Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 15 September 2008 (→Community ban: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

    Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

    I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

    This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

    The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

    This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -


    diff [1] IP 82.17.219.182

    Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.


    The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are


    diff [2] IP 86.132.166.95

    PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


    and


    diff [3] by IP 82.17.219.182

    ....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)


    The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [4] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

    The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [5] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

    So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

    I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

    So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

    Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

    Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You think? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday Scribe 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hrafn

    Request that user be asked to stop tagging articles and that an admin try and enforce this. He/she says that this is an ownership issues that I may be blocked for ([6]), but I believe his tags are quite impartial and done not so much as to aid wikipedia as to pester me, because of our ongoing dispute resolution ([7]) and other encounters such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HrafnTalkStalk 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firefly, as your second link shows you've started mediation as a dispute resolution, and despite requests have failed to provide diffs clarifying what your dispute is.[8] The fact that others have problems with your woolly writing is something to resolve by improving your writing, not by flying off into disputes whenever that's pointed out. Disclaimer: I'm named in Firefly's mediation case, but lacking diffs I'm not sure why. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, basically, with Dave s. I don't see the "issue" here. Yeah, Hrafn and Firefly disagree on some stuff. That ain't newsworthy. Nobody is trolling anybody here, based on the links provided. This is a non-issue thread, and should be closed. If Firefly has a specific issue with an editor, F-fly should bring it to that editor's attention prior to bringing it to the drama-board. Keeper ǀ 76 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, essentially. The majority of this dispute seems to arise from a misunderstanding of Verifiability policy, particularly WP:BURDEN. I don't think that uncited material should be restored pending verification, and I certainly don't think an editor should be reprimanded for removing uncited material. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Catherineyronwode

    The following is taken from the current version of my own AN/I proposal against hrafn, located on my own user pages.

    (removed to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn by Orderinchaos 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    tl;dr. Take it to dispute resolution. Corvus cornixtalk 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    o.O I think you've mistaken ANI for requests for comment, at the least, or arbitration. Kudos for the substantial amount of evidence gathering here, but ANI's not the place for such lengthy presentations. I suggest an RFC if there's a specific issue with hrafn that needs discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please remove this? Verbal chat 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree; it's a nightmare of comprehension and deserves dedicated attention. No way is it an "incident". Suggest at best a subpage, otherwise moving to a Request for Comment. This page is for issues that can be dealt with expeditiously. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <outdent>Okay, must i make a Request for Comments first or can this go directly to Arbitration? Please post a yes or no reply. If i must make a Request for Comments first, please tell me how to do it. If i can take this directly to Arbitration, please tell me the relevant URL. Wikipedia is not my social outlet; i use it as a volunteeer area to write and edit. I am not interested in bureaucracy (e.g. how this MUD is run), and although i have edited here regularly since 2006 (and since 205 as an IP), i do not know how to make headway in this twisty turny maze of similar-sounding-but-entirely-different "We Can't Help You With That Problem" pages. I request the URL of the page where there will be people whose job it is to read this complaint and see that this problem be dealt with. Thanks. cat yronwode

    I believe that that is common practice except in extraordinary cases, yes. Of course, nobody has the job of dealing with user complaints, but a number of friendly volunteers may be motivated to treat with you and discuss intereditor issues at a request for comment. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users has the instructions for posting an RfC/U. The request itself should be posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Please keep in mind that all normal user conduct policies and norms apply to requests for comment, including no personal attacks and no harassment. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copied it across to RFC - it can't go straight to ArbCom until efforts have been made to resolve the matter through some form of dispute resolution. If the RFC is sufficiently decisive and no change of behaviour is noticeable, then it could go to ArbCom if need be. Catherine's welcome to edit it to get it into the right form before it is listed and goes live (also needs a second observer of the situation to certify it in order for it to be a valid RfC). I have no opinion either way on the matter, but AN/I is definitely the wrong place for it - AN/I is a high traffic area where stuff moves through in the blink of an eye, this would have simply ended up in some forgotten archive within 2 days. Orderinchaos 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrafn (talk · contribs) has now retired, according to his user page, but if someone skilled with POV battles is looking for something to consider, I'd suggest going through this case - it looks like there's a problem here, but it's awfully detailed. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not too sure this is resolved, despite Hrafn's retirement...Isn't there a saying about dancing on graves? --SmashvilleBONK! 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a sad case where three or four, dare I say "cabal"...no better not, unrelated editors...oh wait a minute, they're not. Let me start again, there are three or four editors who think that original research is sufficient for placing their POV on articles. Typical of Wikipedia's broken system, instead of understanding that their edits are POV, they game the system through MEDCOM, ARBCOM, RfC, whatever else they can use, which frustrates editors. Hrafn is a great editor. He dealt with arcane subjects on this encyclopedia that we have to clean up. There was a personality clash. There was mild uncivil comments from both sides. Then the three or four editors dancing on Hrafn's grave on this ANI started wikistalking and moved into civil pushing. This is ridiculous. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting this exchange and the CVU barnstar above it...it's a sad state of affairs when users drive off other users and then pat each other on the back for doing it. And I think WP:AGF can be ignored once a user tells another user, "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again.". Essentially, "Look out, you've made my list." --SmashvilleBONK! 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <undent> Firstly, please note that I came into this dispute because Hrafn asked for assistance, with particular reference to a page he'd been working on when Catherine and Madman had intervened, with an open statement from her indicating that she was wikistalking Hrafn.[9] A "real legal threat" she had not yet withdrawn had to be cleared before discussions could start.[10] By that time she had posted links to her page which forms the basis of her report here, and which appears to be a very badly researched attack page with ludicrously inaccurate assertions that have been drawn to her attention,[11] but which she still has not fully corrected in her posting here. Other claims are equally invalid, though I've not checked every one of them. The underlying dispute is between "anti-deletionists" who think "You are not supposed to go around deleting things just because they are not sourced. You are only supposed to delete unsourced or poorly sourced claims that you suspect of being false."[12] and editors like Hrafn who take WP:V as having priority. In discussions the "anti-deletionists" have pointed to WP:EP (WP:IMPERFECT[13] as a policy which appears to sanction preserving information regardless of whether or not it has a reliable source – in my opinion that policy is outdated and needs early improvement to bring it into line with core content policies and current practice. If priority is given to preserving unreferenced information, articles would never be deleted, and the instructions in WP:V about removing such information would have to be changed. That's not my understanding of the priorities of Wikipedia, but Catherine makes it clear that she feels that we must keep articles about non-notable organisations or individuals with only self-published sources as references, on the basis that she finds them interesting, and keep in information even if a simple check shows that it's inaccurate or unsourced. There's quite a culture clash there. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) tweaked dave souza, talk 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It amazes me that this is an issue about Hrafn -- the real issue is Cat and her belief that any crap, even if not meeting RS and V, is OK because she wants it to be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 16:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me add my name as one of the editors who are unhappy with Catherine's approach to Wikipedia. And what did here comment to OrangeMarlin on her talk page mean -- "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again." An accusation of sock-puppetry or? Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In a workplace, Hrafn's behavior as shown in Catherine's report with diffs would surely be a lawsuit waiting to happen. He could easily get fired for targeting a specific religious group like he did. Hrafn retired because his or her bad behavior came to light. If a couple of editors could simply say something not in WP:AGF or unWP:CIVIL or merely cleverly hidden slander to get rid of someone, then Catherine and I would already have retired ourselves considering this apparent backlash against us. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a workplace, and doesn't fall under laws (which are, after all, specific to localities) applicable to workplaces. Wikipedia is a private organization working off of private rules and regulations. Now looking over Hrafn's actions, it certainly appears that he has a partisan axe to grind - citation tagging every phrase up to and including "He lectured extensively in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain obnoxious - but losing your cool in return is unhelpful.  RGTraynor  05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In a workplace, deluded assertions about Hrafn's work and character could result in a libel action. For example "Here is where hrafn made the deletion and also tried to assert that Affirmations are "supplicatory" prayer, demonstrating a basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with the subject matter:"[14]. The example is illuminating, because Catherine does not seem to have realised that Hrafn made just one edit, removing the square brackets on each side of the word Affirmation with the accurate edit summary (rm self-link). This was undoing part of the previous edit by Vernon89 which linked the title in error.[15] Cat's statement below that revision "[Affirmative prayer article existed at this point, hence the short defining sentence and the link from the dab page]" is simply irrelevant – it was a new self-link and nothing more. Her statements "[an editor simply tried to remove the negative word hrafn had added] ["supplicatory" was a term added added by hrafn]" and "it became a "self-link" because hrafn had redirected the Affirmative prayer page out of existance]" are untrue – the "negative word" supplicatory was added by Vernon39, and there was no link to Affirmative prayer, contrary to Cat's erroneous assertion.[16] Assuming good faith, it appears that Cat is simply incompetent and does not realise that she is libelling Hrafn. It certainly demonstrates basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with analysing edit histories. The other examples I've looked at are just as incompetent, in different ways. Regarding RGTraynor's very sensible point, dealing with repeated refusals to provide adequate references is trying, and without checking, the circumstances of asking for a specific detail to be referenced may have been reasonable in context. . . dave souza, talk 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC) grammar and formatting correction dave souza, talk 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) It seems clear that either Catherine is incompetent, as Dave charitably suggests, or she has embraced "Wikipedia is a battleground" (currently the theme on her talk page) as her method of interaction here. I suggest either mindset would be improved by a mentor. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A statement from retirement

    Given that I have not been allowed to retire in peace, but rather have:

    1. seen no let up to the amount of false information and false charges leveled against me;
    2. that without informing me, User:Catherineyronwode tacked her trumped up 'ANI Proposal' onto User:Firefly322's unrelated DOA AN/I complaint shortly before my retirement; and
    3. this complaint now seems to have turned into some sort of weird undead RFC/U (which has neither been properly certified with "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, nor deleted),

    I have decided to make this "statement from retirement" answering these false charges and setting the record straight.

    I wish to make the following points:

    1. On the "War against New Thought and Christian biographies and books" Catherineyronwode
      1. Repeated information knowing it to be false
      2. Simply made up a bad-faith explanation for actions that were demonstrably made in good faith
      3. Fails to demonstrate a breach of wikipedia policy
    2. On the matter of "Incivility", both Catherineyronwode, and those who assisted her in compiling this list were themselves guilty of gross incivility against myself, compared to which my own borderline incivility pales by comparison.
    3. Her evidence is defective, in that it frequently lacks supporting difs, and/or relies of hearsay evidence.

    I will not bore you with the details here -- these details can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn#Response: a statement from retirement & User:Hrafn#A statement from retirement. HrafnTalkStalk 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delighted and surprised to see your statement, Hrafn, hope you're well. The dispute clearly remains unresolved, but at 08:29, 15 September 2008, Future Perfect at Sunrise rightly deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn" as‎ (not properly certified, no evidence of dispute resolution.), not long after I'd endorsed your statement. My muddle in that I should first have provided evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and another user have done the same.
    Confusingly, the page was headed "Not yet active - have created this to move an AN/I matter to its correct location. Catherine or any other user may remove this forenote once she is satisfied with its contents." but it's correct that the 48 hour window had long passed. The page was created at 09:23, 12 September 2008 , and Users certifying the basis for this dispute was signed by Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) at 22:03, 11 September, WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) at 09:13, 13 September, and by Firefly322 (talk · contribs) at 10:02, 14 September. Hrafn added and endorsed his summary at 05:25, 15 September, and I added my endorsement at 08:14, 15 September, while still eating my breakfast.
    Still trying to wake up, but it's time for us to put this bad dream behind us. There are important principles of WP:V underlying this dispute, and it is essential that Catherineyronwode accepts that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraws the baseless accusations against Hrafn prepared at her ANI proposal,[17] posted here and then moved to RfC/Hrafn. I've asked her at User talk:Catherineyronwode#Retraction requested to make a statement to that effect on this page.[18] . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Renounce your faith or meet the consequences" - I thought this was an encyclopedic colaboration, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Cue: Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition!). I put it that both Hrafn and Catherine have nonstandard positions on the issue of verifiability. While Catherine clearly doesn't understand that tagging is a necessary part of the process of improvement of the encyclopedias value, Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences (also clearly and easily verifiable ones), tagging them and subsequently removing them if noone adds citations within a short time. If Hrafn had the time and energy to apply this policy consistently in the entirity of wikipedia in stead of only in his pet peeve topics about non-scientific belief systems only FA's would be left and wikipedia would be a collection of a few disconnected but very well sourced articles. Neither approach is useful if we want to build a wikipedia with both a sensible scope of coverage and a sensible degree of verifiability. And please don't use Jimmy Wales' quote about "some wikipedians have a bias ..." at least not such a time as when Mr. Wales explicitly states that this is supposed to be interpreted as "no sentence no matter how uncontroversial, pedestrian and common knowledge information it provides shall be allowed to remain on the project without a citation", which will incidentally also be the time when I leave this project - that would simply be too much of a waste of the content-adding editors' time.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assertion that "Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences" is contrary to my experience, and I've not seen him deleting any "pedestrian and common knowledge information" – diffs please. . . dave souza, talk 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a statement is tagged for citation and nobody provides one in a reasonable time (remembering that articles drop off the bottom of your watchlist if unedited for a month, tops), it means one of two things: (i) this statement wasn't so "clearly and easily verifiable", or (ii) that nobody's maintaining the article by actively watchlisting it. In the latter case, the question becomes is the unsourced material obvious truth or obvious-sounding but false truthiness that has somehow found its way onto the article? And how can you tell (as a reader or as an editor attempting maintenance) tell unless somebody provides a source? As for the "only FA's would be left" claim, this is ridiculous -- there are large numbers of articles on wikipedia that are fully verifiable, but do not yet meet FA standards. HrafnTalkStalk 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that you confuse "verifiable" with "verified" - verifiable is when anybody can verify a statement by using a minimal effort to hunt down a reliable source. Several times I have been able to reinclude material deleted by you with a new source after few minutes of googling - this about topics that I have no level of expertise in. In this edit[19] you remove the information stating that "wallace wattles is best known for his book he science of getting rich" which hadn't even been tagged (the tag was about whether he was wealthy in his later years). You also remove an assertion that "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote after his death to the New Thought author Elizabeth Towne." which I was able to verify within minutes on google, and which you also yourself later admitted. You also removed two sourced statements about his involvement in politics and his influence as a inspiration for rhonda byrne. And you also remove several paragraphs that are explicitly sourced to Florence Wattles' letter (grantedly without having this sourcing in the form of a footnote). In this edit you delete and redirect a stub article about the book "the science of getting rich" - later when Catherine put up a new and much better sourced version that makes several claims to notability [USer:Jamesontai] reverts to the redirect with no explanation [20] - you later proceeded to tag for merge and notability in spite of there clearly being reliable third party sources about the book[21]. Namely the sources already presented by Catherine and the sources that I could track down within a few minutes on google. While Catherine misunderstands the usefulness of tagging this aggressive deletionist behaviour by Hrafn was clearly against the wikipedia spirit as I knew it and it caused me to step in and defend these articles that I had previously had no interest in. Secondly it should be noted that the sourcing of these articles could have been carried out in good spirit if Hrafn had posted his queries for sources using words on the talkpage instead of tagging and agressively deleting the content other editors had added OR if he had taken the few minutes and checked on google whether there were in fact reliable sources for the statements. In retrospect taking that little time would have avoided this entire dispute and saved Hrafn himself and numerous other editors hours of grief, and would have been well worth the trouble. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we part company: I do not think that an implicit claim that 'somewhere out there some source exists that contains this information' makes it "verifiable". This would likewise seem to to go against WP:V, which explicitly clarifies verifiability as: "...that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This would appear to indicate that 'no citation of a reliable source' = 'no ability to check' = 'no verifiability'. Your definition of 'verifiability' implicitly places the burden of evidence on the removing/challenging editor (the opposite of what WP:V explicitly states) to prove that the information is false, as it is impossible to prove that such a source doesn't exist. As to your example, the article Wallace Wattles originally explicitly attributed to his daughter's letter information that was not contained in that letter. Further, the claim "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote..." remains pure original research, on the basis of not being able to find much information outside the letter. Whether it is true or not, it is not verifiable to a RS, so is not fit for inclusion on wikipedia. HrafnTalkStalk 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When you removed this information you hadn't even read the letter (which can be found in twenty copies in a single google search) so that is a very bad excuse. And the fact stands that you removed both sourced, easily verifiable and completely uncontroversial information in one fell swoop without having ever posted on the talk page mentioning that there was a pressing lack of sources or that some particular claims were dubious. This is agressive behaviour and I completely understand that the editors who had this article on their watchlist felt it to be unwarranted.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I removed the information, I was not even aware that the letter had been published, nor had any real expectation that it had. Now who was the person that added an explicit citation to the letter to the article (rendering it verifiable), and actually checked the article against its contents -- proving that some of this "completely uncontroversial information" was false? Was it yourself or the "editors who had this article on their watchlist" (but failed to notice the tags there for 2-3 months, until after the information was removed)? No. It was me. HrafnTalkStalk 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [Moved from User:Hrafn#A statement from retirement HrafnTalkStalk 11:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC) ][reply]

    After looking carefully through all of the evidence and responses, I endorse Hrafn's statement above. Orderinchaos 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I dispute the claim made against me just above. WP:V uses the word "unverifiable" "verifiability" for the very good reason that we do not want vandals to systematically delete any and all non-sourced but able to be sourced claims. It is a shame when people can not distinguish evidence of a difference of opinion from evidence of someone else being wrong. That you disagree with me only proves that I disagree with you and is not evidence for your claim against me. Thus the above is an unsourced attack against me. It appears to be part of the human condition for people to do what they protest others doing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WAS, my search doesn't find the word "unverifiable" in WP:V, but do note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Since Hrafn indicated he did not wish discussion here, I suggest that this discussion be moved to WP:ANI#A statement from retirement. Your assent to this would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a notice, I have deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn, as it was not properly certified. I haven't looked too closely at the underlying dispute, but it also appeared to me that the RfC was quite poorly presented, extremely wordy and probably to a large extent vacuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Fut.Perf., as I indicated above you're absolutely correct in your actions. Much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who moved it from AN/I to RfC, I endorse this action - it appears to have been a laundry list of grievances and the evidence falls apart when examined. Orderinchaos 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I have previously taken a stance against Hrafn I agree that there is probably not enough basis for an rfc or ani in the material collected by catherine - in my view this dispute has been caused by two editors who have been equally stubborn in their viewpoints and equally reluctant to use basic social skills in their communication with the other, but who have in turn continued to escalate what was not even a content dispute into what at least one of them envisions as a "wiki-war" of epic dimensions. I propose that the only sensible outcome of this spectacle would be that everyone involved take this as a chance to remember that a proper and colegial tone of communication, the assumption of good faith and staying calm under pressure may help resolve editing disputes even before they occur. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it is the case that Hrafn is a bit quick to the gun, so to speak, w.r.t. enforcing WP:V, which appears arguable, I see little or no cause for a generalized RFC on Hrafn. I've worked in the same territory as Hrafn on intelligent design and several related articles, and encountered him on a few unrelated articles, e.g. in category:philosophy, and in that context I've found him to be a fairly "strict interpretationist", so to speak, of WP:V-- a fairly vigorous advocate of that policy. Clearly to me, he tends to be fairly intolerant of article content that he considers questionable and which is unsourced or questionably sourced. Several of his statements presented by Catherineyronwode, picked out of many thousands of Hrafn's edits, could I think quite reasonably be characterized as being somewhat impatient, and in several cases angry, with the person to whom they're directed. But overall I've most definitely found his edits to be very productive and helpful on topics where we've met. Catherineyronwode appears to me, judging by the tone of comments on her talk page and elsewhere, unnecessarily turned it into a battleground. I should hope there's a more rational and less personalized way to analyze, and if possible to work through, such disagreements about Hrafn's editing approach. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ·Maunus·ƛ·, thank you for drawing back from the stance you have previously taken against Hrafn. As I've said before, assuming good faith is essential and it is regrettable that Catherineyronwode not only failed to assume good faith, but escalated the argument into the above ANI complaint on the basis of a wildly inaccurate proposal which looks very much like an attack page and was posted here before being transferred to a now deleted RfC. She has been requested to please accept that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraw her baseless accusations against Hrafn. Your attempts to pass the onus for finding citations onto the editor deleting unsourced content run completely against WP:V, and you, Cat and Madman should be working in a collegiate way to propose and discuss suitable sources instead of going into attack mode. I remain hopeful that all concerned can study WP:NAM and work to find unsourced material and either show a source or delete such unsuitable material. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in no way drawing back from the stance that I have had throughout this episode. I maintain that Hrafn has had a key part in creating an intolerable edit environment in the new Thought articles he has been campaigning on. I also maintain as I have throughout that the other large part of the blame falls on Catherines failure to prevent the argument from escalating. Whether Madman has an important part of the blame I will refrain from judging since I consider myself his friend and am quite possible biased in his favour - however I certainly don't believe that Hrafns counteraccusations of "gross incivility" are justified. As for my own involvement I have, contrary to what you seem to suggest, worked only on finding sources for Hrafns removed material and I have chastised both sides for their lack of civlity. I do not believe myself to have been at any point onesided in this matter although it was the excessive agressiveness in Hrafns removement of information and his responses to fellow editors that made me step into the conflict. If contrary to my belief I have been a part of the escalation of the conflict rather than its resolvement I do apologise for that, but my own involvement has not previously been the object of such accusations. As for my "attempt to pass the onus to the removing editor" this is a question of twisting words. My understanding of WP:V is that material that is likely to be challenged should be supported by reliable sources - not statements that are uncontroversial or reasonably could be expected to be uncontroversial. Nowhere does the polcit say that every statement in an article must be sourced. Nor does the policy state anything about how removal of content added in good faith should be aggresively purged from the encyclopedia instead of being amiably sourced and improved. I have my self added several megabytes of unsourced (yet completely factual and verifiable) content to wikipedia over the years - and if Hrafns understanding of WP:V is in fact the gold standard on the issue then I invite him to go through my edits and tag them for citations and delete it when I fail to provide sources within his time frame. HOwever I don't think wikipedia will be none the richer for it.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pigsonthewing blocked for edit-warring personal attacks.

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Andy/Pigsonthewing will remain indefinitely blocked until he agrees to stop pursuing old feuds. Until then, this discussion is moot. fish&karate 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Those of you with long memories will remember this user, who has twice been banned by the Arbitration Committee for a year at a time. This user has just come off his second year long ban, and has gotten back into one of his old, bad, habits, which is edit-warring a section on his user page accusing another user of being a stalker. He refused to stop edit-warring that section in, despite a consensus on ANI at the time (see User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_13#Your_.22stalker.22_paragraph_on_your_userpage and sections below that for his intransigence on the issue). He's now returned from his second ArbCom ban, and is edit-warring again. I have blocked him 24 hours for it. I am bringing up this fairly uncontroversial issue because another administrator, User:Neil, who probably wasn't aware of the previous discussion (I'm trying to find the diff of the ANI discussion for it), and wasn't sure that it was controversial. SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing Is the previous discussion on this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, so soon? That's too bad. You made the right call here. Shereth 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is in my view a deplorable block and a deplorable block report, a completely wretched administrative action.
    Sir Fozzle has provoked an edit war with a user with whom per Archive263#User:Pigsonthewing he has been in dispute with in the past; he hasn't just stumbled upon it, he has been the knowing precipitator of it.
    Sir Fozzle knew at the time of his intervention that Neal had already started to talk to Andy in a respectful rather than an imperative tone about the notice but appears to think his own warn, war & ban approach superior.
    The notice itself is entirely composed of Leonig's words. It is entirely possible to read it as a statement of facts and not as an attack. If we assume good faith, we must accept that it is not a categorical conclusion that it is an attack, and we should therefore tread with a care entirely lacking in the implementation of this block. We may nevertheless deplore the notice. But we have not been stalked by Leonig and we are in a different headspace entirely.
    The block is entirely partisan, precipitate, arrogant, ill-considered and petty. It is absolutely the single least likely means of effecting change in the situation. It is the single most likely means of ensuring this whole notice thing will continue to rumble on with the same pattern of escalation. A completely counterproductive move which once more is most likely to lose us once more the services of an very good & productive editor.
    I'm sorry. My view is that this block is both dim witted and abusive, and the block report entirely disingenuous. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can lay off the personal slander for starters, Tagishsimon. It doesn't further your case or cause. After reviewing the block and the prior actions of Pigsonthewing, I am endorsing the block. seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As you well know, Tagishsimon, there was a consensus already that the section was a personal attack. You yourself participated in that discussion (linked above). You may not agree with it, I understand, but consensus backs me in this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To clear one thing up, I have "known" Andy since prior to his first block, and was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the issues he has/had with Leonig Mig. I don't think this block was particularly appropriate, as I had already begun to engage with Andy over his voluntarily removing it. SirFozzie was aware of this, and perhaps talking to me first rather than edit warring over the section and blocking Andy might have been a better route to go down. Andy is a difficult character at times, prone to "I know best" - a trait he shares with many admins! - but responds far better to polite requests as opposed to orders. If this ends up with Andy/Pigsonthewing being indef blocked after he responds badly to this baiting, I will be very disappointed but not suprised. Neıl ☄ 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, wouldn't it have been better to protect his userpage rather than block him? Most of his editing is fine, and protecting the userpage would have allowed that to continue. Seriously, if a year's block didn't dissuade him from adding the section, what difference is 24 hours more going to make? Neıl ☄ 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was actually tried last time. He started adding it to his user talk page instead. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a clear case of a vendetta being carried on beyond all sense, since Mig has not edited more than very occasionally all year. Pigs knows this is a problem, and his edit summary accusing others of vandalism for reverting it is unacceptable. If this ends up with him being blocked, then I won't be especially disappointed; if I can learn to walk away from those who bait me then so can he, especially when they do not seem to be active. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block (of any length) - the stalking note is a reference to events in July 2005 which have been hashed and rehashed dozens of times. 3 years have passed - let us move on. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In a clear case of Back to the Future, he is now again adding it to his user talk page (because that is the only page he is able to edit while blocked). The next time he adds the section, to ANY page, I will block him indefinitely, until such time as he agrees to not add that section anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The guy twice gets blocked for a full year, waits for his sentence to expire, and starts in again, and gets blocked again? Is there an anti-barnstar for ultra-patient vandals? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support blocking at admin discretion. I remember all the previous history of this debate, and in my opinion (as admin and bureaucrat of another wiki with over 3 years' experience) this kind of thing is ultimately detrimental to the project. As the history shows, Pigsonthewing has continued to disregard the Wikipedia way of doing things, and has no problem using inflammatory language and personal attacks when it suits him despite his vociferous protestations about others doing the same. Codeine (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, he did it twice more, and in response I have blocked him indefinitely, and protected his user talk page for 48 hours due to disruption. When it expires, if he wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is state that he will cease and desist from adding attacks on another user, and drop the grudges. SirFozzie (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but you need to step back and let another admin handle this. You are very clearly involved in this based on the previous discussions, and it seems like you're just looking for an ax to grind with him. I'm by no means Andy's biggest fan (and in the past I've railed against him for his attitude and the actions he takes), but it would be more appropriate to let someone fresh deal with it (such as Neil). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban time?

    The block log is deplorable, has waited a year to continue the same grudge, has twice been banned by arbcom for a year in seperate cases. Do we need him here anymore? ViridaeTalk 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, we don't, as I learnt from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. The problem isn't Andy's encyclopedia-editing skills, it's the fact that he cannot cope with people disagreeing with him. When they do, he flames them, which he's been doing both here and, I believe, on Usenet, for a very long time. Two arbcom bans? And still more drama? Forget it, we don't need this guy. Moreschi (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, he's here to war with the community, not to write an encyclopedia. It amazes me that he comes of a ban and continues his ways. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Moreschi says, his encyclopaedia-writing skills are actually quite good. There are not many editors who have gone through two year-long bans and returned, still committed to writing an encyclopaedia. For that reason I think it is worth trying to talk to him; if talking him round proves impossible, it may still be possible to work something out. Therefore oppose for the time being. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • People have been trying to talk to Andy for years. They've failed. He cannot get along with people who even mildly disagree with him, and we will not change him. He's too stubborn, as the fact that's returned after two AC bans shows. Moreschi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sort of attitude is not appropriate, no matter how otherwise excellent the other contributions might be. Not getting the hint after two year-long bans pretty much garantees that the point won't be gotten, ever. — Coren (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I would say this is being too quick to jump the gun, but given the unrepentant interest in continuing to hold a grudge long after the fact, I am forced to come to a different conclusion. The fact that after a year's ban he wastes no time in continuing with the vendetta, edit-warring over it, and going so far as to perpetuate the problem on his talk page after he was issued a block indicates that Andy has no interest in standing down, and that no amount of blocking or admonishing will get him to stop. Unfortunately I have to agree that a community ban may indeed be in order. Shereth 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is probably a case of Wikipedia is not therapy. Everything that can be tried, has been - he and Wikipedia just aren't a good fit. Shell babelfish 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur. I wish Potw well in his endeavors - elsewhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted, he's been through two year long bans, if Neil wants to try and work with him, I believe he should be allowed to do so. But not with SirFozzie edit warring and blocking him... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, if he hasn't given in cross two year long bans, he's not going to, period. The consensus here shows that I was right to act as I have. Also, before you posted, I unprotected his page and offered to unblock him if he will agree not to post that section anymore. I have the feeling, he will just seize the chance to insert the section once more. It's worth a shot at extending the olive branch at least once more.. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should unblock entirely and defer to an uninvolved admin. Looking at the edit history of his userpage makes it clear that this is something you're too close to be objective with. I won't touch the comment about consensus, since there's really only a handful of people involved in this discussion (certainly not a quorum for an indef ban). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nonsense. PigsAndy's got so many admins on the 'prior conflicts' list that your suggestion is not that feasible. Either we get a new, uninvolved admin to review PigsAndy's history every time, costing any admin sucker enough to try it so much of their volunteer time that PigsAndy can claim stale report by the time adjudication arrives, or we rely on the numerous editors and admins who've been through all this and know the situation to deal with it. And PigsAndy will use up all the uninvolved admins fast if you insist on that approach, leaving us with no one to adjudicate, because everyone will be 'contaiminated'. I hate that idiotic meme that everyone here deserves a totally neutral viewpoint which can only be found in those who don't know the situation, it's naive in the extreme. Ban PigsAndy now. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Sicne he objects to being called by the name he set himself up with, I've struck the nickname, but that all the more shows what kind of editor and person he is. He sets up an obvious, non-insulting shortening of his own username, then objects, claiming it's so insulting. He surely knew it to begin with, so he shouldn't complain, but has. so whatever. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Andy is to stay around, something's got to change, and given that two ArbCom bans don't seem to have changed anything, I've no idea what would cause the needed change. I don't like getting rid of productive editors, mind you, so if we can think of another solution, we should, but I have no good ideas. Mentorship is the closest I can come up with, but I struggle to believe Andy would accept the idea in the first place and, even if he did, heed his mentor's warnings. So basically you've got me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first thought was that maybe he was some high school kid. But he claims to be a professional writer. How about blocking him for another year and see if he improves a year from now. If not, block him again for another year. Even the most stubborn mule (or pig) has a chance of getting the hint eventually. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I should start here by declaring that I have "known" Andy for rather more years than most people here. It must be about 10 years ago that we were both usenet regulars. As such, I suppose that I have had longer than most to understand how Andy ticks! I've also had the experience of meeting him once in person (in a pub in Birmingham). I've had just about no contact with him since we both drifted away from usenet, and by the time I started editing Wikipedia in earnest, Andy was already in the throes of Arbcom troubles. So, whilst we are by no means hand-in-glove, I believe that I can understand better than most where the issues are, and I'm happy to volunteer to mentor Andy (if he'll have me). I would oppose a community ban at the present time. Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is your honest opinion on the likelyhood of him serious changing his ways? ViridaeTalk 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My honest opinion is that it is very easy to not see the wood for the trees, and to get into a bunker mentality (I've done so on usenet in the past), and to get into a self-destructive loop over it. It is bloody hard to break that loop, but it invariably involves somebody that isn't part of "the opposition" saying something. I can't guarantee to work miracles, but if I'm prepared to put the effort in, I hope the community will support me by backing my efforts to get Andy back where he should be, adding content. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would oppose a community ban on the basis that he is a good faith user, and the broad majority of his editing improves the encyclopaedia. This was not the case at the time of his last ArbCom one-year ban, but is now. The latest matter relates to a three-year-old dispute with a single user, and very little seems to be being done in furtherance of it outside the user's own userspace. I think someone like Mayalld may be able to help here. Orderinchaos 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose a ban at this time. It seems to me that anyone in his position would look at this discussion and be nervous enough to cease the problematic editing. Granted, he might be exceptionally stubborn, but I'd rather treat this as a warning. He's a productive, good faith editor, and coming back to us after two year-long bans demonstrates remarkable dedication. I don't think what we've seen so far is severe enough to outweigh all that. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What it demonstrates is stubbornness to an obsessive degree. But if it's just one particular user he has a problem with, maybe a compromise could be worked out to somehow keep them away from each other - to not edit the same articles, for example. That's called a "topic ban", and he could edit other topics freely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am trying to engage with Andy (see his User talk:Pigsonthewing on the matter) - he has shown a willingness to listen to me in the past (nb - just changed my username from Neil!). I would like to try and see if I can bring about a change in his unfortunate proclivity for picking at old, old feuds through discussion, as he is an excellent contributor for the most part (including being the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats). I would prefer not to see any community block enacted until I have had a chance to try and bring about an amicable solution. Thanks. fish&karate 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, please do not refer to him as "Pigs". He - understandably - doesn't like it, and some of you may not be aware this was actually a point of contention in his original Arbcom case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Use of the epithet "Pigs".) fish&karate 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, slightly off-topic, but... why does he keep using the name "Pigsonthewing" if he always just signs as "Andy Mabbett" and hates the fact that people abbreviate his username to "Pigs"? Surely a name change would fix that problem and alleviate the frequent confusion about his name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps it would, and I will suggest that to Andy, but we cannot force a user to change their name if it meets our current guidelines. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If he continues to use that name, he has little room for complaint if someone abbreviates it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      No, but now you at least, Baseball Bugs, are clearly aware it's upsetting; if you use it again, I'll consider it deliberate baiting. fish&karate 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If you look closely, you'll see that I haven't called him anything yet. If I were to call him anything, it would probably be "Mabbett", since I don't know him well enough to call him by his first name. And here's a guy who's had a lengthy history of being belligerent, with incredibly long blocks, and you're worried about upsetting him? Why? Are you afraid he's going to get madder? Why are you still messing with this character? Ban him and be done with it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Besides, its only polite... SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban – there is User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing_2 on his talk page which encapsulates his views, and repeats the references to Mig from 2005; and there are his continuing reactions today on his talk page remorselessly repeating the same refrain. The guy is incorrigible. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Neil Fish and karate (err...interesting name choice :) should be allowed to try and bring about a change. Making Fish and karate his mentor for a few months might also work. Should either measure fail, then I think the community ban should be enacted (but not without trying either of those measures first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Progress

    See User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Another_opinion - I believe progress is being made, and Andy is about to agree not to restore the material again. Again, I don't want to see the editor who made things like this possible being indef-blocked over a silly grudge. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? Please explain to me what Andy's role was in what I believe is a project by User:Para. --Dschwen 00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm basing this on what is at WP:UF. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Closed discussion aside, I cannot leave this utter misconception about Andy's work uncommented. WP:UF has nothing to do with the Google Maps thing that you linked to. Andy did some good work, but he is by no means the super-prolific über-user you seem to think him to be. --Dschwen 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fish&Karate (re:Neil) is working on a solution, that if Andy refrains from adding the information again, unless Leonig returns and harasses HIM first, he will be unblocked. I have given Neil my full support on this. Basically, as was stated above.. if he adds it or anything similar to it again, he will be re-blocked. (bah! He beat me to it ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HaHA! :) fish&karate 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I see no reason to keep the community ban proposal open - seems to be a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    well, don't do it yet. POTW's response is less promising then I would like. [[22]] SirFozzie (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't plan on doing it, for this one anyway. :) But I do think that given he's blocked, and Neil is trying to discuss it with him, it's a bit of a moot point - expecting the desired outcome to result from those discussions within a few hours is like a complete miracle for a user who was banned for 2 years. It probably needs a few days. If there is no change in 2 weeks (maximum), then I think reopening the community ban discussion would be more productive. My thoughts anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As he's already indefinitely blocked, unless an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is de facto community blocked. At the moment the only administrator even considerig unblocking him seems to be me, and his response (as Fozzie mentions) wasn't promising. Andy's forthcoming answer to the short question I just posted on his talk page may decide whether I feel up to continuing to engage with him. fish&karate 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been staying out of this for reasons similar to those expressed by Locke Cole above... better to let people who haven't been as contentiously involved in the past take the lead here. Fish and karate is doing a very good job in that regard.
    Andy's like alot of old Usenet regulars I've known... for him this is a matter of principles. Ordering and/or blocking him will never ever get him to do things your way. It'd be 'wrong' to sacrifice principle and 'bow to authority' that way. You need to convince him of the benefits of your position. If you don't have the patience for that... let someone else do it. Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works. So we can have patience with the occasional non-conformist... or stomp them into paste. In my experience stomping is the usual solution, but patience generally yields the better results. --CBD 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works." Good quote to use about people refusing to obey his order not to shorten his chosen user ID. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy is someone that has been "problematic" for a long time - see, for example, User_talk:CBDunkerson/Archive4#Andy_Mabbet - and I am still trying. Being an old Usenet regular does not mean my patience is infinite, nor is the community's (obviously). What he wants (to be allowed to continue to rake up a three-year old feud) is not going to happen, and if he won't back down on that, he will remain unable to edit outside his talk page. fish&karate 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy is now attempting to endrun around building a compromise with fish&karate with an unblock request. He's now claiming that since he's offered a "compromise" (which is nothing of the sort), that he should be unblocked. Discouraging... SirFozzie (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have to say that I'm losing confidence too. To be frank, I doubt this is something that can change overnight and will need long term mentoring (in terms of weeks/months rather than hours). If no one is willing to mentor him, I think the next few days might turn out in a way that won't be too pleasant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's amusing to see a user, coming off a year-long block, dictating terms under which wikipedia will allowed to be graced by his presence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mm, having looked things over myself, I have a couple thoughts, however non-warm and cuddly they be. First off, someone who's had two year-long Arbcom bans has to know he's going to be under the microscope forever, and really has to keep his nose clean forever. Someone who loses no time to fly off the handle yet again has demonstrated that he has learned nothing and that no sanction possible is likely get his attention. Secondly, I don't give a rat's patootie what kind of editing or article-building skills he might have. Wikipedia doesn't need him. Wikipedia doesn't need anybody. The project does not stand and fall on his putative skills, and what benefit is there to coddle pervasive and unrepentent offenders except to demonstrate that we coddle pervasive and unrepentant offenders? Seriously, think about it: what is the upside to removing the block?  RGTraynor  22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What you might not realise...

    Is that Andy Mabbett has been trolling Usenet for ages. He's not an old usenet regular, he's an old usenet troll with the stubbornness levels of a moody ox. Google Andy+Mabbett+troll, or just "Andy Mabbett". It's usually microformats and technological stuff, occasionally birdwatching. His negative reputation is clearly quite something. We're not going to change this guy, we really aren't...Moreschi (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with you. But if this effort fails, and convinces those who are not supporting the ban then it will be eaiser next time it gets brought up. ViridaeTalk 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Viridae. I tend to be a sucker for giving people too many chances, but Pigsonthewing has a good chain of contributions, broken as it is by ArbCom bans. I think another one wouldn't go astray.
    Some of the discussion on this thread is regrettable and people should remember that even though Pigsonthewing may have broken WP:NPA and WP:CIV, that doesn't give others carte blanche to do the same. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm in this train of thought, don't forget that a user is only considered community banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Another one" in my above message means "another chance", in case it wasn't obvious. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's willing to drop the three year old feud, completely and totally? yes, another chance. Till then? No. SirFozzie (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Undent) Sorry, but the troll accusation isn't something that I can leave unchallenged. Trolls set out with the sole purpose of damaging things, and no matter what you think of Andy's conduct, I don't believe that you can fairly characterise him in this way. Andy is tenacious, and single minded. He can probably be fairly accused of not always seeing the bigger picture, in which you sometimes have to accept less than you want out of a situation, for the greater good. However, I am entirely satisfied that Andy is not here with any ulterior motive of damaging Wikipedia.

    Andy is talking to people, and is currently blocked, so there is no emergency that requires a rushed decision. Mayalld (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Guido_den_Broeder

    This user has been blocked 5 times for edit warring and general uncivil behaviour, and another few times for legal threats, and he is causing more problems.

    Yesterday he posted a false and malicious complaint against me, accusing me of adding "false information" and hurting patients, neither of which I did.

    If you have a look at his edits you'll see that I actually just neglected to put in some references for some changes I made to the psychosomatic article (as I thought they weren't needed). When asked by a few people to add them I did so, but Guido still refuses to allow my changes. At the request of mangojuice I have refrained from removing guido's pov tag in the article, but as Guido refuses to discuss things reasonably there is nothing that I can do. Also see here.

    He has also just made a complaint against WLU for something that is just a content dispute and shouldn't be listed here. WLU hasn't done anything wrong.

    It is impossible to work with Guido, as he [refuses to talk reasonably with other editors, instead pushing his own pov, making spurious complaints when he doesn't get his way, insulting editors, etc. His past history suggests that he isn't going to change. It would be better for everyone if he was permanently banned. He can then work on his wikisage project and everyone will be happy. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guido recently tagged this as a minor edit when it clearly isn't. I asked him on the talk page, but he didn't respond. It may have been an oversight rather than deception, but if so why didn't he apologise? --Sciencewatcher (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea what y'all are fighting over, but as an aside, there is a setting in preferences that checks the "minor" box as the default. Sometimes people forget to uncheck it. -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And here is another example of his uncivil behaviour, refusing to discuss what he had changed and instead just telling me I didn't understand diff. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be worth discussing - Guido is a problematic user who doesn't really understand or like the consensus-building process. I don't know if there's a topic ban warranted, but he keeps skating on thinner and thinner ice in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a content dispute to me. I'm not 100% sure that Guido is the best person to be editing some of these medical articles, but I'm uneasy that some people seem to have Guido marked out as "problematic". Once you get a reputation like that, whether justified or not, it is very hard to get rid of it. There are problems, I admit, but no more than we see with others. My experience of Guido on chess articles is that he can edit calmly and productively, and the options should be either to encourage him to edit that way on all articles, or to explore a temporary topic ban. But if others are editing poorly on the other side of this dispute, then they should face temporary topic bans as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sciencewatcher, would you consider taking a closer look at Guido's block log? The first edit warring block was back in December 2007. The next four block log entries culminate in a "not edit warring" verdict. Then we have two edit warring blocks. The "legal threats" blocks are complicated and should be considered separately from the edit warring blocks (not everyone agreed with the second "legal threats" block). Personally, when someone points to someone's block log as evidence of anything, I always look at the log entries in detail, and would suggest taking what is said there with a pinch of salt - it is not always an adequate summary of what happened in each incident. As I've said above, the current incident looks like a content dispute. It would be better to concentrate on resolving that by dispute resolution, instead of requesting someone on the other side of a content dispute from you be banned. Carcharoth (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had another look at his block log. As far as I can see he has indeed been blocked 5 times for edit warring and being disruptive. He was only unblocked once (by mangojuice) with a comment of "not edit warring", but apparently the other admins thought he was edit warring. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you need to learn how to interpret block logs. Seriously, no offence intended, but the logs are quite clear:
    • 16:45, 16 January 2008 - blocked by Tariqabjotu for 40 hours - Edit warring: on Chronic fatigue syndrome
    • 16:46, 16 January 2008 - unblocked by Tariqabjotu - lengthening...
    • 16:46, 16 January 2008 - blocked by Tariqabjotu for 48 hours - Edit warring: on Chronic fatigue syndrome
    • 18:52, 16 January 2008 - unblocked by Mangojuice - not edit warring
    On the surface at least (no way to be certain without digging up the original discussions and block notices and editing history), that looks like a rather pointless unblock to lengthen a block by 8 hours to, presumably the "full tariff" of 48 hours, followed by an unblock around 2 hours later with what looks like a complete exoneration. The fact that you characterise the unblock and reblock as one of the "5 blocks" you mention, and didn't even point out that there appears to be an exonerating unblock, demonstrates that you are not taking the block log entries into account, and are waving around a number of blocks (5) as if that means something. If you are going to point to a user's past history as justification for a block, the least you can do is actually do the work to find the original incident that led to the blocks and unblocks on 16 January 2008, and provide diffs. Unless you do that, you are just, as LessHeard vanU has said, block shopping. I'm not normally as blunt as this, but that really is what it looks like to me. Both you and Guido need to work together on this article you both want to edit, not fight each other. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I looked more carefully and it seems there were 4 separate blocks for edit warring and related stuff - I didn't realise one was just an extension: 14 Dec 2007, 16 Jan 2008, 1 May 2008, 29 May 2008. The number of blocks certainly does mean something...if a user has been causing trouble this many times in the past, it is unlikely they will change. Sometimes it's better just to do a permanent ban. And I'm not sure why you say I didn't mention about his unblocking, as it is in my last comment (above). --Sciencewatcher (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I missed your comment as well. I would still say three not four, as it is rare for an uncontested unblock after 2 hours, of a 48 hour block, to mean that the original block was justified. I would also discount the first block, as many people only learn how things work around here when they are blocked for the first time. I don't think two block after the first one, in nearly a year, indicates an unrepentant edit warrior. In response to your "Sometimes it's better just to do a permanent ban." I would say: sometimes it's better just to try and work with people and try and understand what they are saying. Try phrasing things a different way if you feel your point is not getting across, and ask those you disagree with to do the same. Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this being brought here, when the original discussion would have been the the appropriate venue? I note both that the previous discussion has not been archived, and that you are not bringing any new focus of complaint (let alone new edits to complain of). I simply do not see why you need another venue to pursue this matter. I am also surprised that Guido den Broeder has not yet responded... unless you have neglected to advise them of this conversation. I am not saying that there is no basis of complaint - but I am saying that I don't really care to get involved in trying to resolve it when one or other of the two of you go forum (or, as apparently in this case, block) shopping. I feel that, in this instance, it is you that is stretching the good faith of the community in widening your campaign against the other party. Please stop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous complaints were about me and WLU. This complaint is against Guido. It's up to you and the other admins to judge who is at fault. Have a look at Guido's talk page and you'll see I notified him about this complaint, and he has said there that he will not respond to it. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I, personally, don't do the fault thing; I attempt the "limit the disruption" thing. I repeat, there is no need for a separate thread - open a subsection in the existing discussion (since the respondents there are already familiar with the situation). I would also apologise for inferring that you had not advised GdB. That's my lot in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you or someone else wants to merge the 3 topics, feel free. I'm not sure what's best. I agree it's best to limit the disruption, but sometimes that is not possible. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is getting worse. Have a look here and here. It is not a content dispute. The problem is simply that Guido will not work with other editors. I have been very patient and reasonable, and made many attempts to discuss disputed content with him, but instead of discussing anything he simply resorts to snide comments, false accusations and 3RR skirting (his current tactic is to keep putting in pov tags rather than reverting, but it amounts to the same thing). Any further edits from me are simply going to provoke an edit war with Guido, so I'm just going to stop all editing of these articles until this situation is resolved. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Those tags are not supposed to be removed until things are resolved, and they are supposed to be placed on in lieu of edit warring. Guido is using them correctly. I've seen you removing them inappropriately. But I agree -- in the end this is not a content dispute, it's a personal dispute between the two of you. The best way to get that resolved is for both of you to calm down, remind yourselves that both of you are only trying to help and merely have different viewpoints, and see what you can't find in terms of common ground. Mangojuicetalk 05:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's exactly what I've been trying to do. If I have removed any inappropriately I apologise, I didn't realise I had. I removed one on the psychosomatic page after I added the references that were requested, and I removed another here as it was clearly inappropriate (see the talk entry). Anyway, Guido appears to be making more of an attempt to collaborate so I will try to work with him and see how it goes. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for community ban

    This user, after asserting a removal of an autoblock (apparently blocked for POV pushing), disappears for a over a year, then returns for more of the same.

    The posting to User talk:Raul654 (diff), really would seem to make it clear that this user does not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart.

    I am looking for a community ban rather than just a block (indefinite or otherwise) due to the long time "missing", combined with the concern about the autoblock. I think that this user may have been (and be) using IPs and possibly other socks to continue more of the same.

    As an aside, when looking over their contributions, I noted that their other edit seems odd based on the reference provided (and because it replaced other text), and have reverted. I did this both because I disagree with how the article is being construed in the article, but also because (in this case, anyway), I won't be the one to block the individual. (I wish to be "just-another-editor" in this.)

    Anyway, I welcome others' thoughts/opinion on all of this (including if you think I'm "way off base" on this). - jc37 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A years absence shows that time isn't going to fix this. That doesn't exactly leave us with many choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. - jc37 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MickMacNee and persistent incivility

    I encountered this editor when the sordid little video game Muslim Massacre was nominated for deletion. For full disclosure, I was for speedy keep while MickMacNee was for deletion, and the discussion ended in a classy non-admin snowball keep. Much of the AfD consists of responses by and to MickMacNee, and to my eyes he comes across as hostile, confrontational and belligerent.

    In the AfD, Mick calls for the deletion of the article on the basis of his blunt, unwavering interpretation of some policies, mainly WP:NOTNEWS. His arguments do not gather support. Fine so far, but it's not all he does. Let's start with the borderline or open incivilities...

    • "And lastly to humour the other stuff argument..."
    • "That is a completely simplistic and quite naive interpretation of the principle of the no self promotion policy."
    • "The game is crap,"
    • "its [the game is] as lame as they come,"
    • "I suggest if the people voting based on notability here realy know what they are arguing for..."
    • "What nonsense. ... You frankly do not know what an encyclopoedia is, that is the be all and end all of the issue. I am sad that you don't even understand this basic concept, and even more sad that you honestly seem to need a specific policy regarding video games to be written for you before you will even begin to understand it. But if you think you are right, which you sadly do... Somehow, I doubt you will, because I think you and I know, in the grand scheme of things, you are defending a steaming pile of shite of an article that does not belong here."
    • "There is an essay here somewhere that says if a hundred people talk absolute shite and one doesn't, then per policy, it's still shite. Well, that's what is happening here, although its only about 5 users who are peddling the shite. I can't stop you all if you think wikipedia is Google news, but I will try."
    • "amateur pile of crap ... Please, just try to add this as a paragraph in video game controversy, be a man about it, put your "notability" where your mouth is, rather than coming up with the same tiresome other stuff exists arguments, which don't apply as you haven't even been smart enough to compare like for like."
    • "If you think that co-operation is accepting that this as a worthy article based on numerous flawed and uneducated arguments then by all means consider me highly uncooperative. I will not ever accept that an empty infobox is a valid addition to a 2 paragraph stub. Such nonsense should be stamped out immediately."
    • "Do you honestly think that..."

    MickMacNee links other editors to WP:NOTE, WP:V and such like and tells them to educate themselves. He accuses the article creator of spamming, and when I tell him to lay off, he claims the right to accuse people of spamming to uphold policy and adds an inexicable "I don't need clearance from you as to whether to make that point or not in an Afd." (I reply; That's the extent of our interaction.) RGTraynor reminds him of civility and asks him to "dial the venom down a good bit." RGTraynor also notes that "there is no need to link believing this subject meets WP:V/WP:N with a desire to shut Wikinews down" and asks him to calm down because "It isn't merely that the consensus is running heavily to keep, and it isn't that we don't understand: we just don't agree with you". (Mick responds to the latter with the abovementioned quote about the majority "talking absolute shite.")

    Then Mick accuses User:Geni of having a hidden agenda to bring down WP:N...

    • "So let's just ignore it and let little bits of crap exist, because you can't get consensus for a proper list to exist. I think this fits your tactic perfectly. Junk additions, little by little, chipping away at the notability guideline until it means nothing at all, bar "Google news rules"" (unsigned)

    These are from a single AfD and as far as I can tell happen without provocation - without the people arguing with MickMacNee insulting him or treating him uncivilly. User:A_Link_to_the_Past and Mick trade words for a long time, in the AfD and on their talk pages, and Link ends up stepping over the line, so I have not included the statements Mick has made after that time. (02:11 September 13th as both MickMacNee and Link timestamp their messages, 05:11 September 13th server time.)

    A look at Mick's contributions list reveals that he does plenty of valid edits, and can act civilly with people he agrees with, but...

    Mick has been blocked twelve times since he registered in October 2007, stated reasons being edit warring, disruption, harassment, incivility and personal attacks. The stated reason for the ninth block is that he "doesn't seem to get that his actions are detrimental to a collaborative project." I agree. Mick's behaviour in the AfD is a problem. It is not just being blunt, it has very little to do with cooperation, common politeness, and how people are supposed to act in a collaborative project if they want it to get anywhere. His diff'd comments elsewhere and his block log suggests a persistent tendency. Please contribute your more experienced and/or more numerous opinions on what we should do about this. --Kizor 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have much to add to Kizor's comprehensive evidence, but there's part of a response to me he did leave off: "Hey, who ever said consensus was right?" Well, WP:CON does, actually. Twelve blocks in less than a year suggests that Mick either doesn't get or doesn't care how Wikipedia works, though, and I'm pessimistic that even a severe block would get his attention.  RGTraynor  12:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware that I stepped over the line, and I should have taken my own advice and stepped back and took a deep breath. But as for that statement, while it is definitely stepping over the line, he makes many more statements like that about peoples' motives (accuses Geni of trying to "take down WP:N, me of not knowing any better because I only edit video game articles). I don't want to say that it's entirely my fault that I resorted to making that accusation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the exact purpose is of Kizor's very elaborate post about MickMacNee. Is it to try to get Mick a civility block..? RGTraynor—him/herself part of the angry AfD dialogue referred to—suggests that "even a severe block" would probably fail to get [Mick's] attention--are you seriously proposing an indefinite ban for the edits quoted, RGT? That's absurd. Rhetoric does tend to run rather high on WP:AfD altogether, and the whole dialogue on this particular AfD is pretty "hostile, confrontational and belligerent". It doesn't look to me like Mick's comments "happen without provocation." Few of the phrases Kizor quotes from Mick are even a little uncivil, and those that are should be seen in context, not in fragments. Note also that A Link to the Past is a lot more confrontational than anybody else on the page. Furthermore, I'm a little surprised to see yet another editor, MuZemike, taking the very same AfD to Wikipedia:Third opinion, while simultaneously threatening MickMacNee with an RFC "if this does not work" (work..?). That's a lot of forums for one AfD. I strongly suggest "no action" here. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Actually, I "threatened" both Mick and LttP. I admit my wording was a tad harsh, but I didn't intend to try to come off as threatening. (In the future, I will exercise more caution in not throwing the "RFC" acronym around when I tell users that I am sending situations to WP:3O.) I was trying to achieve closure on the matter. MuZemike (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With that said, I am not sure why this discussion is here and not at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, as there are multiple users who tried and failed to resolve this, and plenty of diff evidence is present; my guess is that it's the number of blocks this user has received. In regards with this discussion, I agree with Bishonen and recommend no action be taken. MuZemike (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say an indefinite block would be appropriate either, mostly because if it was, I wouldn't have even been here in the first place a while back when I was being blocked much more often (though my block log is unfortunately overstuffed from a bad situation I had with an admin - though I was in the right in that part, I could have had better conduct in that situation). I do think that there should be something to try that would maybe make him act more appropriate, but the problem with that is I can't imagine a solution that would address the problem fully. I can understand, since even though my block log allows for me to be blocked more easily for incivility or personal attacks, I find it hard to control myself on Wikipedia. I've made great stride, but I lose my cool sometimes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having actually looked at the block logs, I do now believe that administrative action should be taken against this user (User:MickMacNee) in the form of a block for a minimum of one month. This user meets the definition of an Internet troll and needs to be dealt with as such per policy. MuZemike (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Actually? I guess I was assuming everybody arguing here had done the minimal job of looking at the block log. Unfortunately that log doesn't say much. You need a lot more and better evidence before you call somebody an "Internet troll", MuZemike. Please don't post personal attacks on this board. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm completely with you here pointing at block logs without evidence shows absolutely nothing. For all anyone knows the majority of his blocks may be down to meat puppeting, or other underhand maneuvers by unscrupulous admin who have seeked him out. And to go through all that information would be time consuming anyway. I find this block log pointing for a convenient authority ridiculous and I'm wondering because he has brought it up, has he got a history with Mickmacnee? Honestly if that is the best he can do, hence point to an authority, then this to me suggests he is frustrated and may know he has a weak case.--77.97.69.24 (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. We shouldn't be allowed to be dragged down to that same level. Apologies for the uncivil comment. I should know better. MuZemike (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A troll by definition is bad faith. Mick is definitely not bad faith, and not a troll, just extraordinarily hostile and abusive in making the points and arguments he does. I've brushed with him once. Orderinchaos 12:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it depends whether people care or not that egregious, repeat offenders are greenlighted to continue their offenses. Looking back over his talk page at his most recent block, I was regretfully unsurprised to see Mick's immediate response to the blocking admin who cited him for gross and repeated obscenity to another editor: "F*** him and f*** you." I'd be curious as to what Bishonen does propose ought to be done about this, barring "Put up with it and pretend he isn't there."  RGTraynor  05:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to RGTraynor: (Ah, yes, I must be doing this because I don't care, that's nice.) You seem to be requesting advice, or measures, for two separate problems here: Mick's argumentativeness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide, and Mick's many blocks. (I was going to write "many civility blocks", as that was my impression from your posts, but they're actually mainly edit warring blocks.)
    The first isn't IMO a real problem, as I explain above. If you want "closure" (per MuZemike) on it, in the sense of getting Mick to stop arguing, I have a simple suggestion: stop arguing with him. The AfD has now been closed.
    The second may be a real problem, or not; I can't tell; you haven't given any diffs or other background for it, and Kizor's diffs lack context. (The block log is very little help here; it doesn't supply diffs, because there isn't room for them—it refers, at best, to "user's talk page"; and finding an unblock discussion back in March in the user talk history is ... well, just please don't ask us to do it.) Let me emphasize that I have no particular reason to think Mick is right and you're wrong; but I have no particular reason to think anything, when you give me so little to work with. No diff for the "gross and repeated obscenity"; no context for the "fuck him"... "fuck you"; nothing on the interchange between Mick and the admin that led up to it. I'm sorry if I sound a little terse here, but I did specifically mention above that no-context quote fragments are useless for evaluation. I realize a proper complaint with diffs is a lot of work, but unfortunately that's what we need. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    P.S. "Obscenity"—yes, including "fuck you"—yes, even without the asterisks—is culturally conditioned; Wikipedia is a world-wide project; not everybody here abides by middle-class US cultural norms. Many admins have gotten away with equally, or more, salty language than Mick.
    Mm, glad to hear that's it's okay to tell other editors to fuck off ... with that being the boundary, that should ease up my self-censorship some. That being said, my concern is this fellow's repeated and ongoing incivilities, not his actions in a particular now-closed AfD nor closure for the same - a casual glance should have revealed that I wasn't the one getting into it with him, nor would his actions in that AfD, taken in isolation, strike many as egregious.  RGTraynor  15:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with RGTraynor's assessment here. It's an ongoing problem with this user's behaviour, not a single flare-up under provocation or whatever is being argued. Incivility is incivility. Orderinchaos 12:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits from User:Goethean

    I would like to report the disruptive, tendentious edits, and uncivic, personal attacks of User:Goethean. I have recently noticed this (past 1 month or so) when editing the articles : Ramakrishna, The Gospel of Ramakrishna, Kali's Child. Before mentioning my views, I would like to cite other editors and warnings on the talk page of Goethean.

    Warnings on his talk page

    His edit warring, personal attacks, frustrating conduct and article squatting is nothing new, but defending him is taking wikipedia to a whole new level of hypocrisy.

    Sir, Your characterization of my edit was less than civil in the edit summary and bordered on an attack. If you want to revert, then let us talk on the talk page. Very cordially,--Die4Dixie

    Now I will briefly describe my own observations:

    Ramakrishna aticle

    Goethean's POV can be understood from his own edit, as follows :

    Two editors have decided that the scholarship of the last 40 years should be rejected in favor of one hundred year-old sources that the Ramakrishna religious organization finds more amenable.

    The point I am trying to put forth is that there is difference between improving an article and preventing it from becoming amenable to the Ramakrishna Religious organization. Improving the article may make it amenable or unamenable to someone. But here the POV is to make it unamenable against the guidelines of wikipedia... no matter if there are other scholarly works. I would like to mention that I am in no way affiliated to the Ramakrishna Religious organization, but this anti-religious organization POV prevails in majority of goethean's edits! Note: Above its 40 years.

    To push this POV, it is interesting to note that guidelines of wikipedia have been breached. For ex: There is no guideline in WP:BIO which tells that the century old books are unreliable. But Goethean does exactly this here, also pls note the edit summary - "+{{totally-disputed}}. you have essentially destroyed the section by filling it with religious propaganda from the Mission. Sources from 1898 and 1929 are not reliable sources in the year 2008.". It is interesting to note that the books from 1898 and 1929 are from Max Muller a renowned indologist and Romain Rolland (who holds a nobel prize), who are no way associated with Ramakrishna mission and are notable third parties! but just because adding these books gives a +ve dimension, their inclusion was attacked as religious propoganda. This is clearly tendentious. A totally disputed tag was added just because the above scholarly works were referenced in the article! This is clearly disruptive. And moreover my additions were termed as - "What a mess. The new additions by Nvineeth are disasterous. It is comical that he thinks that..."[23]

    Further its very important to note that when at a later point of time, other editors started contributing to the article, other books by Christopher Isherwood (1965) was being cited., And moreover there are majority of references from the journals, books from the recent time period ( there is no wikipedia guideline related to this though). Despite this, Goethean adds a totally disputed tag again with with edit summary - This tag stays on until you start using Ramakrishna scholarship from the past 30 years. Its interesting to note that what was 40 years above now has become 30 years, because the Christopher Isherwood (1965) falls in the range of 40 years! And moreover, a quick glance at the Ramakrishna#Notes makes the above claim untenable. Well this is not a place to discuss the reliability of source, so I will cut short here and talk further in the corresponding article.

    I would also like mention the crude personal attacks made on the editors and the Ramakrishna Religious organization :

    • Not an evil empire, just a bunch of liars. - [24]
    • Ah, the work of those industrious swamis again, with their "nobility of character, dedication to truth and honesty, and other fine character traits"[25]

    The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna article

    The personal attacks , POV pushing continues here,

    • A well referenced article was termed as Deceptive editing.
    • Here it is interesting to note that the same references which were used by Goethean before were termed as unreliable by Goethean himself, because it supported the relevant article in a positive manner. For example in this edit on 14:57, 3 May 2008, goethean added a reference from Neeval 1976, but when the same reference was used in the The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna article, its reliability was questioned because it came from 1976 - "Quotations from 1976, and two from 1943? You really expect editors to accept this as a neutral summary of the relevant scholarship pertaining to the subject? These tactics won't get far in any Wikipedia article."[26]. Why this hypocrisy?
    • Personal attack alleging my religious POV.
    • Another personal attack, and an edit which is not present in any of the wikipedia guidelines, and calling "pure mindless bhakti, you should be very suspicious of anything coming from the Ramakrishna Mission. "[27]
      • If you read the entire sentence from which Nvineeth very characteristically and misleadingly picked out a few words, you will see that it is not a personal attack at all: "If you are interested in the historical record rather than pure mindless bhakti, you should be very suspicious of anything coming from the Ramakrishna Mission." — goethean ॐ 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kali's Child

    The same story continues here, additions were termed as religious prosyletizing. How can adding academic content be termed like this? I honestly agree, there were POV in my edits, but this is no civic to attack a editor.

    I have just touched upon just three articles, probably other editors from other articles can throw more light on this. Hope to see a fair investigation from admins. Pls indicate my mistakes if any. I am sure that wikipedia has very good admins, without bias towards religion, country etc., who can investigate this.

    Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    the content in question in Kali's Child was not neutral & did not in my opinion represent appropriate weight. A NPOV tag on that article in its present form seems highly appropriate, though the edit summary was unduly provocative. I haven't yet examined the other articles. DGG (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I have tried to correct my mistakes and those mistakes which were introduced later. Kindly see my comments, and I have tried to make corrections according to the NPOV guidelines of wikipedia. I request another editors to review the POV status now. -- vineeth (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All additions to that article include Reliably Sourced references that discuss the book's scholarship (positive and negative). At the time, the book was controversial, and drew an extraordinary amount of well-aimed criticism by scholars (religious, psychological, and language). It's been almost 3 weeks since Goethean put the NPOV tag on the article. The specific problems he mentioned on the talk page were addressed long ago. Most of his 'discussion' consists of inflammatory edit summaries while adding tags, with no attempt to discuss on the talk page. This is also his recent pattern on the other articles. ~ priyanath talk 20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The specific problems he mentioned on the talk page were addressed long ago."
    Well, even I was under same impression, and was confused with POV words like claim, indicate, argue, allege, say etc., :) , but today when I read the NPOV tutorials - Words to avoid , Mind your nuances, lot of things got cleared. -- vineeth (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I just now saw this extensive critique of my editing history by User:Nvineeth. I hope that it prompts more experienced users to examine the group of pages that Nvineeth is editing. He has been editing in a highly POV fashion which dismisses the past 30 years of scholarship on south Asian studies in favor of thirty-year old sources which are favored by the Ramakrishna religious organization This organization has very blatantly shown that it has no commitment to honesty or to an accurate historical record. I trust that anyone who is familiar with the contributions of User:Lovemonkey or User:Die4Dixie will no be impressed by the attacks on my usertalk page which Nvineeth brings up here. Anyone who is familiar with Indian history, please look at the changes that Nvineeth and Priyanath have made to the Ramakrishna articles. They are systematically removing the scholarly sources and substituting sources more friendly to a purely religious organization. In doing so, they are impoverishing and in fact falsifying the article. All of Nveenth's edits should be reverted and the article should be re-written with NPOV in mind. — goethean ॐ 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Goethean, please stop making personal attacks against another editor[28] - an editor who has significantly improved the Ramakrishna related articles, using a very wide range of Reliable and academic Sources. The Ramakrishna article currently gives much more weight to those sources considered mainstream, but still includes the recent scholarship attempts to psychoanalyse Ramakrishna, which you added to the article. Look to the Britannica article on Ramkrishna for a reality check of how a mainstream, non-POV encyclopedia treats his biography, and how much weight it gives to the 'scholarship' of the last 30 years (hint: none). A look at the Ramakrishna footnotes shows arguably a strong over-reliance on some of the recent, and questionable, scholarship, if anything.~ priyanath talk 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Goethean, I can straight away provide proofs to make your arguments above untenable:
    • [29] - I have added things which are clearly not amenable to the Ramakrishna Religious Organization, but provides valuable insights in the translation debate.
    • [30] - Includes the recent scholarship, in fact a psychoanalysis.
    • [31] - A recent journal of 2003.
    • [32] - Another recent academic scholarly journal study of 2004, by Hawley.
    • [33] - Removed highly POV, unencyclopedic content. and its very easy to know who added this. The presense of "My Ellipses" in an wikipedia article, indicates its quality and sense of ownership one has towards the article. Remember we dont own articles.
    • [34] - I have added sil here, who is anti-ramakrishna mission
    • [35] - I have added refs to Sil, Kali's child.
    • [36] another recent scholarship of 1995 related to psychoanalysis.
    • [37] - I have moved the Sil's view to the corresponding section.,
    • [38] - When I was told that my ref was not reliable, I removed it, without further disputes.
    • [39], check this addition, and read it carefully, one of the refs say, "His speech at times was abominably filthy.....", and any person doing religious propaganda would avoid this. In this edit I ensured that the major POVs are added, both for and against ramakrishna. How can this be a religious propoganda??
    • [40] , I have removed the advertisement flowery language of the mission and improved its quality. Now, How do you prove that I am doing religious propaganda?
    If the above examples are not sufficient, I can give more. -- vineeth (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, [41] check this latest addition of mine, it includes a variety of recent scholarship. And one scholarship is from 2008. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What a load of horse manure. Goethean has been doing an excellent job trying to keep mainstream academic sourcing on these pages. Mark this as resolved, keep an eye on the complainant, who's obviously tendentious, and move on. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, what you're smelling is from Goethean's personal attacks, and previous history of giving undue credibility and weight to a hypotheses that has been rejected by mainstream Asian Studies scholars: Huston Smith, Gerald James Larson, and William Radice—and mainstream psychologists: Alan Roland and Somnath Bhattacharyya. Even then, Goethean's material is still included and covered in the Ramakrishna article, in the section Ramakrishna#Views_on_Ramakrishna. That's where recent scholarly analysis of Ramakrishna belongs, even if it is not accepted by the mainstream. Vineeth has not only kept that material, but referenced it and added more recent academic material. In fact, the "Views on Ramakrishna" section, which is nearly all recent scholarship, is the largest in the entire article, even larger than Ramakrishna's biography (details of Ramakrishna's life). That biography of course depends on sources older than 30 years—Ramakrishna died 122 years ago! The article as it stands is a fine balance of original bio sources and recent analysis, thanks to the efforts of Vineeth. The article is neutral and factual, and the tag should be removed. ~ priyanath talk 22:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Priyanath, please don't make me lose all respect for you. Per WP:NOR, every section of the article should be referenced to contemporary works of scholarship, not primary materials ("Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources"). Why? Because you and I (not to mention Nvineeth) are not scholars who are trained to use and analyze primary materials. And by the way, your list of Ramakrishna Mission-friendly (and RISA-unfriendly) scholars is downright comedic to anyone who knows the debate. The simple fact is that devotees of Ramakrishna don't like Ramakrishna scholarship and do everything in their power to suppress it. Stop asking Wikipedia administrators to help you. — goethean ॐ 06:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should we "move on"? There are several things still unresolved; the personal attacks should be investigated, instead of sweeping them under the carpet... isn't it? I can prove again and again that I have added more recent academic sources, scholarship than Goethean, so instead of saying "load of Horse manure", just check the proof I have given above. But this discussion is not just about the academic sources related to Ramakrishna, this is about personal attacks, disruptive editing. Even when there is ample evidence indicating the presence of recent scholarship, a untenable "totally disputed tag" is added! There is no question of moving on. -- vineeth (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Your POV changes to the article must be reverted before any progress can be made. — goethean ॐ 14:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    This noticeboard is not useful to resolve content disputes. Please pursue dispute resolution and/or by seeking help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. You can also start by requesting input from other editors via WP:3O or WP:RFC. Granted, sometimes tempers flare in these disputes, and it would be best to relax and have some tea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Jossi's comment (which I read after I posted my reply to Goethean below). ~ priyanath talk 15:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Goethean, per your comment above regarding Primary Sources - the biographical material of Ramakrishna in the article is almost entirely from secondary sources. Look at the footnotes—the vast majority are from Isherwood, Rolland, and other academics. Those that are cited to original biographical sources can, and should, be cited to the secondary sources also.
    The modern psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna is not biographical, but instead qualifies as commentary and analysis. Those things do belong in the article, and Vineeth has done a good job of collecting them in the 'Views' section. Far from being 'swept under the carpet', they have been collected in that 'Views' section, in a neutral way, with references. Note that those 'views' (including some biographical claims) are not widely accepted in the academic community - they are speculative, with many mainstream academics (Huston Smith, William Radice, and Gerald James Larson questioning their scholarship, translations, and integrity. ~ priyanath talk 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk · contribs) recent edits

    I guess it is my day to stumble across completely bizarre edits. I just spotted the above user making an edit to an article in which he cleaned up the cites but the edit was labeled just edited page (well obviously?) [42]. That in itself while strange isn't bad... however I decided to check the rest of his contribs to see if this was a habit and I should leave him a message or what. I found something truly bizarre. He's got plenty of warnings regarding deletions, userfying things, etc. He appears to be using an automated tool of some sort, but whats most bizarre are some of the other edits he's doing. Like reverting a new user in the sandbox [43], creating this truly bizarre redirect [44] and other things. I'm not sure it needs admin attention, but I see a lot of communication coming at him about some of his behaviour and nothing coming back from him through a few page search of his contribs. He's does have a tendency though to mark a lot of his edits minor with an edit summary of "edited the page" which isn't particularly helpful. Many of his edits do appear helpful, just some seem out of place or strange.--Crossmr (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've undone the edits to user sandboxes; Tohd8BohaithuGh1 cleared several user sandboxes and replaced them with Wikipedia Sandbox templates, and there was no evidence the sandboxes were inappropriate or that there had been any discussion with the users. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's continuing to make bizarre edits -- creating a new page Astrick as a redirect to Asterisk, creating Talk pages for users telling them that they are blocked or putting welcome templates on which thank them for their contributions in "Wikipedia:changing username" etc. This new business with talk pages looks worrying.Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left a note telling the user his edits are being discussed here. DGG (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    apparently this had already been done, but I sure would like to hear from the editor. DGG (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He edited the section below, yet hasn't responded here. From my skimming of his contribs, he doesn't seem to engage in 2 way conversation. As I said there is a lot of talk coming at him, but not going the other way. This edit is a little weird [45]. He's tagged the vandal from below as temporarily blocked, but he was blocked as a sock. Perhaps someone wants to put the right template there.--Crossmr (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we be making these kinds of redirects? [46] article space to wikispace? I was under the impression, no.--Crossmr (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His creation of Astrick was seemingly to link this page [47]. With the excuse he was doing it to avoid the redirect... yet he redirected Astrick to Asterisk.--Crossmr (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this user welcomed User talk:Tonytunnycliffe with the {{welcomespam}} which confused Tony. Could an admin confirm with a check of Tony's deleted contribs to make sure there are no speedied pages or other welcomespam worthy material, and let him know what if anything. I took a look through and saw nothing that would warrant a spam notice. The only way I could understand this was that Tohd was spamming with welcome messages, and not welcoming/warning users who had put up spam material. The edits and the lack of responses are confusing, but I'm just chalking this up to relatively new user. Would a second notice with a pointer to this specific section help? I'm not sure the notices got his attention here. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's copied a welcome template from User:Cocoaguy to User talk:Westhydeian - no problem, except that the template invites the user to contact Cocoaguy for help. Doug Weller (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He had a second message from DGG, I'd already left him one. he's had 2 notifications and has been to this page (See section below) I can only take that to mean that he doesn't wish to explain himself.--Crossmr (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what would be the appropriate action to take now? Doug Weller (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can easily admit that some of his edits are helpful (cite cleanup) but that doesn't give him permission to be a nuisance otherwise. If he continues to make these other troubling edits (on other uses pages and and articles) we don't have much choice.--Crossmr (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left him a notice to make sure that he sees this specific thread. He hasn't made any edits in several hours, so hopefully he'll respond here and this will be all cleared up. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd already left him a direct link to this thread. After leaving it for him, he came here and edited the section below this. The only other option would be for someone to call up the page and prop his eyelids open in front of his monitor to make 110% sure that he's seen it. I think we've more than gone out of our way to ensure he's seen it and edited since being notified of this thread.--Crossmr (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's come on to make a couple spelling redirects then disappear again...--Crossmr (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit War at Now Museum, Now You Don't & Request for review of actions

    Following a report at AN3 [48] I have blocked A Man in Black for edit warring. Because his opponent has few edits and was not previously warned I have settled on a final warning and protecting the article. In view of the long standing nature of AMIB's contribution to the project and possible clains of unequal treatment I am listing my admin action here for review. I'm happy for any admin to alter the outcome of the 3RR report without reference to me if there is a consensus that my actions were incorrect. Spartaz Humbug! 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm... is there a reason to keep AMIB blocked if the article is protected? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I realise that blocking and protecting is unorthdox. That's why I felt inviting early review was advisable. However, 3RR is a bright line that users must not cross and AMIB has an enormous block log for edit warring and should know better. If you feel that protecting the article is wrong of course, you are welcome to alter the protection level. Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article should be about one eighth the current length merged to a list, and that blocking AMiB is not especially productive. But that's just my opinion. Either way, if there is going to be blocking then BigGator5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be blocked as he appears to e the catalyst here, persistently reverting the removal of bloated "popular culture" cruft from articles about popular culture cruft, e.g. [49]. I urge other admins to look at this series of articles, I didn't find any form Series 3 that had any independent sources at all and I'm guessing the others are similar - someone seems to have mistaken us for a fan-wiki and a venue for original analysis of the programmes. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yes but the blocking policy tells us to warn new editors instead of blocking them and this user has less then 100 edits and was not warned about edit warring before this. I otherwise would have blocked them for their part in this. I see there is not universal support for the block. I'll hang on for a bit more feedback but I'm not averse to a different outcome and I can see which way the wind is blowing here. Spartaz Humbug! 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR is a bright line that requires foreknowledge (warnings). You cross it, you invite a block on yourself. And commenting on the content ramifications of BigGator5's actions is pointless: this is a conduct, not a content problem, and content disputes are dealt with through the wiki process, not who we block. --Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer we discussed the merits of my actions rather then criticising others for making good faith contributions to the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Biting and edit-warring with newbies is not a good look either and needs to be discouraged. Problem is my view is not neutral, but neither is JzG's...never mind, part of life's rich pageant. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    within administrative discretion. AMAB should know better by now. As the removal was a section on cultural references, the persistent removal was considerably pointy. Not relevant to the block, but the section that does need editing is the overlong plot description. DGG (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll get a better encyclopedia with A Man in Black editing, and BigGator5 blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fair block. The quality of the contributions doesn't matter when it comes to 3RR. Considering the block history, 24 hours is light. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This block was highly inappropriate and punitive. Above, there was a concern that the other user (BigGator55) should've also been blocked then. The blocking admin's justification was "the blocking policy tells us to warn new editors instead of blocking them and this user has less then 100 edits and was not warned about edit warring before this. I otherwise would have blocked...." If that's the stance you take, warning + protection should be sufficient. Even the most experienced administrators sometimes say/do some things in the heat of the moment and one poke is enough to make them stop - which is the entire purpose of blocking. The fact that he was blocked in November 2007 for edit-warring is ancillary; warnings can be just as persuasive on experienced contributors, as they are on newbies. If he continued despite that warning, then the block would've been appropriate.
    This does not ignore the fact that AMIB was indeed edit-warring and that this conduct is problematic, particularly for his status as an admin. If his conduct is inappropriate to warrant being desysopped, then a user conduct RFC or ArbCom request is needed. But as a whole: not blocking the newbie, protecting the page, and blocking AMIB for the stated reasons was unnecessarily punitive, and I consider that the blocking admin exercised poor judgement in taking this series of actions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. I would have reversed the block had there been more groundswell against it. I think this is shortly to be historical. I would generally agree with the view against the block except for the fact that 3RR is a bright line that experienced users should not cross - especially those with previous history. I'm interested by the stark divide between those agreeing with the block and those supporting it. Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. Yeah, 3RR is a bright line but that doesn't eliminate the fact that least restrictive measures should be used where possible. Whether it's an established user who has offended before, or otherwise, warnings need to be reasonably recent and they often have that desired effect. For example, if he continued editwarring elsewhere even a month after a warning (let alone a few days), then I'd fully endorse a block. All that aside, given the duration of the block, and the fact I agree with you in that it'd be more historical by the time you got back, I didn't see the need for asking that it be lifted - and above all, AMIB should've known better. It's just as a review for the future - where possible, least restrictive measures should be tried first, (blocks are the most restrictive measure). Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This was an appropriate block. I should have been more aware of what I was doing. I violated the 3RR, so I was blocked to prevent further reverts, and BigGator5, who was not aware of the 3RR, was warned and the page was protected to prevent further reverts from him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a side-note to this discussion, I've just been going through that series nominating all episode screenshots for deletion. I stopped somewhere in the middle of series 2, having no further energy for wading through these intellectual wastelands, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tip of the icebege...

    For the record, there is more history of this at [50] and [51] (4 reverts each), which resulted in blocking Flatbland. Clearly a new user and an SPA but is it ok to block someone like this one is in an edit war with? I am just not impressed with the strongarm tactics really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken a look at these, and I find them totally inappropriate. Regardless of the intrinsic merits of the block, and the nature of the editor, this is one of the principal things an admin is not supposed to do. I would remove that block except that I tend to have a position on this content exactly opposite to AMIB, and I am not going to behave as wrongly as he has been doing. DGG (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, me too. I ain't impartial either, so other opinions are more than welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use a good faith request for review as a device to attack AMiB. The block wasn't for 3RR vios and was upheld by 2 independent admins following block reviews. Please stick to the matter in hand. My block. Spartaz Humbug! 08:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is germane to the matter at hand as it is an extrapolation of the same behaviour for which you blocked. You thought it was blockable for one occasion, however it has occurred more than once. Now it is highlighted here. I consider the behaviour pretty poor form, however I am conceding I am not impartial. Hence this is a forum for discussion. What about this is an attack? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was he warned on these occasions? Or didn't anyone notice this until now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flatbland was a sock made specifically to edit war, and was blocked as such, which has been since upheld. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that your justification for edit-warring? Or is that your justification for not passing it on to someone else to block? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban/block - whatever.

    Resolved
     – sure looks like the same guy and no constructive edits. Anonblocked two weeks --Rodhullandemu 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please ban this tiresome twit [52] thank you. Giano (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has only vandalized once after his last block, don't block until after final warning. BTW, WP:AIV is a more appropriate place for this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't go to minor corners I only come here, as more people see things here, so I shall continue posting such things here. He is obvioulsy a waste of space - so just block him and save time. Giano (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but the kind who have a taste for swinging the banhammer are the ones who keep AIV on their watchlist - whereas this is a place for a cup of coffee and a bit of a bunfight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, buns.
    *Flings a range of pastry products.*
    Anthøny ✉ 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How many warnings does a vandal have to have?

    Resolved
     – Editor blocked indefinitely by jj137. --Kralizec! (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Umair22 (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice already in the last two weeks for vandalism, and yet here he comes again to vandalize. I reported him at WP:AIV, and was told, "but, nobody has warned him since he came back from his last block." Well, yes, do we have to keep warning people who have already been blocked for vandalism, to stop vandalizing? Corvus cornixtalk 03:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    uh-no..we don't repeatedly warn people who have been blocked. The admin who did that should really come here and explain him (or her)self as that is patently ridiculous.--Crossmr (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it's best to give a test4im warning in those cases and that is usually enough to justify a block. --Sable232 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been blocked twice already, and warned plenty of times. There is no indication further warning would stop him.--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but it beats trying to get action without a prior warning. Some admins are much more lenient on vandals than others. --Sable232 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been warned and blocked for the same behaviour. How was there no prior warning? When someone comes back from a block do we just assume they've forgotten all previous warnings and unlearned any policies they read, etc?--Crossmr (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems he's already been asked. I just asked him to comment for everyone to see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the issue was the report. "Continues to vandalize" is a different report from one saying that the same article is targeted in similar ways. Maybe I've got IP reports on the brain, but IMHO, going straight to AIV without a warning should be the exception and not the rule, so that's why I commented like I did. By the time I realized the same article was being targeted—and I'll admit that is an exception situation—he was already blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was warned several times and blocked for it. I'll repeat the question: Do we assume that he's forgotten everything that happened to him prior to his block?--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this was just a mixup on the part of the first admin to review the AIV report. As the editor has been blocked indefinitely, I am marking this as resolved. --Kralizec! (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread wasn't about getting the user blocked. it was more about addressing the troubling comment from an admin, which honestly hasn't been addressed. I can't see how there was a "mix-up" as the admin stated in his comment since his last block so he was well aware that the individual was blocked prior. So frankly I don't really believe this has been resolved, and C.Fred still hasn't explained his comment in a satisfactory manner.--Crossmr (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To which I point out this text from WP:AIV's instructions: "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." When I opened the talk page and the last thing I saw is a week-old block message for a two-day block—and visually, since the first block didn't use a uw-*block* template, that was the only block message I saw—I did not interpret that sufficient recent warnings were present. That's why I commented on the AIV page. I left the report for other admins to investigate, but I expressed my concern about it. Coupled with off-Wiki things to deal with out the house, by the time I'd finished looking into his contribution history and block log—at which point I would have at least revised my comment if not blocked the user outright—he was already blocked.
    There are a few situations—including severe racist (or other *ist) vandalism, threats (including legal), and very high edit-rate vandalism—where my initial reaction is to block first and ask questions later. Yes, blocks are preventative, but they're also stigmatizing enough that I like to make sure the block will serve its intended purpose before issuing it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously then we need to nail up recent. In 2 weeks he received 5 warnings and 2 blocks all on his talk page for a grand total of about 2 dozen contribs. That seems pretty recent and clear to me.--Crossmr (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat

    I have just been threatened in this edit; can action please be taken in this regard? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I will be taking action in that regard. Please re-read WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone supply pertinent diffs so we can see if BLP was violated or not and if rv was or wasn't warranted? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From this comment (a response to these edits), it appears that this is not an impartial admin (which would be needed in this case). This admin, who is throwing his/her weight around in a highly threatening manner, appears to have worked with the editor asking for sanction in the manner of requesting said editor to attempt to delete certain articles related to ethnic groups. This is simply not ethical. Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi User:Rlevse; there are a great many examples in the history. Some are:

    As you can see, most of the names have sources and the rest typically have the information about their heritage in their own WP articles. What we've asked for is prior use of "Discussion" or "fact" tags instead of massive blanking of text (or the entire articles themselves, which happened again and again over the past couple of days). The threat to block the restoration rather than the blanking is inexplicable, but becomes clear from the admin's bias, shown in the diffs above in his/her apparently long-standing wish to delete such ethnic information from Wikipedia. There are many such editors at WP, and have been active in attempting to remove dozens if not hundreds of articles via AFD; often unsuccessful, they resort to blanking of huge areas of text or the entire articles themselves, refusing to utilize prior "Discussion" or "fact" tags. This has proven highly problematic. If you'd like more diffs, just say the word, or simply look through User:Bulldog123's history over the past 2-3 days. Badagnani (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)I believe we are dealing with edits such as [53], [54], [55], I count over a dozen re-insertions of living people in that first and second edit, with no references to support their addtion. Looking at the contribs, I see probably 10 or so similar edits out of the last 50.
    Per WP:BLP Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
    I therefore concur fully with Jayjg in his warning. Please don't do things like this again. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressing the issue of Jayjg's involvement Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.. MBisanz talk 04:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In most cases, the information about the individual's heritage was indeed properly sourced, not contentious, and usually contained in the biography section of the individuals' own WP articles. The failure to address actual instances, or the warning admin's previous communications with the blanking editor (asking the blanking editor to attempt to delete articles on particular ethnic groups), showing the warning editor's lack of impartiality in this matter; as well as the blanking editor's blanking of entire pages, repeatedly, by the blanking editor, are highly problematic. Badagnani (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You forget that the The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. If Jayjg needed to get unsourced material out and the only way to do it quickly and thoroughly is through page/section blanking, that is entirely permissible under the BLP policy. Now your reverting to restore some sourced and some unsourced material is explicitly against the BLP policy. MBisanz talk 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be much better if you would examine the actual history before commenting here? The blanking was by User:Bulldog123, not User:Jayjg. Badagnani (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so Bulldog123 was enforcing the BLP policy by removing unsourced material, you were revert warring to keep it inserted, and Jayjg was warning you about violating the BLP poliocy. Do I have all the roles right now? MBisanz talk 04:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's it. Bulldog123 has apparently been trying to remove this unsourced or poorly sourced material for several days, and been reverted by several editors, including User:Badagnani, User:Termer, and User:Hmains. He brought the issue to this noticeboard, I noticed it, and warned the policy violating editors. I've never actually edited the articles in question. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be much better if you would examine the actual history before commenting here? Most of the individuals did have sources for their ethnic heritage, and those who did not typically had mentions of such in their own WP articles. "Enforcing" BLP by blanking entire articles (as was done repeatedly and aggressively, apparently as a substitute for AFDs which simply had not gone the way of the blanking editor), or blanking text that was in fact sourced really isn't something we promote at WP. We all want the same thing: to build the best, best-sourced encyclopedia possible. That means getting our sourcing as good as it can be. In the best case scenario, that involves working in a collaborative manner, using "Discussion" and "fact" tags rather than massive blanking of sourced text, or the deletion of entire articles, as has clearly happened over the past few days. Once you have a chance to look through the history, you will see this. Badagnani (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits we are dealing with here are the edits that got you final warned for violating the BLP policy. They show you re-inserting living persons into an ethnic group list without having a reliable source for the attribution. The BLP policy requires every attribution MUST be sourced and that we MUST get it right. {{fact}} tags are unacceptable in a BLP and the content tagged with them should be removed on sight. This is not a "best possible" scenario, but a "precisely accurate" scenario. It gravely concerns me the laid back attitude with which you are approaching these articles. MBisanz talk 04:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am a long-time and productive editor who always edits in good faith and has the highest standards of editing, and an implication to the contrary is highly problematic. This reading of BLP is incorrect; it deals with contentious claims. Ethnicity seems contentious particularly to "anti-ethnicity" editors, who surreptitiously attempt to delete ethnic-related articles or text, and who ask other editors to attempt to do so on their behalf (or to threaten editors who do not agree with this fairly extreme POV on their behalf). Badagnani (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most" and "typically" and "in their own WP articles" isn't good enough. I did, in fact, look through the "actual history before commenting here", and the edits I saw were removing that improperly sourced material, as is quite proper in WP:BLP situations, not to mention WP:V situations. And you still don't seem to be understanding WP:BLP. I'll quote it:

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

    The bold stuff is in the original policy. This isn't a matter for debate, or "Discussion" or "fact" tags or "collaborative manner" actually. If you want to restore any material to those articles, make sure it is properly sourced first. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be much better if you would examine the actual history before commenting here? Most of the information about the ethnic origin of the individuals who were blanked from the articles was indeed properly sourced, and the information that did not have external sourcing was generally mentioned in the "Biography" section of the individuals' WP articles. The information was not contentious, and contentiousness was not stated via "fact" tags nor on "Discussion," which is where editors point out improvements that they would like to propose to individual articles. What does seem clear is that User:Jayjg is not impartial in this matter, and is simply supporting User:Bulldog123 (despite the latter user's highly improper manner of editing, including the deletion of entire articles s/he does not like, which have survived AFD), for political reasons--namely, a shared interest in eliminating ethnic-related content at WP--itself a highly contentious proposal. See this comment (a response to these edits). Badagnani (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think that repeating yourself in every edit will somehow make people take you seriously? The edits are obviously contentious, or nobody would be removing them. I don't see anybody supporting your position. Corvus cornixtalk 04:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked through the history? The answer would seem to be "no," because if you had, you would have seen that many editors, from many walks of life, have been reversing User:Bulldog123's repeated and aggressive removals of sourced text (and many blankings of entire pages) over the past three days. Some diffs have been provided just above, in response to User:Rlevse's request. Please comment here after you've taken a look through that history. Badagnani (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering our own categorizing policy for ethnicity Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_gender.2C_religion.2C_race_or_ethnicity.2C_and_sexuality says The placement of people in these categories may be problematic., I find it hard to believe that you continue to assert that such additions were non-controversial, especially after having been reverted and warned. MBisanz talk 05:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Badagnani is asserting that the additions were sourced. I don't understand why he should be warned for inserting these sourced additions. Martintg (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, your above post doesn't make sense to me. Can you address the actual issues at hand? You again fail to mention the issues raised above, showing that you perhaps haven't yet looked through the history and seen exactly what was blanked. Badagnani (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also did get the waring even though I had pulled out from the articles after things turned very strange. So please explain me, why exactly is it OK for Bulldog123 to add not only purely sourced names but complete nonsense in violation with WP:BLP and that 3 X in row [56] [57] [58] without receiving any such warnings? The edits that basically called Kiino Villand Hungarian American journalist on List of Estonian Americans even though the source [59] added by Bulldog123 speaks about Estonian-American journalist Priit Vesilind. I hope you guys know what is going on exactly, I must admit I don't. In case there is a formula found: what exactly is a proper source for X-American lists, please let me know, I might consider contributing to those lists again.--Termer (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Most of the editors involved, including me, did not get any formal notices about the related threads over here.--Termer (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More inflammatory threats to a productive WP contributor

    See User_talk:Jayjg#Blocking_warning and User_talk:Termer#Formal_warning. Badagnani (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, and I warned Hmains too. I warned all three of you, at the exact same time, for the exact same thing; violating WP:BLP by inserting poorly sourced or unsourced material about living people into Wikipedia articles. Rather than continually complaining about "inflammatory threat" and "productive WP contributor", or various silly attempts at smearing the admin who is enforcing policy, why don't you instead devote your "productive" energies to actually finding reliable sources for the material you have been continually inserting into articles? Because no amount of complaining or wikilawyering here is going to get you out of complying with WP:BLP, or save you from being blocked if you insert that BLP-violating material again. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Such hyperaggressive rhetoric, directed at long-time, productive, and good-faith contributors, is not helpful to our project, especially when directed by an admin who appears to be doing this due to a political agreement with User:Bulldog123 (see this comment, a response to these edits). It is telling that no similarly aggressive warnings (or any at all, for that matter) were issued for User:Bulldog123's wiping out of several entire articles, nor for his/her blanking of much properly sourced text. Most of the blanked text was indeed properly sourced, and not contentious, as the WP articles of most of the individuals in question state their ethnic heritage. All that is requested is the use of "Discussion" prior to massive blanking, a quite reasonable request in light of our favored working process at WP. Badagnani (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for "discussion" are not "quite reasonable" in light of WP:BLP policy, which states quite clearly

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

    Also, hyperaggressive whining and wikilawyering about your WP:BLP violations is far worse for the project. If you again insert any WP:BLP violating material into these articles I'll block you, per policy. I've said my last word on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RE:Jayjg Yes, I've been busy adding mre refs to articles. And there have been more editors than "3 of us" who have found User:Bulldog123's edits reckless and think like I do that User:Bulldog123 has removed well sourced text from WP. The cases when no sources have been added to the lists, they are available at the main articles where everything has been spelled out. Yet User:Bulldog123 has removed even names from the lists that are sourced with 2-3 refs such as [60] etc. reverted for ex by ExRat. Shortly for long time User:Bulldog123's logic of removals didn't make much sense to me. and after he re-added 3X Kiino Villand as Hungarian American journalist on List of Estonian Americans even thogh the source spoke of Estonian-American journalist Priit Vesilind, it didn't make any sense, that's why I pulled out from editing the lists.--Termer (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a paste problem, buddy. I already explained that. If you hadn't blanked all the messages I left you on your talk page, you'd know that. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the blanked text was indeed properly sourced, and not contentious, as the WP articles of most of the individuals in question state their ethnic heritage. User:Termer, you have outlined the issues quite well; it is problematic that a WP admin, in whom we have all placed our trust in the maintenance of proper conduct at WP, has stated that s/he will not comment further. I've seen, so far, no comment on the repeated and aggressive page removals and blanking of properly sourced text by User:Bulldog123, with whom User:Jayjg has apparently had a long-standing relationship and kinship; but instead we see strongly aggressive threats directed in an apparently politicized manner only against the productive, good-faith editors working assiduously on ethnic articles, and objecting to the blanking of properly sourced text and requesting the use of "Discussion." This seems highly problematic. Badagnani (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I said I wasn't going to comment again, but this nonsense is a bit much. Not that it's relevant in any way, but the "apparent... long-standing relationship and kinship" I had with Bulldog123 consisted of two comments I made on his Talk: page, and one he made on mine, in June 2007. O.K., back to your wikilawyering, I'm really done responding. Jayjg (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm sorry to see that you keep ignoring the evidence given to you regarding User:Bulldog123's behavior. I still hope that the case can be resolved reasonably and doesn't need to go all the way to ArbCom.--Termer (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find you, User:Jayjg know anything about the matter. WP:BLP is obviously to prevent slanders/libels against living poeple and is a good thing. This whole discussion, however, is about whenther a person is of x nationality or x American nationality and whether there is sufficient proof to say one way or another. Hardly a matter of slander or libel. Further, it is a matter whether an editor can just decide to delete all the names in a list, even if they are properly sourced as x-American (which he agreed was the case), and decide to make the article a re-direct to a category. You should read the facts instaad of just repeating nonsense. The editor who was blanking out the articles is now suggesting he will cease to do so and instead engage in proper editing. This is how it should be and with no help from you. Your behavior turned this conversation into one about you: not what an admin should seek to achieve. Hmains (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have thought that our own admins would be fully cognizant of what our policies are all about. You are correct in stating that BLP exists primarily to prevent slanders/libels against living people; I have followed the policy's insitution and development over time, since its institution for that reason. I should reiterate that all we have been asking for, since the first articles were blanked several days ago, was calm, considered, detailed prior discussion on the text the blanking editor felt was inaccurate. This is quite a reasonable request. It really is important to take the time to stop and discuss, even if it can be a bit time consuming. It's how our encyclopedia gets built, and built into the best encyclopedia it can be. Our fundamentally thoughtful, deliberative, and collaborative process is something to be protected and nurtured. Badagnani (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Bulldog123 has dared to suggest that Martintg is an alternate account of Termer, I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Termer--Termer (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I keep an eye on all Estonia related articles via WikiProject Estonia in order to maintain them. Termer is from Estonia. Therefore our contributions intersect. The only notice I got from Termer was about the existence of this ANI report [61]. Please rein in your bad faith assumptions. Martintg (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the procedure for the recall of an admin's tools/powers? I don't believe the admin acting in this threatening manner (now against several productive, good-faith editors) is behaving in a manner proper to the tools with which s/he has been entrusted. In addition to basing his/her threats on a fundamental misreading of WP:BLP, I don't believe s/he has actually carefully examined the edit history before taking a side and behaving in a manner that does not show the deliberation and calmness an admin does need to have in order to hold this position at our project. Badagnani (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Before thinking about recall, wait until this ANI thread has been resolved, let it go for a day or two, and then reconsider if you think recall is appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This repeated message by Jayjg says that 1 2, and 3 are a BLP problem. I have quickly looked at them, and I see Bulldog123 redirecting list pages to topical pages, and doing massive provocative page blankings. Bulldog123 is more interested in removing the entries than adding sources. For example, Josh Groban was restored to List of Norwegian Americans by Termer; it doesnt have a source on the list article, but that nationality is documented on the biog page. If it is wrong, then the biog page is where the {{fact}} tag is needed. Jayjg, could you please explain what parts of those edits you consider a BLP worthy of a block? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I came directly to this thread without noticing the prior thread, but even after reading the above section, I see an unnecessary dispute. All parties should spend more time adding sources, and Jaygj's warnings dont appear to have helped any because the issue isnt as much a clear cut "BLP" infringement that it warrants curt block messages. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John, I wasn't simply blanking the pages, I was moving the ones that had proper sources and weren't living people to the sourcepages. Here's an example on Hungarian Americans#Famous_Hungarian_Americans. I didn't dare redirect that list after this broke out obviously. Also I had requested discussion beforehand and was ignored. Bulldog123 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No such discussion nor consensus for such a plan can be located at either Talk:Hungarian American or Talk:List of Hungarian Americans. Further, the edit history does not bear out the story of merging rather than blanking, as with this edit. Badagnani (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a diff where I redirected List of Hungarian Americans. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While he does that, can you please provide diffs? Particularly of when and where you requested discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. On September 7, I posted this here to foment some discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_to_Remove_List_of_X-American_lists. This is where User:Badagnani regularly checks, and so was done on purpose. I was ignored by him (and continue to be now, still). So I made these: Hungarian Americans#Famous Hungarian Americans, Dutch American#Famous Dutch Americans, Danish Americans#Famous Danish Americans, etc, and redirected the lists (not blanked them). Once it was clear the redirects weren't making anyone happy, I instead removed everyone who was sourced improperly, a BLP concern, or had no sources at all. Was met with a barrage of harassment from Badagnani (here: User_talk:Bulldog123/Archive1#Harassment by Badagnani section. (who seems to have a long-standing grudge against me for re-nominating List of Norwegian Americans on AfD a year ago). I also have diffs below to show how I tried to contact the users and never got a reply. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The "Proposal to Remove List of X-American lists" indeed appears not to have been received enthusiastically at WikiProject Ethnic groups, most likely because those active there are aware of the proposing editor's thoughts on this subject. In my case, I did not respond because I did not believe this proposal to have merit, and because I already knew the proposing editor's thoughts on this subject, which can be very clearly seen in his/her edit history. Badagnani (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's not an excuse to ignore it. A year ago you overturned the deletion of List of Norwegian Americans, despite a seeming consensus to remove the list (or at least improve it). Since then there's been a hedgemony held over them, in such a way so that no changes could be made. You ask for "discussion" and "consensus" and then ignore people when they attempt to reach them with you. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Improvement of our articles are always welcome, and I am happy to participate in such improvement if concrete tasks are outlined at the "Discussion" pages of various articles regarding perceived inadequacies of any of our text--but not in a threatening manner, as in, "You'd better add sources for these, or I'm removing them all," that sort of thing, which we've seen a lot, a lot of over the past three or so days. Clearly beneficial changes, and the addition of sources, are never objected to, as implied above. Badagnani (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I also note the persistent refusal by User:Termer and User:Badagnani to listen to the arguments and respond calmly.

    Here I explain to User:Termer why I removed the names I did. He responds by blanking his talk_page of my message: [62]

    Here User_talk:Badagnani#How.27s_This.3F, I attempt to initiate a truce with User:Badagnani; he never replied. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would either of you consider mediation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    User:Badagnani and User:Termer (and his canvassed friend User:Martintg) keep making claims like "Most of the blanked text was indeed properly sourced, and not contentious". I had already explained to them perhaps an 3 times (Here [63], Here [64], Here [65]) why this is not true, and indeed, it has been explained to them months ago by these previous discussions , Here [66], Here [67], Here [68] - it goes on forever). Bulldog123 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So in other words, you're saying some sort of synthesis has occurred? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An extra step is being taken, so, in a way, I'd say yes. Bulldog123 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - it is high time we had a policy on ethnic labelling, and strongly discouraged most of it. In many cases it appears to be a symptom of racism, even when the information itself cannot be contentious (eg labelling parliamentary representatives in ethnically divided nations). I don't know whether being an Estonian (or a Hungarian) is used as a mark of shame, in public life or in the playground, but we could act like responsible editors and stop thinking (and acting) in these terms. Some long term editors who may not have thought this before seem to be coming round, perhaps realising that lists such as this can only cause problems to us - and perhaps problems elsewhere. PRtalk 08:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Though it's not always racism that plays a part here, but a sort of WP:COI sometimes. The lists are being used as a facebook group for people. "Hey, BLANK is X. I'm X too." It energizes the critics of wikipedia's reliability as a standard academic source. Turns it into a game. Bulldog123 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tbsdy lives view

    While not a violation of BLP, I'm very saddened to see that sourcing has taken a back seat here. If you can't provide a source, don't add the material! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone wants proper sourcing for all of our articles. However, it doesn't seem that you have examined the history of what is being discussed here before commenting. If you had, you would have seen that most of the removed text was already properly sourced. Please return to comment once you've examined the history. Badagnani (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quit telling everyone to examine the history. We have. Now—all other attempts at distraction aside—most of the removed text was not properly sourced. Some of it was sourced ("properly" being a relative term) but a great deal was not. Whether it needs to be sourced in the bio article vs. the list is certainly debatable, but I think everyone has heard enough of you telling them when they are or are not allowed to participate here. This is an Administrators' noticeboard, not a Badagnani's noticeboard. If you only want to hear comments under the terms you dictate, you've come to the wrong place. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply not true, most of the entries were sourced, either in the list or in the article about the person. This BLP violation argument is a classic straw man. Martintg (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I counted how many once removed entries on List of Danish Americans by Bulldog are sourced without even checking the quality of the attached references. In turn, 53 people are unreferenced over referenced 13 people. So what Martintg and Badagnani have commented on the matter is not even true. This is a typical example of how Badagnani demonizes people who remove just to unrelated materials or unsourced ones to keep articles from violating policies of WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:OR. He also claimed that the closing admin should get one-week block[69] for deleting Category:Japanese citrus(see: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_26) This hyper-exaggeration and bad-faith by him are saying just contractions for his own claims. Sadly, there are too many cases like this.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess thats the second time he asked an admin be blocked for closing opposite to his liking. Look (Here) with Badagnani's request for a "Overturn and one-month block for the admin who deleted this article blatantly against consensus. " Bulldog123 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm sorry but I'm not getting it from where those numbers provided by Caspian blue come from? Out of 38 removed names [70] 22 had sourced references, if it's poorly sourced, anybody should feel free to request additional sources. Out of 14 that didn't have refs attached:
    • Brigitte Nielsen, actress was born Gitte Nielsen in Rødovre, Denmark. source provided in the main article.
    • Morten Lauridsen is of Danish ancestry, want to remove him from the list, fair enough, please bring it up at the talk page.
    • Mike Tramp (Born Michael Trampenau January 14, 1961) is a Danish singer and songwriter
    • King Diamond (born Kim Bendix Petersen, June 14, 1956, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Just few examples that removals were based on not sourced or poorly sourced criteria is baseless. this doesn't mean that the list has no names on it that wouldn't be questionable. But only the names should have been removed then to justify the claims made by Bulldog123.
    Since Bulldog123's words and actions were not in sync, his edits got reverted.--Termer (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Source provided in the main article" is not acceptable. We do not use Wikipedia articles as references for other Wikipedia articles, and by the same token a source used in one article does not automatically extend to another. They need to be separately sourced in each place. And it is not necessary to "bring it up at the talk page". It gets removed immediately, without discussion, period. The burden of proof (and the task of providing a proper citation) is on the person who wants to add the information, never on the person who wants to remove it. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm still missing something, how do you explain removals that were sourced directly on the list, the 22 out of 38 total? I mean lets say Viggo Mortensen - Half Danish, wholely Danish-speaking, That Viggo Mortensen the Danish-American actor. I just don't see a clear pattern or logic in those removals, in case you do, please explain.--Termer (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is ghoulskool.net a reliable source for determining a person's nationality? I'm not sure, but I'd say probably not so much. And the same goes for theonering.net and buffyguide.com or whatever that stuff is. I don't know about each specific one, but as the policy says, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." When in doubt, it can be removed. It can always be replaced later... it's up to you to start the discussion on the talk page defending the sources. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew this was about nationality, it's about peoples heritage, the roots, that's all there is to it. Also, since a lot of "dead people" got removed, for example from the List_of_Norwegian_Americans. People who were born in Norway and died in the US. Such as Thorstein Veblen, Sven Oftedal, Jacob Tanner etc. how does that fit with the pattern?--Termer (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable through a reliable source. Alive or dead, animal, mineral, or vegetable. BLP sets out a somewhat more aggressive position on living persons, but other content can still be removed per WP:V. Removing those names without first placing a fact tag might not be friendly, but it's certainly not in violation of policy. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrap up

    Everyone calm down. This has degenerated into finger-pointing and a pissing contest. Here are my observations:

    • MBisanz is correct that all BLP material, whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable must be sourced.
    • User:Badagnani was adding BLP material, some sourced well, some not sourced well, some not sourced at all
    • User:Bulldog123 was removing same material
    • Admin User:Jayjg did warn people, but BLP allows admin actions in BLP areas even if they are involved in the issue: Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves.
    • This one diff shows the crux of this whole issue: [71]. Here we see the edit warring over unsourced material and material with a good source as I'd certainly consider http://www.norway.org/News/archive/1998/199808ellis.htm a valid source-it is an official site. I also saw in some diffs sources such as yahoo and nndb. These are not valid sources. I never use yahoo, youtube, nndb for a source. They are not reliable.
    • What obviously happened here is that Badagnani and Bulldog123 got into a dispute or have an ongoing dispute and got into wholesale actions (ie, edit wars) without looking at the merits of each piece of information involved. Each bit of info and each source needs to be evaluated on its own. These wholesale insertions and deletions of BLP material do no one any good at all. I see Jayjg trying to control this and I for one am glad it was brought here so more eyes can be brought in to look at the situation.
    • If this dispute continues, I'll protect the pages and block people myself. Evaluate and valid source each BLP item. Don't edit war. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody has ever questioned that materials must be sourced.
    • The reason I personally reverted Bulldog123 edits was due to he removed names randomly that wasn't based on sourced-not sourced criteria on selected X-American lists List_of_Danish_Americans etc. without touching others that are full of not sourced names like List_of_Mexican_Americans or have no sources whatsoever List_of_Czech_Americans etc.
    • After asking to bring up any issues Bulldog123 might have with the selected lists at the relevant talk pages he continued to spam my user page that included not exactly civil arguments to support his opinions like:if I wanted to, I could slap you with a WP:VANDAL warning...you're not proving to me that you're behaving in a civil manner.
    • I quit editing the lists about 24 hours before receiving a formal warning from User:Jayjg. The reason for quitting was due to Bulldog123 adding 3X Hungarian American to list of Estonian Americans based on a source that talked about completely different person. [72], [73], [74]
    • I'm not intending to ever touch those lists again unless a clear policy for the lists is generated, unlike the current situation that some of the lists, like pointed out above, have no sources whatsoever, are like it seems considered OK . At the same time other selected lists, names get removed even though materials in many cases are sourced just fine.--Termer (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That some lists don't have sources is probably due to no one bothering (caring?) to work on them. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speculate on what were Bulldog123 motivations to target certain lists and ignore the others. For my part I hope I made it clear to Bulldog123: I can always admit that for someone who considers something common knowledge like the listed names in the article, might miss the necessity to source it even further. this doesn't mean that anything here shouldn't be better or more clearly sourced, so feel free to help out and list the names that you think would need better sourcing.--Termer (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sheer stupidity of complaining that I only targeted certain lists, when my attempts to do the same to other lists were reverted by User:Termer himself is imcomprehendable. In any case, I'm done here. We're going to open up a wiki-wide discussion on what to do with lists in general. I ask everyone to join in. Bulldog123 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's OK to call other editors stupid now? Although I think it would have been wise if you'd started up your agenda with open up a wiki-wide discussion on what to do with lists instead of just jumping in and removing names without any logic. A logic that could have been tied to a single reason -poorly or not sourced claims, that's not what you did, your removals were random on random lists and for some reason about 4-5 editors didnt get it what exactly are you after. Other than getting the lists deleted, the task that you failed in about a year ago--Termer (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a language barrier here? This is an honest question, because it seems you may be an Estonian. If there is, it explains why we're not communicating here at all. I don't see how anyone can say "the names were removed without any logic" as there has been pages written now to help you understand (pages you blanked from your talk page). It doesn't look like you're reading anything. You have repeated yourself maybe five times now, with the same maddeningly repetitive statements like "Other than getting the lists deleted, the task that you failed in about a year" despite the four times I showed that I didn't nominate the lists, I only relisted per an agreement on the AfDs or "open up a wiki-wide discussion on what to do with lists instead of just jumping in and removing names without any logic" despite the numerous times I have linked you to that attempted discussion.
    Am I wrong in saying that when you finally did see why your sources were wrong, you canvassed User:Martintg to come revert for you, because you knew full well that a significant number of the people on List of Estonians might never have the proper sources found (as those sources might not exist)? There's no other explanation for why Martin would jump in and revert at the time he did. You refuse to listen, you blank your talk page when I try to explain. We're done here. I do still hope you will cooperate on Talk:List of Estonians though. Bulldog123 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    you canvassed User:Martintg to come revert for you? keep it coming, I think I have enough evidence of your false accusations uncivil statements etc. to start up an arbCom case against you.--Termer (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Termer, good luck; I've seen much more serious and prolonged harassment ignored. Bulldog, please stop throwing accusations that are based on bad faith alone and can't be proven.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stop, but it is hard to assume good faith from someone who refuses to communicate and just edit wars. Bulldog123 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about just denying it? You haven't done that. How can I know I'm wrong if you have yet to deny you did not bring Martin to come help you. Bulldog123 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    -refuses to communicate, yet another false accusation. There are enough attempts to communicate with you on relevant talk pages not only by me but several other editors. In case you referring again to your bullying me around posts at my talk page, sorry but I have no reason to keep such posts filled with threats questioning my good faith on my talk page. Regarding you accusing me of meat-puppeting and also earlier directly in sock-puppeting, that's part of the pattern that you've used to justify your actions against number of editors who haven't agreed with your opinions.--Termer (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bulldog123, I already told you here that the only notification I got from Termer was to inform me of this ANI report, I also told you to rein in you gross assumptions of bad faith, yet you continue to do so with yet more baseless accusations of meat/sock puppetry. List of Estonian Americans is a part of Wikiproject Estonia, hence I can detect when people vandalise related pages by removal of sourced content against consensus, which you did. You accusation that I assisted Termer in edit warring is silly because Termer edited a wider range of List of XXX Americans articles, while I restricted my edits to a single article List of Estonian Americans, which is a part of Wikiproject Estonia. Seems to me that your activities are rather WP:POINTy in wake of a failed AfD. Martintg (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be also pointed out that I consider the filed X-Americans AN/I case backstabbing by Bulldog123 to gain the upper hand in the content dispute, since not me or anybody else was notified abut the case filed against the editors involved who had opposed Bulldog123 behavior. That was the reason I took the liberty to notify all the editors involved about the AN/I, and not just Martintg.--Termer (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet? No.

    Resolved
     – Sockpuppet report to be withdrawn - nothing else to see here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, not sure where else to post this. Could an admin please end the silliness here? An editor is accusing me, without any basis other than a similar edit (which was, actually, an error), of sockpuppetry. Ta. Prince of Canada t | c 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In all likelihood, you will simply need to await an administrator visiting that page with an extra half hour or so, and clearing all outstanding cases; such is the usual nature of the suspected sock puppets page. My advice is to not become worried or stressed by the case: if you have truly not practised disruptive sock puppetry, no action will be taken on those grounds, and you need not worry. The case should be processed, and the result posted, within a day or two. Regards, Anthøny ✉ 11:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not worried, it's just incredibly annoying to be accused of something like that without any basis. Either way, the editor has asked that it be removed, finally. Prince of Canada t | c 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Savolya - repeated copyright violation

    Resolved
     – User blocked 72 hours.

    I have attempted to engage Savolya (talk · contribs) on their talk page about their repeated cut and paste copyright violations. So far, they haven't made any sensible response and they have continued editing. I can go through their history and remove the copyvio, but there seems little point if they don't acknowledge that they understand the policies and agree to stop. Can someone get their attention, please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user's been editing here since late December 2007 ... there really is no excuse for someone to be editing that long and not know that we have zero tolerance for copyvios. I would think at least a 72-hour block is in order. Blueboy96 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No objections so far--user blocked for 72 hours, with a stern warning. Blueboy96 17:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Blueboy96. I'll work on tracking the rest of the copyvio when I get a chance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agenda accounts

    I just blocked a couple of agenda / sockpuppet accounts active on 9/11, the contributions make it pretty clear that these are not new nebies but, rather, old hands. If either can show that they have a good reason for suddenly changing accounts then I have no objection to unblocking, but I suspect that they are a couple of the usual suspects. Accounts are: MichiganMilitia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mass driver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Michigan Militia" is probably a username violation that should remain blocked regardless of what good reasons are given. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i am not sure about htat part. While group affiliation names such as 'Michiagan Militari' are unrecommenable via WP:USERNAME, they are not specificaly prohibite dunless they were promotiona l or in nature or that if they were have a substantial conflict of itnterests (an example would be that if someone called 'Microsoft' started posting extmrely promotional textage to the Microsoft accopunt.). Smith Jones (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MichiganMilitia is a sock of User:Bofors7715 - see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Bofors7715 Bofors also posted a request on 911blogger for help with the 9/11 article, hence it's likely that User:Mass driver is a meatpuppet.
    Also, the WP:SSP page has a backlog. I have another request there, pertaining to the William Rodriguez, that really needs attention - Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Wtcsurvivor. This involves BLP, socks, COI editing, personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, and outing/intimidating users, so some due diligence and attention from uninvolved admins is needed there. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but shouldn't he be given the possibility to defend himself?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He can defend himself on his talk page like anyone else who's been blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it strange that he has to defend there when the discussion about him is here and possibly he is not aware of this discussion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm convinced that Contrivance is not a sock, but has edited problematically per WP:BLP and edits just one article. --Aude (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two, I think, but yes, disruptive WP:SPA is my reading. Anything to be done? Guy (Help!) 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's disruptive, and maybe the arbcom decision should apply. The edit warring is unacceptable, as are BLP violations. What I would really like to see is the article adhere to WP:BLP, and be fair to Mr. Rodriguez, but I'm not the best person to be mediating and maintaining the page. --Aude (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, we most likely have other related IPs editing - 67.82.153.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Aude (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help over at AIV

    Resolved
     – Queue has been cleared.

    While it is only two reports, one has been there for almost an hour, if someone could come over to AIV and wipe these two out and anymore that pop up, it would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk 16:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done; the {{adminbacklog}} tag should be added in the future to call admin attention to these matters. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking a review of a block

    Resolved
     – Duplicate discussion to what is already ongoing at #Agenda accounts

    As an occasional reader of talk pages not recently involved with the enciclopedia I would like the neutral administrators to review this block of a person who is apparently a newcommer and has been indefinitely blocked:

    it's obviously entirely possible that the person above is a sock but are we really indefinitely blocking him just becouse an admin think that he "likely" is a sock?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. User:MichiganMilitia is described there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ops, sorry...--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance please

    Resolved
     – Foot fetishism article semi-protected for two days

    This anon Special:Contributions/24.35.91.14 has repeatedly removed an image from Foot fetishism with no discussion or explanation despite repeated requests not to do so. Can somebody apply a cluebat please? Exxolon (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could it be indicative of something (perhaps a sockpuppet IP) that the IP has avoided 3RR? Caulde 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi-protected the page for 2 days. That should cover it off. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarence Thomas Edit War

    Resolved
     – Protected by Useight

    User Wallamoose has repeatedly tried to delete portions of the section on Thomas's sexual misconduct. He also tried to insert a personal comment into the article complaining about people who "protect" (use the watch feature, presumably) the page. I have added many references to the section backing up the wikipage's text, but Wallamoose repeatedly just tried to delete the whole thing, and then he shifted to using POV language. I would suggest a sockpuppet check, as he is a new account that does nothing but make partisan edits on political issues. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected by Useight. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    71.238.201.6

    Resolved
     – Blocked 55 hours by LessHeard vanU‎

    Not quite an AIV case. Despite numerous warnings on his talk page, 71.238.201.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add unsourced (and generally unsourceable) charts to When I Grow Up (Pussycat Dolls song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and make disputed edits to Pussycat Dolls discography. His edit history shows that this is a static IP, so semi-protection of the page isn't the right answer, a short block is.Kww (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They've left a huge trail of this. I've undone some of the edits. He/She also tends to change chart names and remove sourced material. Definitely blockworthy. There was another edit to When I Grow Up diff after your last warning so I reported to AIV too. justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Connection issues

    I am having trouble sustaining a connection and am now getting "lost session data" several times per attempted edit, so I will have to call it a day. Anyone who wants to amend the block of Yellowbeard in any way has my full permission to do so, provided that there is some kind of commitment to drop the nonsense with Abd, or some kind of binding dispute resolution (including arbitration if necessary, which it probably isn't). Guy (Help!) 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disney Vandal issues

    There is a guy, who claims to be a 13 year old kid, who is causing a lot of problems with various Disney film articles, some Teletubbies articles, and some Barney articles. He has been indef blocked numerous times, but keeps changing IP addresses so the blocks only last a few hours, or a day at the most. I started tracking in August. This is a list of ones used so far, all confirmed to be from the same ISP (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.146.241.244):

    He's also been confirmed to have at least registered sock accounts (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iluvteletubbies).

    Sometimes, he does acceptable edits, but mostly he drives myself and a bunch of other editors to distraction by his attempts to return improved articles to bad earlier versions[75][76][77], removing plot points and other major bits of content while adding their own made up stuff[78][79][80], and doing massive refactoring of talk pages[81][82][[83][84][85]. That's just a small sample of stuff, of course. Bambifan101 has the longest history because of actual attempts to talk some sense into him. At this point, I can almost spot this guy on site, report to AIV, and usually he's blocked quick. However, when his in IP mode, its a band-aid at best. He seems determined to keep this stuff up despite knowing its not appreciated and he's falsely claiming that he just wants to "help" in the various communications with him. I suspect he finds it funny watching folks run around behind him having to clean up after him.

    Is there anything else that can be done to stop this kid? An IP range block, a word to his ISP, anything? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Indef'ed Bambirocks, page protecting some of the heaviest-hit pages for now. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a scan of the last 20000 anonymous edits, looking for 68.220.128/14. Here are the results:
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Lincoln Middle School (Gainesville, Florida)" rcid="244126532" pageid="3704564" revid="238376379" old_revid="237806485" user="68.220.150.90" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T15:33:44Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="2008 Auburn Tigers football team" rcid="244027244" pageid="14268766" revid="238280748" old_revid="238273637" user="68.220.163.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T03:10:57Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="244001802" pageid="2877925" revid="238256257" old_revid="238254551" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:30:30Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001417" pageid="8400506" revid="238255883" old_revid="238255500" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:28:32Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001024" pageid="8400506" revid="238255500" old_revid="236754961" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:25:37Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243999762" pageid="2877925" revid="238254303" old_revid="238253510" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:18:42Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998959" pageid="2877925" revid="238253510" old_revid="238252833" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:13:58Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998270" pageid="2877925" revid="238252833" old_revid="238010885" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:10:02Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997912" pageid="4196336" revid="238252501" old_revid="238252423" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:53Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997817" pageid="4196336" revid="238252423" old_revid="238252312" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:23Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997699" pageid="4196336" revid="238252312" old_revid="238252191" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:06:38Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997573" pageid="4196336" revid="238252191" old_revid="238251963" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:05:52Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997340" pageid="4196336" revid="238251963" old_revid="238251800" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:04:37Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997175" pageid="4196336" revid="238251800" old_revid="238251733" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:41Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997105" pageid="4196336" revid="238251733" old_revid="238229539" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:02Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Intensive care unit" rcid="243994536" pageid="6332859" revid="238249200" old_revid="237664594" user="68.220.132.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T23:47:13Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Heaven's Gate (film)" rcid="243962951" pageid="92706" revid="238218287" old_revid="238159037" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:59:25Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Caligula (film)" rcid="243956202" pageid="243204" revid="238211649" old_revid="236819207" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:26:30Z"
    • type="edit" ns="0" title="Fantasy Ride" rcid="243578053" pageid="16855379" revid="237843196" old_revid="237829341" user="68.220.131.151" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-12T01:43:50Z"
    Doesn't look like collateral damage would be high from blocking 68.220.128/14. Kww (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might try suggesting to him that you will contact administrators at Lincoln Middle School if this continues. It might be a spurious connection, but if not, I bet mentioning the possibility will end this problem quick. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This Disney Vandal has been causing major problems at the Simple English Wikipedia as well. simple:WALL-E and simple:The Fox and the Hound (movie) have been indef semied as a result of his edits and Chaorlette's Web 2 was deleted three times [86]. If this is blocked I suggest it be global. The relevant discussion would be over on the administrators' noticeboard. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When I saw him adding simple links to some of his ideas, I wondered if he was causing problems there too. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    Sounds like that would at least impede him some, maybe? Anyway to trace these IPs to see if any go back to that school? The earlier SSP noted that most come from Bellsouth, I believe. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Speedy Deletion Of The Page 'Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck)' On September 14, 2008

    Resolved
     – Creator of monster truck article has dropped the case. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am posting this in an effort to be taken seriously, and not to be immediately dismissed by administrators abusing their powers...specifically Renata3.

    It began when I posted a legitimate page describing the history and technology involved in building an actual monster truck, named 'Firestarter'. Renata3, a self described 'deletionist' in her profile, decided to delete this page due to the fact that 'it was not about a person of note', a statement which I found interesting as my page is about a truck, not a person. (Stop laughing, you have pages and pages on monster trucks on Wikipedia...just type 'List Of Monster Trucks' in the search engine!)

    Comments by other administrators, left after I posted my concerns to the Renata3 Talk page, addressed a misuse of authority by Renata3, and interestingly enough, one of her replies to a comment referred to 'avoiding the red tape' in the normal process involved when reviewing a page of this sort...aparently she has become judge, jury and executioner all in one.

    I have an original, one of a kind vehicle I would like to introduce to the users of Wikipedia, it is new, it is groundbreaking, it is relevant, and veterans in the field of Monster Trucks were involved in it's making.

    I hope you give it a fair shake, details on the 'noteworthy' aspects of this vehicle can be found on the Kildare2 Talk page in response to Renata3's claims and as an appeal to be involved in the dispute process.

    Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildare2 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a comment on your talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, also see this DRV request, where current consensus suggests the article should be restored and taken to AFD instead of the speedy delete. Kildare2: you need to read the notability guidelines to determine whether your truck is notable enough to be included. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the criteria of A7 in this spirit was not proper, I see no administrator abuse. It was an error, to which we all make at one point or another. The article, though, is crap and doesn't deserve to be included in an encyclopedia because it is not notable. Sending it to AfD would result in its snowball'ed closure and would be a waste of everyone's time. I'd agree on reopening the article just to speedy delete it with a proper rationale, though. Furthermore, Deletion Review is not a venue for rants against administrators, and taking this to multiple administrators is seen as forum shopping. seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and recreated it to redelete it under G11, as it was nothing more than spamming of his YouTube videos and web-site. If anyone wishes to overturn it to take it to AfD or whatever the consensus may be at DRV, go right on ahead. seicer | talk | contribs 03:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are You Kidding Me!!!???

    First, please allow me to thank Seicer for his comments, and referring to the subject of my page as 'crap.' Great input from another wonderful administrator!

    After the lovely comments make by Seicer, and the lack of concern for proper proceedure shown by Renata3, I'm going to go ahead and ask that any information I've uploaded to Wikipedia be respectfully deleted from your Database. It's been made very apparent that this is not the place for me. Thanks for your time. Kildare2 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment - without getting into a debate on the inclusion of the article, referring to it as "crap" is unhelpful and bitey - it would've been better to say just "The article though doesn't deserve to be included in an encyclopedia because it is not notable." - it wasn't necessary to use an abusive term. Exxolon (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Bull (locomotive)

    There's a serial vandal hiding the page, after the name was blocked they created another and are now on the fourth. One of the names (Tjjj33 (talk · contribs)) even went through my contribs and reverted the last several edits I made to other pages. Could the page be blocked, as it's the featured article? JoshMcCracken (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disregard, someone just got it —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshMcCracken (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Not a legal threat per User talk:Seicer#"Take it further". seicer | talk | contribs 11:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Bravo Plantation has made legal threats aginst me on a now-closed Afd [87] and my talk page [88]. Edward321 (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested comment from the user. seicer | talk | contribs 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New user. Lots of vandalism last few hours. See:

    Resolved
     – Indef blocked.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/XroXazX

    --Hordaland (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And that user is playing tag with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geckoman343 --Hordaland (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef'd XroXazX. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evader alert

    Resolved
     – Blocked.

    User:MsTopeka, User:Nukeh and User:68.103.31.116 is one troublesome user that is adding a lot of crap to my user page and to User:Aunt Entropy's talk page, as well as evading a permanent block (on user Nukeh). Please do something about this, thank you, Gabr-el 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (See also User talk:Athaenara#Looks like block evasion.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've soft blocked the IP for 72 hours, owing to the harassment. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pagenomore

    Resolved
     – — Athaenara ✉ 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone want to sort this guy out? He's moved his user pages to "User:Pagenomore" and "User talk:Pagenomore" (no such user) and tagged them {{db-u1}}. — Athaenara ✉ 06:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved the pages back and protected them. I've also asked the user if he wants to change his username. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. — Athaenara ✉ 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violation on Talk:philosophy

    I recently removed an off-topic discussion from Talk:philosophy here [89]. This discussion contained what I consider a BLP violation (eg, the comments by 271828182 about Jimbo Wales). Another editor, Snowded, then decided to restore this BLP violation to the page [90]. Could someone please talk to both these editors and suggest to them that this kind of thing is not appropriate? Skoojal (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That edit can ideed be reverted as much as needed, 3rr has no sway over BLP worries. The edit also carried a blistering personal attack, which was no more helpful when leveled against JW than it would have been if made about any other editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried the compromise of only removing the IP's personal attacks on Jimbo while keeping the comments of other editors? Removing offtopic talkpage discussion usually serves mostly to annoy people, so it should be done only for egregious violations of code of conduct, not for simple offtopicness. Kusma (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit by Snowded was also somewhat over the edge, both a personal attack and straying from AGF, saying straightforwardly that Wales had done something out of cronyism. At the very least, there are much more civil, polite and helpful ways of putting across such worries. I wouldn't support restoring the thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting really silly. Anyone who knows the history of the debates around Peter, some of which have taken place here, knows that it was tied up with serious issues about Wikipedia. Several admins felt that Peter was being unfairly treated, in part because he had fallen out with an Arbcom member. It was not possible to make any comment about his final ban so I placed a tribute to his work on one of the pages he edited and also expressed my opinion that wrong had been done. If there is a better forum for that tell me, no one should be immune from criticism in Wikipedia. Kusma's suggestion is a good one. --Snowded TALK 07:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's silly to ask that a tribute to one editor not carry a personal attack on another editor. If you have worries about how it all was handled, there are much more helpful ways of talking about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Interestingly it was impossible to make comments on the talk page when Peter was banned, the history was deleted. I am happy to agree that one of the comments that followed mine was excessive and should be deleted. Mine I think was fair comment and I didn't say anything that I will not say to Wales in public the next time we share a conference platform. I would also point out that moving the issue to this notice board before any real dialogue on the talk or user pages concerned is surprising to say the least. There are far more significant issues on many pages on a daily basis that never come here. We saw something similar with the speed with which Peter was banned before the final incident. That resulted in the admin concerned having to withdraw having been seen to have acted prematurely and without justification. It does look like a case of sacred cows, rather than the normal egalitarianism of Wikipedia. In my judgement Peter was unfairly treated. The tribute should have been left (possibly with one deletion) and then left to archive. Raising it here almost immediately is what is silly and smacks of censorship/threat. --Snowded TALK 07:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think anybody minds a tribute to another editor, banned or not. Maybe bringing it up here was hasty but please keep in mind, you were restoring a rather blistering personal attack and personal attacks aren't allowed. What you might say to someone's face in a meeting doesn't fall under WP:BLP and WP:NPA. How you edit with your user account does. Is it ok to drop this now? Gwen Gale (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted a whole scale deletion, not just a deletion of offending material so I think it is unreasonable to imply I was involved in a "blistering attack". However its OK to drop it, it would have been on the page concerned with a civil exchange rather than immediate posting here by an editor who has had prior exchanges with Peter. I would use "imtimidatory" rather than "hasty" but so be it, its over.
    Two points: (1) The initial comment by Snowded was criticism of Jimbo Wales, and can not in any way be construed as a personal attack. (2) It seems a bit of a reach to use BLP concerns to remove criticm of Wikipedia's self-described "constitutional monarch".

    That said, the entire conversation was off-topic for that talk page and a legitimate candidate for removal on that basis. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly right on your last point, Ed. BLP and CIVIL issues aside, an article talk page is a wholly inappropriate forum for such a grievance. It was correct to remove the entire section per WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages, which states "Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." — Satori Son 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TTN on disruptive mass deletion rampage

    User:TTN is at it again rapidly and pointedly mass nominating articles for deletion/voting to delete. Notice these edits from September 11 through 15. Many of those discussions appear to be merge or redirect in the actual consensus, thus one has to ask why is this user not trying talk page discussions first? --172.167.135.61 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging from the articles he listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion, his nominations have significant support for merging/deletion. Like every wikipedian, he has the right to nominate (which sufficiently alerts any concerned editor) any article for deletion or merger that he wishes - and that's what he does. I don't see any reason where or why an admin should step in. – sgeureka t•c 09:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, his arbcom imposed restriction expired 5 days ago. MER-C 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps he didn't try talk page discussions first because he was prohibited from starting discussions for 6 months? Or because talk page discussions on such articles are invariably a waste of time, because they attract primarily people that think the topic of the page is interesting? When the page is bad enough, taking it straight to AFD is usually the only effective technique.Kww (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shotgun nominations are never a good way to do things. Jtrainor (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "shotgun" you mean "widely scattered, without aim", I disagree with the characterization: so far, none of the articles he has nominated are getting "keep" votes, much less a consensus to keep. That's a sign of pretty good aim. If by "shotgun" you are referring to force, I disagree as well. Over 90% of the articles I nominate at AFD get deleted, and opening the discussion on the talk page would just slow the process down. Even if you reach an agreement on the talk page to delete, you still have to take it to AFD to get it done.Kww (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tinbin

    Note: This was originally up on AN, but seems to be escalating, and thus is being posted here.

    This user is a SPA who edits the Jiang Yuyuan page. He has been blocked for 3RR, and since then, has used a grand total of three IP addresses and two different socks to evade his block. All in a few hours. He's currently using a sock over on WP:EA to try to get others to revert the page for him. The article itself has been protected but at this point, something needs to be done. Editors have taken a lot of time to try to explain things to him, and he doesn't get it; he just keeps going and claims that everyone is 'biased' and treating him unfairly. First IP: [91] He simply came back with a second IP a minute or two later, [92] and a sock a few minutes after that, [93] and then a third IP, [[94] and now another sock. [95] DanielEng (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've lengthened his block for 3 days and semied the article. I don't think we can do more at that stage :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. :) The user actually just left me a long note on my Talk where he tries to explain that he doesn't understand the policies, etc. Perhaps when the block is over he will have cooled down and will be able to work with us. I hope. DanielEng (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal information needs removing

    Resolved

    Hi. I've blocked the user who vandalised Gerald Dixon. However, some of the vandalism includes personal information, which unfortunately remained on the page for quite some time, and through a number of edits. I'm still quite new to these tools, so I'd be happier if someone with a bit more experience could go through the page and permanently remove that from the pages history. Could someone help, please? Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, a comparison between the last pre-Jamboree1968 version with the current one has produced no differences, and a glance over the list seems to suggest that all intermediate edits were vandalism+revert. I've deleted all recent revisions of the page. Additionally, it may be a good idea to request oversight. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I've contacted Oversight advising them of the revisions that need removing. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears all of the deleted contribs of Jamboree1968 need oversighted. First one was August 25. — Satori Son 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Xgmx (talk · contribs) has returned

    Looks like Xgmx has returned as 4.245.78.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's been about 6 months since he was originally indef blocked, and 4 months since his last appeal. He has been known for sockpuppetry in the past, so I can't say when his last "bad act" was. Looking over his recent handful of edits, he has behaved himself so far, so I figured this august group should be made aware of the situation. Burzmali (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mascot guy

    Resolved
     – Bagged and tagged. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure this is an appropriate place to bring this up, but is this list of new users related to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy? Deli nk (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm no sockpuppetry expert here, but it does seem suspicious. Notice he's doing the same edits as Chromevision, an account blocked as being MascotGuy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This would also not be the first time he creates more accounts while signed in - see here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it's him or a wannabe, no good can come of it, so all blocked and reverted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Facecrusher

    Please note all the contributions made by User:Facecrusher (also the user name they chose) and consider if action is warranted.

    Wanderer57 (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked indef. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the block, although I don't understand what the name has to do with it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Od Mishehu - I consider the name to be in the "Offensive usernames" category covered in Wp:Username. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Advertising

    The Sifl and Olly Show article has been subject over the lsast week or so to the addition of advertising by User:Beaviswuzhere, as well as several different IP addresses, all adiing the same text. see diffs [96] [97] [98] [99]. Request assistance, please. -Brougham96 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the article for a week. That'll stop the IPs. As for the user Beaviswuzhere, if the spamming continues, finish out the spam warnings, and then report him at WP:AIV for faster assistance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vision Guided Robotic Systems

    I'm having fun and games with User:Yingz who appears to not notice or wish to respond on his talk page to my concerns. He's uploaded a bunch of images here and on wikicommons which do not appear to be free, despite his tagging them as such. When he uses them he adds an attribution of "Provided by RNA Automation and SVIA". I've reported this on the image Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. However he also appears to be adding what smacks of advertising in "his" article; on a particular system. I've removed the section, and what I feel are non-free images, but he keeps adding them back in. I don't want to hit 3RR myself and I believe he's editing in good faith, if somewhat misguided over what is mean by free images, so could a higher power (*grin*) weigh in please? --Blowdart | talk 14:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Donahoe edits

    Resolved
     – semi-protected for a week --Rodhullandemu 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An edit from various IP addresses contains the following content regarding the current CEO of eBay, John Donahoe and has been repeatedly entered as follows: <BLP redacted - applies here too> I have requested a reference several times, particularly as this impugns a living person. I am requesting semi-protection of this article to keep the anonymous editor(s) at bay. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    I've just indef'ed User:Dwnndog as a likely sock and a Nazi apologist without any useful edit. Since there has been no warning, please review. Most of my decision was based on reading Special:Contributions/Dwnndog. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban

    Having said that, I'd like to discuss a community ban on BannedTruth/Valliant1967, as Valliant has vowed to return and continue his previous activities. [100] This will make it possible to revert on sight any further contributions he makes to any part of the project. Is this the right venue to begin such a discussion? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can do that anyway. A sockpuppeteering indef-blocked user who makes comments like that above is about as banned as you need to be; nobody's going to be unblocking that account any time soon. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting experienced editor assistance

    Could some experienced editors (especially those without American politics axes to grind) help out at Wasilla Assembly of God, and especially Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God. Coatracking has been a problem since the article was created, and the talk page environment is getting a bit too toxic. Yes, this is another Sarah Palin related mess. GRBerry 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=238629909"