, or a temporary focus elsewhere, might exempt me from the eventual traps they laid for him. They used edit warring tricks then to bring him down, and only my familiarity the second-time around helped me avoid it this time. Delaying action on this matter will serve no purpose but to better prepare them in the future. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That might explain why the civility rules don't work and there isn't any reasonable enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd noticed you had some kind of argument going with him on his talk page.[118] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a moment to read what you've written above in this thread. Your words remind me of Matthew 7:3-5 and Romans 2:1. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So then would you say Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong in condemning the racial injustice of his day? Or John the Baptist for criticizing Herod for incest? (Mark 6:18) I expect to be equally judged, for I have been getting judged already by those now mentioned here. They were the ones who began seeking to get me in trouble, not the other way around. Indeed, this is merely fulfillment of that which you state, that those who judge will also be judged. Where the line is between trying to condemn others and simply standing up properly against injustice, as Jesus did with the Pharisees when they would attack him, is still something I wrestle with. Nevertheless, I believe to not do so at this point would be yet another wrong. It was the very reasons you state back in December that led to me letting them attack my reputation and win that case without fighting back like I could have, and only through further thought on them that I now choose not to make the same choice. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What it all reminds ME of is the many editors who've tried to use wikipedia to present "The Truth", especially in the realm of conspiracy theories. Most of those crusaders were eventually dispatched. The only question when one of them comes along is how long they'll last here. We should open a 2 dollar window to take that one up. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTOPINION, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:THERAPY, WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is, can you address the sources? Or else, if the sources are reliable, prominent, and related to the subject, is there another reason you would care to cite that they should NOT apply? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break 2

I hate these things, virtually never participate in them, never even know they're going on. Jzeyoshua, as you not only addressed me in this thread but characterized me in this edit as "frothing at the mouth" to close the Obama talk thread without discussion, I want to point out how wrong and disingenuous you are. In fact, although you write above that I "refused to moderate" (and you didn't ask me to), I did indeed step in and moderate. I reverted one of your posts at Talk:Barack Obama, and I posted admonishment and advice at your own talk page. You responded to me at both places with thanks and admitted that you saw at least one of the bad approaches you need to rein in, then took the wrong routes again moments later, adding to a scrapbook of wrongs at your talk and reediting your previous work at Obama talk to feature blaring red, boldfaced headers instead of learning from the responses and selecting an aspect of your avalanche for which you thought you had a chance to move forward with a responsible editorial discussion. I was about to post another response to your reply, but decided I'd said enough for one night. (That's part of your problem, engaging in 20, 30, 40 edits and reedits to the same single talk page in the space of several hours and expecting responses and arbitration to come at the same mad pace, without taking the time to absorb and consider any point, be it someone else's or your own.)

Today, you erased my post and your reply from your talk page. While it is your right to delete vandalism and nonsense, it is general practice to archive helpful, relevant comments. It is particularly egregious when your defense alleges that the opposite of our exchange is true about both me as an individual and your experience in general upon your return, and on the same day you characterize me thus in other fora, you remove this evidence to the contrary. I find it ironic and disingenuous that you expect your screeds to remain with all their links and bulletpoints and headers on the archives of the Obama bio talk page (repeatedly, as they're in the archive from the last time you plastered exactly this motley assortment all over), yet you erase my comment and your response from your own talk within hours. I'll make another observation: You're advised to look at archives and instead of seeing how an editorial page "office", if you will, cannot function under a full-bore attack from raving lunatics, you identify with the riffraff, and vilify the responsible. That's part of your problem, and it is that, and not your ideology, that will lead to your next block, in case you're interested in having a brief flirtation with the truth.

To the issue of User:Scjessey, he wasn't calling anyone at that page a racist, he was making a dismissive generalizing aside about the tea party. When User:TheiGuard takes that comment to get personal, writing, "reframe [sic] from calling me a racist", though TiG is only then coming out of the tea party closet, something not established at that page prior to this. That, then, is either a tactic or an example of irony or oversensitivity by TheiGuard, to transform an inspecific aside into a discussion point and a personal attack. Scjessey then says he was not calling TiG a racist, but TiG continues with the digressive fomentation despite having previously said he will no longer be engaging in the conversation. Ironic that you fault Scjessey and not TheiGuard for turning your attention toward that digression as if it was an appropriate place. User:Sceptre was not wrong in his comment, which I read as an attempt to defuse the situation and restore focus to the subject of the thread (which was pretty much done), insofar as the tea party movement is driven by misinformation (taxes are at their lowest in generations, for example, despite the fact that we've been in a war or two for the past decade that wasn't paid for, and of course we are not without representation anywhere in the U.S. except D.C.).

To get to the crux of the issue: You are here on a crusade, and as you noted in your multifold response to the neutral constructive comment of User:LindsayH above, you have no interest in being a part of Wikipedia unless you can present your points of view on the abortion issue at the widest variety of pages you can, including Barack Obama, and you note that the reason for this is that you want your points of view on abortion to have the most prominence possible. Prior to your last block, I also helped you in more than one way you completely ignored, from removing personal attacks on you at your own talk page and admonishing that editor to writing in the editorial discussion that there was an aspect of one of your suggestions that I thought we might be able to come to some agreement upon. You were completely disinterested, actually hatting that thread yourself, because getting only the reasonable part of what you want is not acceptable to you. As you say above to LindsayH, this place would be evil in your eyes if it didn't scream bloody murder from the rooftops, and you don't care to have some arcane point you have raised be accepted into the article, you want everything you want and primarily you want this point of view about this issue at that article. You will not listen to reason. A crusade knows no reason. Perhaps you are the noble one here. Sad, then, that you are also the one inclined to get so worked up that you can't see your way. I have said it before and I hope never to have this back before us that I have to say it again, but I admire your passion for this cause; you should channel that passion in a healthy and lawful way that steers away from heated exchanges and respects the rights of others. Produce sex education programs. Champion abstinence. Open and fundraise for a home for unwed mothers and/or unwanted babies, perhaps through your church, and promote that as an alternative to abortion. Take your activism into the real world and work within legal avenues to change the balance toward sexual responsibility, cultural and religious acceptance of pregnancies, and alternatives to abortion. Stop imagining that everyone that disagrees with your positions and approach or that is tasked with enforcing editorial responsibility or the law is your enemy. Fighting to call Barack Obama a baby killer at his Wiki bio is a fruitless battle; the solution to the abortion issue doesn't go through the presidency. It goes through the real world, one community of real and sexually realistic people at a time. God bless you and your efforts elsewhere, Abrazame (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I did respond gratefully at the time for your intervention. Which was why I was so disappointed when you began seeking to have the thread closed, along with Wikidemon, for clearly frivolous reasons, while completely neglecting the more serious attacks by others on the page. If I remember right, didn't you also make some claims at another of the AN/I threads? I will have to go back and check, but thought you had comments there as well. At any rate, it appeared you were completely seeking to silence the Talk Page discussion along with Wikidemon, and led to my deleting the thread on my talk page. As I realized where Wikidemon stood in trying to silence opposition, and saw you siding with him, I changed my opinion of you simultaneously. And perhaps I was wrong. You and Wikidemon were always the 2 who made me most unsure, I will admit (though as I saw more and more how influential Wikidemon was in silencing opposition, I finally stopped considering the possibility of impartiality on his part). Yet your advocacy on my page appeared disingenuous, since you would afterward make clear on the Talk Page discussion you wanted the discussion ended without cause. This was what convinced me you were less interested in my wellbeing than simply removing the discussion of controversy.

As for Scjessey, you know full well from a reading of the conversation he was not referring to the Tea Party. It was in reference to those like me and TheiGuard, and made clear when he stated this in the revision history of the page while reverting edits - he said it was in response to me. Furthermore, why do you think he fought so hard to keep the edit in such context, rather than just adapting it per the suggestion of Threeafterthree? It was never intended to make any specific point, but to try and generate an edit war with myself, except that I refused to bite, and instead another editor wandered in and got involved. Furthermore, with that bold red font edit you refer to, I actually had merged 2 posts to make them more concise and cut down on the size of the page by eliminating wordiness. And I promptly removed the objectionable formatting within minutes of anyone objecting. As for the Iraq War, and Bush, I've been opposing both since 2004 - the same time I began opposing Barack Obama, ironically. You are preaching to the choir. As seen here,[119][120], I was actually one of Bush's more vocal opponents, just as I was of Obama's, and as a result ended up voting for a 3rd party candidate - just as I would do once more in 2008. I strongly supported Obama's opponent in 2004, Alan Keyes, so it is ironic that Scjessey would now accuse me of racism - first because I supported his opponent, also African-American, and second because I was opposing Obama long before racist charges became popular.

I never stated anything similar to what you just categorized me as being; "you have no interest in being a part of Wikipedia unless you can present your points of view on the abortion issue at the widest variety of pages you can, including Barack Obama, and you note that the reason for this is that you want your points of view on abortion to have the most prominence possible". My edits on abortion for the Pro-Life movement[121], which added much additional statistical reporting to the section, actually cited Gallup's most prominent abortion polls in providing fuller analysis of the abortion issue to illustrate that the majority of Americans are neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Choice, and support abortion only under certain circumstances (e.g. rape, life of the mother). Abortion is one of my best researched topics, so I focus on it, but I never stated an agenda for pushing my abortion POV onto Wikipedia pages, so I am not sure what you are referring to.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you check all those sources I posted in the conversation, you will see they actually addressed his voting record on these controversial 'Born Alive' bills, not abortion in general:

Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Barack_Obama_social_policy, United States Senate election in_Illinois, 2004, Nat Hentoff, James Dobson, David Freddoso, Jill Stanek, Gianna Jessen, Alan Keyes, The Committee for Truth in Politics

Sourced Independently: FactCheck.org/Newsweek[4], New York Times[5][6], CNN[7][8], FOX News[9], National Right to Life Committee[10], New York Sun[11], Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog)[12][13], Chicago Tribune[14], National Review[15], MSNBC[16]

Sourced additionally for Obama's present votes on these controversial bills: ABC News[17], PolitiFact[18][19], Chicago Tribune[20][21], Washington Post[22], Time Magazine[23], New York Sun[24], Huffington Post[25], Chicago Sun-Times[26]

Obama's Own Words in IL Senate Transcripts for Bills: Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act[27] (pp. 84-90), Induced Birth Infants Liability Act[28] (pp. 29-35)

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I collapsed the massive diff list into a hat/hab template for space issues. Hit view, read, lather, rinse, repeat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Which he quickly reverted. I ain't getting into that edit war mess. Moving on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Is there anyway to put a limit on the number of letters Jzyehoshua can respond with? Keep it near 1,000? These 2K and 3K+ posts are causing this section to be unreadable and no one's point to be getting across or be read for that matter. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bored now (proposals on what to do)

Anyone else had enough of Jzyehoshua's constant painting of every single facet of every single dispute in which he's involved as being the fault of all those other people? Anyway, he is topic-banned from Obama articles but is still disrupting them with soapboxing on the talk pages. I think it is time to clarify that the topic ban means a ban form the topic, with no further discussion by him of anything related to Obama. Or just ban him outright, I guess, since his entire mission here seems to be to promote an agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Support one-year ban from WP in general, or topic ban on Obama articles if consensus gives that as a first step. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Support block and topic ban I don't know if it's my place to suggest anything but I would say that at a minimum, user Jzyehoshua should have his topic ban reinstated and extended. I haven't checked his history on other articles but his use of the Obama talk page as a battleground detracts from real conversation and is a large waste of time and energy for all involved. BrendanFrye (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

←I dunno what this guy's problem is, quite frankly. I posted a single comment on Talk:Barack Obama that he evidently objected enough to that he deemed it necessary to edit war over it, and the result is this crusade against me. He should be sanctioned for this bullshit at the very least. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed that whole section as an attack page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say reinstate the topic ban. I suspect that will effectively ban him from Wikipedia as a whole, given his purpose here seems to be only to disrupt Obama related articles. Resolute 15:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if only admins and specifically involved editors are supposed to comment here, but I've been following this since I wandered into a discussion on the content noticeboard, and I would also support a topic ban, broadly construed to include all Obama-related articles. ClovisPt (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If he actually thinks that abortion is murder, and edits from that viewpoint, then he ought not be editing the subject. Abortion, in general, is not murder as currently defined in the U.S. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I never made such a point in regards to Obama. (ANOTHER PREVIOUS POST HERE HAS BEEN MOVED)--Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This all strikes me as original research and original synthesis on your part, which rules it out for inclusion in articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(REPLY TO THIS HAS BEEN MOVED TO NEW SECTION TO STAY ON TOPIC)

As is often pointed out, this is not USPedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support all-out Block and Ban - Looks like a disruptive ad-nauseum typing user who is just here to disrupt articles related to Obama. From what I have read, he doesn't seem to be keeping away from Obama pages, per his ban from them, so indef block him and ban him outright and move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support block and topic ban --As noted in my above comment, this is not ever going to end and there needs to be a permanent topic ban. A block that would be indefinite with instructions on which guidelines to read may help. I'm waiting for this to end up in the above, endless list of grievances. Dave Dial (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. If he wants to come here and edit articles about soccer or something, that could be OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or block, whatever makes this go away the quickest. If you'll look at his edits from yesterday until last night, Jz spent nine straight hours adding text to ANI and declaring this to be a battleground between him and the forces of evil. His walls of text and single-minded purpose to make people address his issue again and again reminds me of another blocked editor's seven questions. Dayewalker (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I was going to mention that "other blocked editor", but decided not to. These two sound far too much alike for me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, don't mean to insinuate in any way an actual connection between the two, I'm just drawing a comparison in their style of argument. Dayewalker (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoever you're referring to, it's worth pointing out that Joshua has been on here for over 3 years and his agenda has been obvious from the get-go. He's also from Illinois, so he probably thinks he knows Obama better than the national audience does. Trouble is, he's synthesizing a "case", and doesn't seem to understand (or care) that that's not how things are supposed to be done here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to be clearer, when you state that his "walls of text and single-minded purpose to make people address his issue again and again reminds me of another blocked editor's seven questions," you are very much insinuating actual connections. Very similar with this inquisition. †TE†Talk 18:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and that's why I clarified as above. If I felt differently, I would have definitely said so. ThinkEnemies, please don't carry unrelated arguments into ANI threads. If you have a problem with me, start a noticeboard thread or other discussion. Please don't clutter another thread with unrelated accusations. Dayewalker (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just seized on an opportunity to mention that edit. I have no problems with you, and hope that sentiment can be mutual (I'm not sure it is). Anyways, I don't think my few words could harm this massive thread. The wall above us could easily fend off the Mongolians. †TE†Talk 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1y block - or wherever consensus leads. But the topic ban didn't "come through", apparently, so I'm not sure it'll work. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• The other editor is User:Grundle2600. Although speculation about sock connections are fair here, there are too many differences in attitude and expression to make much of it. Grundle was friendly and did not accuse perceived enemies of being evil. Grundle mentioned at one point that he had OCD and Asperger syndrome,[122] which would explain some of his behavior. It made me wonder whether there is a way Wikipedia can be more accessible to people with obvious psychological issues, rather than treating the subject as verboten per WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Anyway, there is something strikingly familiar about Jzyehoshua language, tactics, disconnect from reality, specific grievances, and single-mindedness. By his own account he pored over large swaths of the Obama editing record to compile evidence of a cabal. Whether that's a sincere statement of obsession, or an excuse to explain why an account new to a dispute would know everyone and everything that happened over the span of years, either way it spells trouble. Everyone should have a couple chances, but when someone gives off those telltale signs we're heading for trouble. The usual dispute / behavioral / consensus mechanisms are not well equipped to handle that. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just typical behavior for me on anything. Like I say on my profile, research is fun, and I research everything extensively, think through every line of reasoning even more so. I mean, take a look at my page on politics, which I started before all this began, at User:Jzyehoshua/Politics. This isn't unusual by any means, I analyze and research everything I focus on to what most probably consider an abnormal degree. Those walls of text, as you're seeing, are just typical writing for me, and occur naturally without the same effort it seems others might have to put into them. And frankly, this is me doing the best that I can to keep it concise, as well. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"I don't have time to write you a short letter, so I'm writing you a long one instead." -- attributed to Twain--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on here for several years, and I don't think he's Grundle, he's just another POV-pusher who has apparently flown under the radar until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in late. My only involvement in this "affair" was to remove an editor's post that I found to be of a forum type and really not necessary to improve the article. It was calling folks ill-educated and racist and was off topic, imho. The editor replied that it was true and others chimmed in that it really wasn't that bad and that there was other stuff like it as well, yadda, yadda. The usuall bad faith and insults started and I ran for the hills :). Seriously, my point is that it adds nothing to the discussion and is against forum guidelines to include these snarky comments about other groups you disagree with inside talk page conversations, thats all. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like consensus for a topic ban, which I will now notify. I am going to boldly include abortion-related topics as this intersects with the whole Obama-as-Antichrist thing. Let's see if he's able to edit productively and harmoniously outside his hot-button area. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Abortion Controversy

unrelated soapboxing not related to the conversation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since baseballbugs and neutralhomer keep closing my replies above, for no other reason than it is off the topic of a topic-ban, I am creating a new section here to address his original distortion of one of the controversies in question. Content of the posts has been moved here: 1st Post: My points about the live birth abortion controversy, as seen from this FactCheck.org article[123] (which acknowledged he lied about his record), did not deal with abortion in general. Rather, they dealt with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, that in 2002 made it illegal to allow children who survive late-term abortions to die unattended. Another bill, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, made the late-birth abortion practice in question illegal in the United States as well, primarily because Congress distinguished between regular abortion and the kind of late-term abortion in question, declaring it 'infanticide' because of the widespread practice allowed under previous law of leaving children who survived the abortions to die unattended in soiled back hospital rooms, on tables, or in wastebaskets.[124] (Sec. 2(14)G) and Sec. 2(14)(O)) Both practices are now illegal, and Obama's voting record was controversial because he opposed Illinois versions of both the federal bills while in the Illinois legislature. Obama's own words on the IL Senate floor, as seen from these transcripts[125][126] (pages 84-90 and 29-35), actually were, "Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?... whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it." As such, there is no denying that he supported the right of doctors to allow children who SURVIVED ABORTIONS, meaning they were OUTSIDE THE WOMB AND ALREADY BORN, to be left to die. THIS is why his record is controversial. I actually posted verbatim Obama's words from those transcripts, as I will mention further on in the above history, but BrendanFrye I believe it was deleted them.[127] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 2nd Post: ...Which is why I did not build my case around this. Instead I provided a ton of sources from Wikipedia and the media to prove my point. All of which deal with Obama's record on the controversial 'Born Alive' bills, not abortion in general: Obama's voting record on live birth abortion: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Barack_Obama_social_policy, United States Senate election in_Illinois, 2004, Nat Hentoff, James Dobson, David Freddoso, Jill Stanek, Gianna Jessen, Alan Keyes, The Committee for Truth in Politics Sourced Independently: FactCheck.org/Newsweek[128], New York Times[129][130], CNN[131][132], FOX News[133], National Right to Life Committee[134], New York Sun[135], Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog)[136][137], Chicago Tribune[138], National Review[139], MSNBC[140] Sourced additionally for Obama's present votes on these controversial bills: ABC News[141], PolitiFact[142][143], Chicago Tribune[144][145], Washington Post[146], Time Magazine[147], New York Sun[148], Huffington Post[149], Chicago Sun-Times[150] Obama's Own Words in IL Senate Transcripts for Bills: Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act[151] (pp. 84-90), Induced Birth Infants Liability Act[152] (pp. 29-35) ...Which apparently you did not bother to read before, or you'd have known you were mischaracterizing my statements, and that I was referring to 'Born Alive' bills, not abortion in general. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New block, now lifted

As discussed on my talk page, User_talk:Jzyehoshua, NeutralHomer for the past few hours had me banned for frivolous reasons, while the ban talk has been ongoing. The ban was quickly reversed but an autobot ban prolonged it a bit. NeutralHomer did so at the same time he closed the above thread, which explained that the controversy in question for Barack Obama did NOT deal with abortion in general, but a now-illegal form of abortion where children who survive abortions are left to die, that was outlawed by both the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The discussion on my talk page reveals exactly what happened. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Homer is not an admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what happened, and the aimless accusations are inappropriate. You edit warred that page past WP:3RR despite escalating warnings to stop, while accusing others of conspiracy and vandalism. It's true that all you were doing was trying to fix a typo but you brought it on yourself. If you tried to explain yourself calmly, and didn't interpret the actions of others as a paranoid plot to silence you, that would not have happened. You're likely in your last minutes here unless you change your ways drastically. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you but if you think all this is persecution and act accordingly, that's a self-fulfilling prophesy. On the other hand, getting along here, as in real life, is very easy if done with a little goodwill and faith towards your neighbors. Attacking me and others for bringing you this message will not help, it will only fuel the problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And as I stated there, "Also, I really was confused by the WP:3RR page, since it stated, "This says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period... The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time... I'd always thought it was just 3 reverts, but when this began, I re-checked the rules and decided the limit was 4, and thought I would just be at 3 with one more, so I made a last revert. I will try to discuss from now on as well, but you're right that this moved very fast, with nothing but templates and reverts to show for it, and no discussion forthcoming on the talk page. Furthermore, because I was so sure the reverts wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and consisted of out-and-out vandalism, I was quicker to revert than I ordinarily would be."

Despite your claim that this is not a plot, I was just baited into getting blocked, at the same time discussion to ban me began, and that revelation of a gross misportrayal of my statements was being hidden from view by the same user, NeutralHomer. I will indeed try to tone down the 'plot' talk, but the recent events if anything are only proving my point. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin here, and admit the error was my own - quickly remedied, despite forgetting to reset the autoblock. I've also discussed the 3RR rule with Jzyehoshua. There are a lot of concerns in this discussion, and I'd encourage Jzyehoshua to address them calmly and civilly, but this brief block shouldn't really bias the discussion one way or another. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the above discussion and the arguments over other subjects I have notified Jzyehoshua that he is topic banned form articles related to Barack Obama and abortion, in order to allow him to learn to edit productively and harmoniously in an area where he does not have such strong feelings. I am aware that this is less than the outright block or ban called for by most above. I think it will not be long before we find out if this user is able to edit harmoniously in other areas or is unwilling to even try; the WP:ROPE is now paid out and the rest is up to him I'd say. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur - I was leaning towards imposing the same sanction based on the discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also agree that a topic ban is better. Editor seems to want to research and edit, perhaps that can be done constructively on articles that are not controversial for the editor. Dave Dial (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just seen the discussion and agree that topic ban is a good compromise. Will it be a time-constrained topic ban or indef? This will need to be stated as well as exact details about what the topic ban covers. e.g. is the user allowed to edit Michelle Obama Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well, but I am expressing my permanent disapproval of how many of those involved in the 'consensus' were already named defendants in it. Of those whose 'consensus' resulted in my ban, many had already been named in the discussions/history of the case as part of the cabal, including:

• User:BrendanFrye
• User:Scjessey
• User:DD2K (aka Dave Dial)
• User:Dayewalker
• User:Wikidemon
• User:JzG (aka Guy)

Users SarekofVulcan and Baseball Bugs were mentioned in the topic before they came as linked to a prior incident, and found the topic because I posted mentions on their notice pages per rules. And User:NeutralHomer just got caught in administrative abuse.

Therefore, you can have this, I give up on Wikipedia, you win. But let it be known this whole thing was a farce. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

When your consensus has to consist of these exact same users each time, logical people should question the validity of such decisions. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

JzG, the supposedly impartial member delivering this decision, is the one who pushed in December for my discipline as well, as seen here.[153] And all of 8 those previously mentioned were either involved in the December case or the 2009 Obama articles case, with the exception of NeutralHomer.[154] I don't know if Conflict of Interest applies here, but I at least question the decision. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above - I was about to impose the exact same sanction on you, and I am a completely uninvolved editor in this string of events regarding your edits.

If you would like, I would happily revoke Guy's topic ban and impose a new, identical one on you myself. It would avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, but will change nothing at the practical level. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well, perhaps that would be best, as it would at least avoid the editors who have repeatedly been involved in past proceedings. If you don't mind, on what basis is this decision delivered? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize I was an involved editor. Next time, I'll make sure I don't go chasing after people to get you unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think those who were involved in the December or 2009 cases should be voting on this case, either for or against consensus. And as for you, Abrazame, Wikidemon, and Baseball Bugs, I don't know - perhaps I have been too paranoid in suggesting you are part of the cabal. I probably should not have ever brought up such a notion in the 1st place. My frustration stems from the fact that every time I try to bring up the issue of non-positive material not addressed on the Obama page, the sourcing and questions of relevance/notability/etc. never get addressed. Instead, it quickly devolves into ad hominem attacks, edit wars, vandalism attacks on the page, attempts to get me banned, and questionable thread closings/archivings. The whole cabal stuff got mentioned in my frustration that I can't get the merits of the material addressed due to stiff opposition from a group of editors who use those tactics, and in trying to figure out just who was involved, it seems I overstepped my bounds. I still am certain they are taking turns on edit wars and closing threads and using incendiary comments to try and start edit wars, but I should never have tried identifying who was involved. Not that there's not proof, but in cases like Wikidemon's and Abrazame's, it involves the thread closings primarily which are more controversial in each case, and tougher to define. With you and Baseball Bugs, I saw you were involved in Stevertigo's case, along with Scjessey, and perhaps jumped to conclusions. Although I still don't understand how Baseball Bugs can keep trying to say I am calling Obama's record on abortion in general a controversy, and trying to block the related thread, when it's clearly about specific bills of a much more controversial nature, but that's beside the point. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I stopped editing political articles about a year ago. In effect, I put myself on a "topic ban" in order to keep my sanity. I got very tired of having to deal with the left-wing POV-pushers (against Palin) and the right-wing POV-pushers (against Obama). They come in with an agenda, namely to use wikipedia as a tabloid or a scandal sheet, or synthesizing material from various sources to build a "case", as part of a crusade to spread The Truth, being as how the reliable sources have not covered it sufficiently, in their eyes. That's not wikipedia's purpose. If you want to conduct a crusade, you're free to start your own website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that POV is wrong. It's that BOTH sides are supposed to be getting covered according to prominence and reliability of sources. You're right, that it should be about reliable sources. Why do you think I provided 55 sources, 22 from Wikipeda and 33 from primary media organizations? Why do you think I kept suggesting, suggesting, suggesting, that everyone address the sources themselves? Why do you think I kept asking if anyone had objections to the sources, reliability, etc. of the sources? I WOULD NOT BE PROPOSING THESE AS CONTROVERSIES IF I THOUGHT THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SOURCING. All I asked for from the beginning was for the sourcing to be examined on its merits, and instead, all I get are personal attacks, thread closings, edit wars, and attempts to have me banned. Yeah, I have a POV. But I also try to be honest enough to present the opposite side along with my own, and if my side isn't notable enough, then I have no intention of having it presented. I mean, you saw the sources. Could they GET any more prominent or reliable than that? Really? And yet, the thread on the subject got closed and I was repeatedly told the sources weren't reliable/prominent, though no one would object to any given one specifically. THAT is what frustrated me. As far as I'm concerned, these are major controversies, I provided WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH SOURCING, and nobody to date has been able to deny this. Yet the discussion has been silenced, I can't get this to even be considered for inclusion in the article, and I have to go through a drawn out noticeboard process to try and change that. Yeah, I'm frustrated. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not like I even tried to take it down this road, either. This is Wikidemon's thread. The AN/I I originally started was on content alone, and trying to get the material examined on its merits. Wikidemon had that one closed for allegedly being a BLP violation, but him and Sceptre did not address how the sourcing was inadequate.[155] Then, to prevent it being dropped, I created another AN/I on the BLP noticeboard questioning whether this was indeed a BLP violation, and why. Wikidemon sought to have that closed and diverted here instead,[156] where instead of the content, it has become instead about... I don't know what. But that's not my fault, I tried to take it down a different path, and not make it personal. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It was the original closing of the discussion and refusal to even discuss whether the sourcing was good enough that got me started making the AN/I threads, and resulted in my anger towards Wikidemon and Abrazame. I couldn't understand why they would try to eliminate discussion like that, and got me focused on the now-deleted research project of past cases on my talk page. But originally, I just wanted content discussion for the reliability of the sources, and because that could not happen at the page, I was forced to use the noticeboards. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As seen from the history I showed, what started as a discussion of whether controversial material was being included, and simply trying to discuss several issues discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia and in the news, rapidly degenerated into name-calling, edit wars that I tried to stay out of, and thread closings. It wasn't that it got discussed and was rejected, it wasn't even being allowed to be discussed because of all the attacks and problems going on. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This was exactly what happened last December. The material took a back seat to the personal attacks and activist thread closings to stop it from being examined. I've gotten frustrated, and am no longer as calm in reacting as I was at first. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The same thing has been getting done here. Look at the thread collapsings of the diff lists, abortion thread, and summary. A lot of my key points were made there, and editors like BrendanFrye and NeutralHomer will just collapse them and get me in trouble for 'edit warring' if I revert them. They do this to prevent my major points from being seen by everyone and if I try to revert, it's me causing trouble. And they will play musical chairs so none goes to 3 reverts, and they can prevent my points from being seen. They do the same kind of stuff on the talk pages as well, forcing you to have your points concealed or deleted, or else get in trouble for edit warring, and there's no way to stop it. At some point, it gets annoying for anybody, I think. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, just look at the reasons they've been using. They collapsed the diff list because it was too long. They collapsed the summary they'd previously asked for even though it was short and concise. They collapsed the abortion section originally because it was posted as a reply in the ban section, then when I moved it, they collapsed it because of one section quoting from IL senate transcripts that could fit the definition of the original research, even though the rest of the post contained extensive sourcing from wikipedia pages and independent media sources that was obviously not OR. They collapsed the discussion on the Talk:Obama page because for a few minutes I used a certain font in a single post. If I try to revert any of these, it's me who gets in trouble for edit warring, and they can basically run the threads however they want, deleting and collapsing replies at will. As seen with NeutralHomer, this was most obviously abused when he reverted a post consisting of typo fixes, and when I reverted, I got the recent, and immediately reversed, temporary ban. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And yeah, I got angry and let out my frustration with comments simply stating what I saw, a coordinated effort behind this. I let out my frustration too much, but it's not like there was no background behind it, either. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to get too involved in this, but I've read this whole thing, and I don't really see why a topic ban on abortion is called for. If you look at the article history of Abortion in the United States, you'll see that Jzyehoshua added some uncontroversial, sourced information about opinion polls to that page. It was only when he made a minor correction that the mini-edit war started, which was based on an incorrect assessment of his initial edit.

Also note that, after his initial changes from a week ago, he added a note to the talk page explaining what he had done and asking for additional input and assistance. Seems entirely reasonable to me. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User Kww

Resolved

 – The boomerang came back. –xeno^talk 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Kww is semi-protecting pages such as "List of Italian-Americans", "Kimi Raikkonen", "Fernando Alonso" and "Celebration"? These pages rarely contribute to vandalism, so I don't see why they have to be semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could clear this up. Thanks 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.17.241 (talk • contribs)

Why not ask them? –xeno^talk 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a very few extremely persistent sockpuppets that I semi-protect any pages that they edit. These articles were protected due to CharlieJS13. Given geographic location, there's somewhere around a 99% chance that 86.136.17.241 is also CharlieJS13.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently because someone is IP-Hopping to target articles? [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CharlieJS13/Archive] for more. (he put that as the semi-protect reason, that's how I know) Have you brought this up with Kww? (I sense the footgun being used, an IP complaining about someone semi-protecting an article to prevent an IP hopper from disrupting....) SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And both the socking IP and the reporting IP here both resolve to British Telecom DSL in London, England. What a shock. — Satori Son 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He certainly has a good gun-sight on his footgun. IP blocked 72 hours, Vogue (Madonna song) semi-protected for a month. It's come to my attention that this is probably Dance-pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and that CharlieJS13 is just a sock, not a new master. Can't be proven at this point, but seems likely.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the "Plaxico" metaphor is a bit overdone and becoming old news, the "boomerang" metaphor works pretty well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, we really need to put something back at WP:PLAXICO so new people get the reference. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At least make it a redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. DONE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I support that, mostly, but wasn't a previous redirect at that location BLPed?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but there's no valid reason to do so. He sits in prison, convicted of illegal usage of a gun. We didn't put him there, the government did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he copped to it. He wasn't tried for it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So he confessed to it. So there's no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We need to actively discourage the public ridicule of a living person. Deleted and salted. –xeno^talk 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes fun of the poster mostly. I knew awhile back that the article (despite sourcing) had been deleted, but I was unaware that a redirect was also forbidden. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed in more detail at my talk page [157], I have not much more to add. –xeno^talk 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of all the history of this thing, and it's not important enough to argue over. It's old news, like Dan Quayle and the "potatoe" incident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If we had a WP:QUAYLE which pointed to WP:ILLITERACY that would be exactly as inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a bit different- Dan Quayle had a card with the wrong spelling on it, as I remember reading. However, the football player in question was the one who shot his own leg. I personally think there's no BLP violation, but hey, I've only been here for a little while. Let's not beat this to death. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

admin responsibility blocking and warning vandals

Resolved

 – Several helpful comments were added. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a few admins weigh in at the discussion at WT:VANDAL#.22Welcome_to_Wikipedia.....22? Someone wrote that they are uncomfortable with admins witnessing vandalism and directly blocking vandals. He or she expects instead a witnessing admin to make an entry at WP:AIV, presumably so another admin will issue the block. If that's true, I've completely misunderstood one of my admin responsibilities (and probably need corrective action). —EncMstr (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno and NW state it well. Basically it's a case-by-case situation. When in doubt, be cautious. When certain, be bold. If it's clearly a sock, they don't need any more warnings, as their previous incarnation has already been warned in some way or another. Vandals inherently violate policy, so they have no grounds to be holding admins hostage by demanding a "reset" of their warnings-count. The admins' primary duty is to serve the best interests of wikipedia, not the best interests of a vandal or troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrator tools by Parsecboy

Today I was looking through the images needing copyright tags. I came across a black and white photo of a Russian World War II tank without copyright tags except for a note stating that it was taken from the Ukraine wikipedia. The Ukraine wikipedia then cited a russian wikipedia file. So tracked down the copyright tags on the russian wikipedia. I then got a note on my talk page that the photo I tagged had incorrect tags. So I looked into why it was considered incorrect, because according to the uploader at the russian wikipedias the photo was taken in cira 1944, the author was a unknown solider, and the file was public domain in russia. I found that Parsecboy disagreed that the picture was out of copyright and was in a argument with another editor. So I again wrote the source of the photo. Parsecboy then deleted the file because he felt that he was right and the other editor was wrong. As the image was from World War II, tracking the person who took the picture would be very hard, if not impossible, so it is not possible to cite the exact author. User talk:Alpha Quadrant#ISU-152-2

I then checked the user's contributions to see if any other events like this have ever happened and found that, in the past seven months, user Parsecboy has repeatably abused administrator right and has been uncivil to users when users disagree with him. When a user disagrees with him he threatens to block or report them. If the user continue to disagree with him he does block them. Here are some examples:

• [158] Temporarly blocked the user for continually disagreed with him
• [159] Reported user who violated the three revert rule despite himself violating the rule
• [160] Threatened the user with a block if he continued to be uncivil. (Occurred four days ago)
• [161] Reported the the user for edit warring after the user stopped editing because he received a warning

Granted two of users were border lining on civility, but he has threatened users for disagreeing with him. When the users repeatably did not agree with him he blocked them or filed for them to be blocked. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so in order, we have:

1. A user who got himself blocked for edit-warring to add incorrect information under false edit summaries
2. A vandalizing IP who apparently refuses to discuss on the article's talk page
3. Parsec appearing to get a little frustrated (but I note that whether by intention or accident, Oblivion's comments on Parsec's talk did come across as condescending)
4. A user edit-warring to add weasel words into Royal Canadian Navy—an action that three different editors disagreed with

Now, where are these abuses of administrator tools? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he discussed the photo in question on your talk page and explained why he didn't think that the uploader's claim of public domain was enough to verify that the photo really was in the public domain, and why he thought it was actually quite likely that it wasn't. Now that I come to think of it, I can't think of a single occasion when a header of 'abuse of administrator tools' has appeared on top of something that was actually an abuse of administrator tools. Strange, that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He did not discussed it on my talk page. He told me he didn't feel like arguing about the image anymore so he simply deleted it. As for the four talk pages did you look at the user contributions? In the edit wars both users were engaged in an edit war and he used his administrator powers and status as a senior editor to gain the upper hand. One of the edit wars he did have three supports, but never the less, he was involved in the edit war and violated the 3RR. The third example is a comment from the World War II image discussion that he deleted today. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur; since Russian copyright extends 70 years from date of disclosure, and the statute is retroactive (removing a number of works from the public domain that had lapsed under the previous 50-year rule), a photo taken in 1944 cannot be public domain until 2014. It is possible that it was public domain when it was first uploaded (if it was uploaded prior to the 2006 ratification of the new copyright law -- I didn't check this), but even if that's true, it currently is not public domain, as I understand it. I also see nothing particularly objectionable about those diffs, in context. Shimeru (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally useless in the file namespace, but I have to say it appears that Parsecboy was procedurally correct (for those who are wondering, the file in question is File:ISU-152-2 self-propelled gun.jpg) though he might have been a little more diplomatic about it. There's no admin abuse here, just possibly a frayed temper resulting from both sides not fully understanding each other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to notify people when you report them at ANI. I've just done that. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) My mistake... although, people might want to reconsider the immediate removal of those notices in the future; it might help avoid misunderstandings like this. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty good. The Tomcha block, while I should have let another admin handle it, was deemed to be perfectly fine according to reviewing admins. The IP in fact violated 3RR (which bars more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period); I reverted only 3 times. As for the last case, I filed the report while the user was editing, and an admin at the 3RR noticeboard agreed with the report. Had it been a bad report, it would have been declined.

@Shimeru - the file was uploaded here a week ago, and on the Uk.wiki in 2007.

@Equazcion - S/he did, I had removed the notice from my talk page before you saw it.

I find it a little odd that a user who registered his or her account less than a month ago is so familiar with Wikipedia processes... Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that seems entirely uncontroversial, then. Shimeru (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it took a lot of reading. Everything you need to know is in the subpage [[Help:]], and [[WP:]] and I had edited 4 month prior as an ip address before registering.--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So to answer your hint, Parsecboyno, no, I have never had another wikipedia account and I am not some vandal. Need proof, have WP:Checkuser run a scan, they won't find anything though. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall Pastor Theo saying more or less the exact same thing, and we all know how that turned out... Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to get back to the point, Alpha Quadrant...is there action requested here, and if so, is there any consensus in favor of such action?  Frank  |  talk  03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The other morning at breakfast, over my delicious toaster waffles, parsecboy was regaling me with tales of copyright law and lore. He told me that it doesn't matter whether something was published in the US or Pakistan or Malaysia or anywhere else, we follow US copyright law. Because we're all American like that. So when he was sharing this Russia business last night at bedtime, I realized that the Russia/Soviet discussion was moot since we only ever use US copyright law anyway. I'm sure he would have realized that himself, had I not been nagging him to get off Wikipedia and come to bed. Have a lovely Wednesday everyone. Cranterp (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy, fine don't believe me. Why don't you go to WP:Checkuser then, but I don't know who "Pastor Theo" is. But before that why don't you look at my contributions. I work at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and also at clearing backlogs. That is how I found the World War II picture in the first place. You then left me a rather angry message on my talk page for adding supposedly incorrect copyright tags to an image. I did not know there was an argument over. It was in the articles needing copyright information backlog. So I added the tags. You then deleted it because I quote:

"Frankly, I'm a little tired of going 'round in circles over this image, which I have demonstrated is still in copyright. I've therefore deleted it as an obvious copyright violation. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)"

Like I said, I investigated your edits to see wether or not this has ever happened before and the above is what I found. After reading the administrator guidelines of what is considered abuse your actions appeared to match. So I posted here because I wanted to know wether or not this was considered abuse. Well it appears it is not considered abuse. So stop trying to make me look like a former blocked user wanting revenge as I am not. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Parsecboy has a history of doing what is obviously right without feeling constrained to use unnecessary process. I join you in congratulating him no his sagacious use of normal administrative discretion. Thank you for bringing this fine admin to our attention, but you are free to award the barnstar of diligence yourself, there is no committee process needed beforehand. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I was trying to do. I said that I felt that he was abusing his administrator power. I did not say that I felt he is doing a great job. And by him accusing me of being a sock puppet (which I am not) for inquiring here he is not assuming good faith. I believe he is following these set of guidelines (or at least 3 and 4) rather than these set of guidelines. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you spend your time if you think what I said on your talk page was "rather angry," but I digress. The image is verifiably still under copyright protection both in the United States and in Russia. My obligation as an administrator was to delete it as soon as possible, which I did. If you have a problem with copyright enforcement, then you need to find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No I do not have a problem with copyright enforcement. But because you were involved in the dispute you should have nominated it for deletion and let a neutral administrator decide what to do with it. By the way saying:

"If you have a problem with copyright enforcement, then you need to find something else to do"

you are quoting the fourth wikipedia pillar of evil --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

Resolved

 – no Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is what GeorgeNotaras (talk · contribs) said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyIDS about me incivil? From his phrasing, I can't tell if it or not and if it's worth a warning. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's best to let it pass. It's not particularly egregious, and he was obviously a bit emotional when he wrote the thing. I think leaving a warning would most likely inflame matters further. Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if an uninvolved party left one, but I see he's already been asked to calm down and assume good faith, so I doubt there's anything to be gained. Better to focus on the issue at hand, I think. Shimeru (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the message that the other user left did well. Thanks for your advice. Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that if you're not certain whether someone was trying to insult you, you're better off not pushing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good rule of thumb, but I liked the way you phrased it the first time better. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I originally said "...knowing for sure" instead of "...pushing it" and I had almost typed "...pursuing it", but it's all the same idea - if you're not sure if you've been insulted, then why would you want to find out? What's the benefit? Why go out of the way to try and get upset about something, when there are plenty of other "opportunities" to get upset. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a classic case of a COI editor being defensive when his/her article is up for deletion. No personal attack, but definitely too close to the subject. Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Also, questions like this are better raised at WP:WQA. It's unlikely someone will be blocked for saying something like that when even the reporter isn't sure it is a personal attack. Pcap ping 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by Hittit

User:Hittit has recently been canvassing to a wide number of editors to "participate" in an ADF, as well as a merge, discussion regarding the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922, which now has been merged. He has been very selective on who exactly to inform, presumably believing that they would be more sympathetic to vote his way rather than the opposition's. This is not the first time that he is doing this and not the first time that he was warned to stop. Just last month, he was politely warned by another editor on why canvassing was unacceptable and yet earlier this month, he started doing it again (see his comments on users' talk pages from May 2 onwards). This is now the third time that he is doing this and I feel some stern measure must be taken to discourage some activity. Please note that just last week, he was formally placed under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 restrictions and his actions are highly undesirable in light of the punishments that can be imposed for disruptive behavior. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no sign of disruptive behaviour, people have right to ask for an opinion and thus seek for balanced views. In what miraculous way MarshallBagramyan, Sardur, Aregakn, Davo88 end up editing the same articles like a government agency…something for you to think about Marshal before you go around fishing for admin warning on other editors...cheap shots. --Hittit (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Knock off the bad faith, will you? You only dig a deeper hole when you hurl insults at me and other users. You're not asking people to simply give their opinion - you're selectively choosing who to inform and obviously courting those editors who you think will be sympathetic to your views. You are well aware that that fits the definition of canvassing given the number of warnings that have been issued to you. This is an actionable offense and since you are a repeat offender, I am more than justified to seek intervention from the administrators.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep fishing, you have been topic banned last year it seems, for a reason...please consult WP:FOOTSHOT. Pointless for you to spam my talk page as well. What are you trying to achieve? --Hittit (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nationalist warriors, I recommend one stern warning then escalating blocks, applied without fear or favour. There are few things which have toxic potential greater than ethnic disputes, the lamer they are the more toxic they become. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. At least until things calm down (if they ever do), blocking for those reasons should be on a hair-trigger, and to all parties involved. I haven't done an actual count, but my impression is that at least a quarter of all activity on AN/I at any one time is connected to nationalist or ethnic warring. If that can be cut down on by some preventative (not punitive) blocking, that's a lot of time and energy that can be put to something more productive. I personally think that nationalist or ethnic warring is a lot more of a long-term danger to the project than unsourced BLPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• 'xcuse me, but have I missed anything? What is reported here are those. [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. I personally have no problem with canvassing, since if it's not on the open it will probably be backdoor. But replying Nationalist warriors is not very civil and this for a simple canvassing case. There are more conflict than acceptable, you don't need to poor fluel in the fire or presenting it worst than it actually is. A warning against Hittit who possibly did not know canvassing was not allowed will suffice, no need to come up with user bashing by calling them warriors. Ionidasz (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• My appologies, I didn't pay much attention to the report in full. He was already warned to not canvass. Then a restriction to not canvass is probably in order. Ionidasz (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, a restriction is definitely warranted, but probably a block for the duration of the AfDs he's canvassed for to ensure there is no further disruption to them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I am really not intersted in having these type of discussions, however it seems some people have found a way to supress other editors by instigating Arbitration Enforcements, Notice Boards what have you...if it works for them, they will resort to it. --Hittit (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated WP:COPYVIO issue

I've just deleted yet more WP:COPYVIO from www.muslimheritage.com on the Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti page. I've previously deleted a large amount of such COPYVIO from various pages that has been taken from that website and a few others (for example, Al-Muqtadir, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Al-Andalus etc.). This particular material was added by an anonymous editor but I believe that it is the same person that edits as Kaka Mughal (talk · contribs). There is one copyvio notice on their talk page now and I have asked them about this on an IP talk page also (while they was actively editing from that IP address). I'm unclear what is the best thing to do at this point, as (assuming it is this editor) they have never responded to any thing I've put on their talk pages (or the talk pages of articles they have been editing).
I don't understand at this point quite what to do. I'm reluctant to put another COPYVIO notice on this user's talk page, since the edits were done anonymously. On that basis I have not put a {{ANI-notice}} on that editor's talk page either, as this is more a request for advice than a complaint against them.
All the best and thanks in advance. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It might not be them but it's a reasonable presumption at this point; I recommend putting the ANI notice on both pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have done so (User talk:Kaka Mughal#Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti) — the anon. edits were from a wide range of IP address (all from the same ISP) so I've not notified them, as I doubt the original editor would ever see that. Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot going haywire.

Resolved

 – Bot operator notified, bot temporarily blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please block WildBot again if possible? It's currently making edits like this on Mariah Carey in which I highly doubt that it is constructive in any way. After the administrator Kww reverted its edit, WildBot came up with the same edit here too. Minimac (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just correcting links to other article section titles that have been vandalized. I'm betting if you undue the vandalism at the target page, WildBot will correct itself. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea for WildBot to delay updating section links for half an hour or so, so this kind of thing doesn't happen. –xeno^talk 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea which would probably cut the occurrence of this type of mistake down drastically. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• And in this episode of 'Bots Gone Wild...Theeeeeee WildBot!: OH...YEAH...BABY. COME...GET...SOME...OF...THIS. HalfShadow 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • HalfShadow is a technosexual - this explains so much. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's why they call it a hard drive. HalfShadow 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Why am I having King Missile flashbacks? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot's operator has been notified of this thread. Personally, I would rather keep it unblocked unless it is leaving the vandalized versions up permanently. WP:BAG might be a better place to discuss putting in a time delay. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked and halted the bot before seeing this thread. It was a case of reflected vandalism. I undid the vandalism in the song article and reverted WildBot. It didn't recognize the change in the other article, and continued to edit-war at Mariah Carey to reinsert the vandalism from the other article.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a cache refresh issue. Ah well, thanks Kww. I am marking this resolved unless there is anything further. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AIVhelperbots missing in action

Working through the backlog at WP:AIV, and I notice that the AIVHelperbots - HBC AIV helperbot7 (talk · contribs) and HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk · contribs) - haven't edited in over 30 minute. While this isn't unusual if things are slow, several entries at AIV have been blocked, but not removed. No additional bot-added entries have been posted, either. Since it's multiple bots, and since Wildbot seems to be flipping out as well, do we perhaps have a toolserver issue? Some eyes are requested, both at AIV and on the bot situation. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot 7 is back online and handling business - thanks to everyone who helped keep things moving during the 100 or so minutes of downtime. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Account appears to be used for storing code

• Sandy live1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's only contribs were to place a mass of some kind of programming code on their userpage. Following that, various IPs, who I'm assuming are the same user only logged out, have been updating the code. I recently blanked the page and an IP restored it. I would leave warnings, but as the user doesn't seem to log in anymore, and their IP changes with each edit, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. I'd delete the page and indef the user; they can always post an unblock request if they really want to edit. Leaving it up to you guys. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe clear the page and fully protect it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 appears to have deleted and protected the userpage. I would've blocked too, since it seems clear the user isn't here to collaborate on the encyclopedia, rather than wait for more trouble. But, whatever. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not fully protect it and let admins make random changes when they have an idle moment? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That'd be an innovative approach. I like it :) Equazcion ^(talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet soup and possible revision hiding

I don't have time to sort this out. I only got involved due to participating in this category discussion:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons

I got involved in that due to similar efforts on the Commons to remove commons:Category:Less-lethal weapons. See diff. On the Commons the admins there are less tolerant of such POV games, and the category was restored.

I followed it all back to Talk:Non-lethal weapon where a few weeks ago a small group of users and sockpuppets outvoted others, and convinced an admin to follow the votes (in my opinion), and move Less-lethal weapons to Non-lethal weapons. I believe there are several sockpuppets involved. There may even be an admin involved in revision hiding at User talk:Critias6. I am less sure about that though.

Good luck trying to sort it out. It is way too easy on Wikipedia to create sockpuppets. I don't have much time to follow this further. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

6056slusser sockpupperty admission in RL

I don't really know how to deal with this. WFWW? was blocked a few months ago as vandal-only. I know this person in RL. However, yesterday the person who edited as WFWW? came up to me, stating he vandalised Iron Man 2 as 6056slusser, which contains part of his real name. Should I just tag him as a sock as usual or is there other steps I need to take, given that this evidence is from RL? -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would take it to WP:SPI, and present your evidence for consideration from a checkuser, seeing as it can't be verified by any other evidence other than your testimony. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as both accounts have been blocked there's no need for either CU or SPI. Just leave them as is. We don't have to tag every single sock. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)