Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Massive POV push?

I'd like some help on understanding what the heck is going on regarding User talk:Self-ref and User talk:Catherineyronwode. It could be significant, but I do not have the energy to go through all the page histories. It could be the majority of their contribs. You may be familiar with Hrafn's ANI. I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

I am not fully sure with Cath, but my current understanding is that it appears to be a crusade about deletionism and POVs with hard-to-find citations. Very specifically, Pseudoscience, or rather, the opposition of it. The two users are spouses. They have written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies. They do not supply diffs or citations or anything, and seem to ignore attempts at other editor's explanations. Cath seems to have conflict of interest issues regarding WP:AUTO. The events regarding Hrafn may have been an intelligent attack on him. Hrafn appears to have done edits regarding Pseudoscience.

I'm quite afraid that I could be making an extremely bad misjudgement on this, but I don't think I can dig deeper for an understanding. I have an interest in these types of problems, but even before I discovered Hrafn, and the WP:AUTO problems, I realised that this is out of my league, and I can't figure it out alone in my current state. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero1328, at the top of this page it says: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators", but I don't see what intervention you want. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, the issue is currently under discussion at #User:Hrafn above, with the latest subsection being #Sad outcome. A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [title corrected 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

Wikipedia is in an ongoing process of change, which is what characterizes life. But your implication is that there is something evil about Catherine wanting to move Wikipedia toward certain changes. It hardly seems a danger to Wikipedia; and, in any case, no editor has the clout to force unwanted change here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing evil about such desires, the question is whether the method of hounding an editor working in full accordance with policies will benefit the encyclopedia, and whether changes should be implemented in contradiction of present policies without community sanction. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please do not make bad faith accusations towards other editors. No user is accusing any other user of "evil". Quite honestly, if any user views any portion of wikiprocess as "evil", then they need to step outside for some fresh air. --Smashville^BONK! 20:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashville, what "bad faith"? My saying something you do not like is not automatically bad faith.

Dave souza, when does an ANI complaint become "hounding"? I had an ANI also; but, although I thought the complaint was misdirected, I would not have resorted to whining complaints, like accusations of hounding. I have the impression that Hrafn was a pretty tough editor, and probably understands that such things happen when fighting for principle. It is also necessary to understand that, when two editors think principle is involved, and have differing ideas of what is good, there will be dissonance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that according to your gifted colleague, describing another editor as "whining" is gross incivility? Dissonance should be resolved by dispute resolution and policy, not by wikistalking and attacks on editor's motives. While I'm sure Cat's motives are of the finest, her methods were unacceptable and my hopes for her reform are dim. Still, live in hope. . dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had some hope that someone would give a hand in understanding, as it's alot of information and it's a bit confusing to me. This seemed to be an issue greater than just Hrafn, so I guess it was partially an attempt at separating the discussion. Like I said, I wasn't fully sure about Cath; most of what I've seen so far was User:Self-ref initially editing in what appeared to be a tendentious and disruptive fashion, and now more of a civil POV push, but still ignoring some rules. I'm not really sure on how one would handle this. I do not know much about Cath's editing but there's a fair possibility that their editing styles are connected. They seem to have assisted each other in one of their long essays. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• There were no rules. I boldly corrected an error. I was informed that were i to continue in my correction of errors i would "very likely be accused of vandalism", to which i replied with cites of previous complaints about the abuse of the [:Category:Pseudoscience]. I could also have made mention of the 2 previous CfD for the entire category itself. I have already explained my support for the category's restrained usage primarily in its non-pejorative significance. The characterization of "tendentious" is false, because i was correcting toward the neutral point of view. I was correcting tendentious use of a misused category tag. That i did so a single time with numerous tags also contradicts this characterization, which could mean "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Once i was resisted then i stopped that method of correction and sought another method, engaging more people. This indicates to the contrary regarding 'disruptive' editing style, which is "persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." In the case of the former, i wasn't persistently editing a single page. The latter (undue weight) was what i was attempting to restrict from perturbing the topics i observed as under contention. I saw the opportunity to improve Wikipedia, and so may have ignored some rules, as charged. Which ones? I'm not actually sure.

• I thought my strategies for addressing the error was inventive, creative, and gradually focussed. First it followed after a specific user suggestion by MartinPhi by removing the poorly-related subcategories. When this was opposed, i recommended a complement category tag which i agree was indeed making a POINT. I accepted this ruling and decided that i was not likely to produce a change in the overall trends and dynamics in Wikipedia (as i set about exploring other Wikis and began to notice how they looked and behaved like MUDs) and, during observation of certain cultural struggles in the topical areas of my interest, provided my observations on the whole as a basis for attempting to redress the problem from another tack: the restraint on the abuse of the pejorative Pseudoscience category.

• The CfD ruling was that this (correcting the Pseudoscience category) was my apparent point, and some of those who contributed seemed to agree that the pejorative tag was problematic. Where better to address the problem than on the Talk page of that category? So i began engaging conversation there and following out both pro (usage) and con (abuse) discussion there clarifying rational examining of its employment. I think i have addressed the relevant portions of your commentary.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting your thoughts on Catherineyronwode with an implication that these accusations are proven. They are not.

I see Catherineyronwode (who I have met only on WP) rather differently than you do. She is one of the very few Wikipedie editors I know of who has her own article, and she is considered notable. She is a professional writer, and the most talented WP writer I know of. She works on a large number, and variety, of articles because she has an idealistic belief in the good WP does. Truthfully, I would not recognize her from your very negative descriptions of her. I have edited with her, and even when we were in disagreement I never had any difficulty with her, and I always found her open to reason. I think that despite the effort she puts into Wikipedi, she often gets rather shabby treatment here....such as the disrespectful statement you just made about her. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

It was not my intention to imply that it's been fully proven and whatnot. I haven't even given diffs. I've stated twice that I am not fully sure on Cath and I was seeking clarification. It's more about Self-ref. The two users are related, which is why I thought it was common sense to mention Cath as well. I did not mean disrespect, but I'm also not very concerned about who she is or whatever. I'm just looking at the editing methods, and I think I'm seeing something wierd in the recent area. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In essense, WP:V puts the onus on anyone adding or re-adding information to provide verification from a reliable source, while Catherine and associates think assert that some little known subjects should be exempt from that policy, and articles about them should not be deleted just because there is no evidence to show that they are at all notable. She thinks it unfair asserts that it is unfair that articles that have been tagged as lacking third party reliable sources for about nine months should be put up for deletion, and wants demands much more time to be given to those who haven't previously been bothering to find sources. She also takes describes removal of any information as bad deletion, apparently failing to realise that the information is readily accessible from the article history even when the page has been made into a redirect. These views are, in my understanding, simply against policy. I have no knowledge about her contributions to writing articles, but expect that these contributions are excellent and are to be praised. I've consistenely encouraged her to work cooperatively and to continue with her valuable contributions. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-clairvoyant corrections as requested . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "She thinks it unfair..." You know what she thinks? This seems to imply you have a good level of mind reading ability. Or, could it be that you are making use of what George Lakoff calls "framing" [1]?, with the goal of presenting Catherineyronwode in the worst way. I really would hate to think you are doing that intentionally, although you are certainly doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that my brief summary style led to this misunderstanding, and assure you that I have no supernatural powers. My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently. . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's really not difficult to be cynical about her editing patterns, I assure you. This is after all a collaborative encyclopedia, and editors who have their own concepts of long standing Wikipedia policies such as notability and sourcing tend to run into problems eventually. Black Kite 00:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.:) Someone who considers themselves to 'know better' than most others, doesn't tend to do so well in a collaborative enterprise. Most of us I imagine can think of examples on wiki. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I am at a loss to understand why someone would claim that Cat is engaged in POV pushing as the title suggests. I quote from WP:NPOV: "POV pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views." I have not run across any article edits by Cat fitting this description.
As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole. This is not unusual. Dave Souza, for example, frets (and with good reason) about "Civil POV pushing" also a pattern used by some editors that is by-and-large within policy, but is nonetheless unhelpful.
We can discuss, yet again, the patterns that she finds detrimental, although it has been hashed out in several forums including this one (see section above). I do not want to summarise them, lest it re-open what has been a rancorous discussion, and so I would urge you to read them Zero1328, in a better attempt to understand the issues involved. Certainly posting vague concerns is not helpful. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole." To me, that sounds like "we don't like some Wikipedia policies, and will ignore them wherever we can get away with it." We have seen this a few times before, you know? Still, at least this thread will ensure a lot of eyes on the edits of certain users, which can only be a good thing. Black Kite 06:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No where on wikipedia is it stated that editors must refrain from critisting or proposing changes to existing policies. What Catherine and her husband is doing is stating their opinion that certain policies should be changed and they are completely within their right to do so. Just like the community is in its good right to dismiss those proposals when they don't agree with them. This is called forming consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have noticed a pattern of Straw Men in this ANI thread. 'It sounds like so-n-so doesn't like these policies: (list of policies may follow).' Instead of replying to the actual content, an artificial criticism is being created wherein someone is being characterized as disloyal to already established policy. It has been established that acceptance of policy isn't a requirement, but this tactic of interpreting people's words in unpopular ways isn't helpful to clarifying their point. It is far better to ask clarifying questions and draw out meaning than to attempt to out-maneuver them by pointing out (incorrect) differences they have with the entire Wikipedia project.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote to me (above): "My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently..." This seems a complete misrepresentation of Zero1328 'question', which in my view is not a question but, rather, a series of accusations against Catherineyronwode disguised as a question. By calling it a POV push in the heading, Zero1328 set the tone right at the beginning. Then, to continue with this 'question', Zero1328 wrote that Catherineyronwode and her husband (user Self-ref who also edits Wikipedia) have: "written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies." That does not sound like a question, does it? Then user Dave Souza wrote a series of answers to this question, the answers amounting to little more than slinging mud in the direction of Catherineyronwode. For instance, Dave Souza's first answer to Zero1328 said "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem." No content, just accusation, which is what I would call mud slinging. With this analysis, I have am trying to wipe off the mud. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that today's featured article, Anekantavada, does apply in interesting ways to this discussion. Anekāntavāda (Devanagari: अनेकान्तवाद) is one of the most important and basic doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. Certainly, an important point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question Massive POV push? and request for "some help on understanding what the heck is going on". Rather than answer the question, you attack the messenger and instead of giving your own explanation, attack my attempt at giving a concise answer. You object to my description of "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem", but that seems to me to be a fair description of the massive amount of impenetrable prose at Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis and Should this category be purged of its poorly related subcategories?

Helpfully, Self-ref has given an "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" of the former post –

The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia. ... -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If my translation is correct, that means that he doesn't like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR being applied to non-notable subjects. As shown at #Summing up above, the latter discussion suggests that he doesn't like WP:NPOV/FAQ much either. I've also commented there on Cat's objectives. By the way, you will note that today's featured article, Anekantavada, is fully supported by citations to reliable third party sources. Think about it. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi dave. Could you give specific quotes from me that indicate that i don't like those things? I would appreciate it.

• In regard to WP:V, i like it very much, and i would prefer not to see it abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong.

• WP:NPOV informs my motivation for correcting the POV-intrusion of pejorative category tagging. By its very characterization it is obvious that this type of category is easily abused. There have been adequate explanations for this in the Pseudoscience category Talk page (arguably justifying its complete removal). I have explained why it ought remain, as comparable to Category:Hoaxes or Category:Fallacies, which are helpfully explained as to how and why these are conventionally so regarded. In general, the error that is being committed is in consideration of a topic and where its borders extend. To the extent that "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" topic intrusion inserts hyper-skeptical and opposing topical matter into the main article. This is disruptive of encyclopedic content, and should be curtailed as a form of POV-pushing. I am taking both specific steps and broad-ranging explanatory means of correcting this. I am open myself to correction, and since i am a new editor at Wikipedia am continually taking cues from my elder editors (and especially writers). It is my aim "to present each of the significant views [within a topic] fairly and not [to] assert any one of them as correct." I think that until a topic is generally evaluated as a hoax, or as a fallacy, or as a pseudoscience, it is POV-pushing to apply such a blatantly pejorative categorization to it, and especially to ambiguous referents which these pseudosciences may study. With that in mind, i do dispute that a proper treatment has been given to Pseudoscience categorization in this arbitration, and have explained why in the Pseudoscience category's Talk page as seems appropriate (there are several sections challenging it). I am still waiting for rational arguments against me in any of those sections. Perhaps it is a convention that cites are necessary for Category Talk pages? I haven't noticed this.

• WP:NOR seems completely common-sense to me. I don't think that i have ever edited an article in Wikipedia and failed to support it with proper sources. If you know of an instance, please point it out. I don't think that this applies to User_pages, Talk_pages, or Village_pump_pages which have been my primary contribution thusfar in Wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia i have of course constructed many pages with variable citation, since they weren't all encyclopedias. Surely i have much to learn as regards this principle of Wikipedia, but i am neither opposed to its application on non-notable subjects (examples?) nor do i think that the notability guideline has as much weight as do the editing principles (in fact i think notability guidelines are too heavily emphasized and should be moderated against an unlimited data holdings so as not to treat Wikipedia as if it were a paper encyclopedia).

• With regard to WP:NPOV/FAQ, i very strongly agree that "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific ideas and concepts. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." I also like the rest of the page very much except the presented Pseudoscience arbitration, which i dispute is illogical, should not apply to an expansive use of the Pseudoscience category, and contains four decisions by 8 people on the category, 2 of which are not even unanimous. I am not out of line to dispute it, especially as i am helping to clarify the referents of its application -- something which is barely touched on in the arbitration because its focus is elsewhere.

Dave, you maintain that i have a "tactic of posting huge screeds at the Village Pump", and yet i don't think i've contributed more than a single extended essay there and, when asked to provide an 'executive summary' did so without complaint, answering all questions put to me for clarification. You also state that i made "proposals at Category talk:Pseudoscience where he appears to be objecting to WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy." I think i clarified that above. I agree with the policy, and agree that the arbitration produced that result, but i dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification, thinking that it extended a ridiculous expansion to the support for applying this pejorative category tag. I support its restriction to nouns only, and have made this penatrably clear both on Category talk:Pseudoscience and in the couple of essays that i wrote explaining why the category's misuse is a problem and why i think that it is being misused (an extension of cultural struggles into Wikipedia, sullying its content).

Therefore, in brief, dave, your contentions about my positions are extreme, unfounded (you don't provide pointers to where i dispute these principles), and for all but one exception in the last, which i answer to above, are 180 degrees off-base. Can you explain how you got such an incorrect impression of me? Is there something i can do to help you penetrate my prose, see my support of Wiki editing principles, and allow me to object to the Weapon of Effacement in pursuit of a healthier Wikipedia? In Good Faith, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit clearer, hopefully you're getting the hang of WP:TLDR. Apologies for the extent to which my quick attempt at translation fell short, however you still don't seem to like "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—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." The notability guideline gives a basis for working, subject to common sense and consensus on any particular article, and there's rightly no exemption clause for "esoteric topics" unsupported by third party reliable sources. Some New Thought related articles have been improved a bit by being stripped of some peacock language and wording completely unsupported by sources, but even a reasonably notable subject such as the Christian D. Larson bio is supported only by passing references in a couple of modern books, a 1919 history, and a history published by Optimist International – an article supported only by self-published sources, and so another article needing improvement to meet the threshold of WP:V. The other core content policies all have a bearing on how "esoteric topics" are presented, if at all, and have to apply. If you wish to dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification at WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy then you've got to persuade a lot of people before you start implementing your own ideas about it. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, dave. I consider WP:TLDR to be a hostile means of addressing communication problems that would be better and more faithfully resolved by clear, thoughtful questions. Thank you for your apology, accepted.

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:V, just repeated your contention that i still "don't seem to like it". Where dave? Does some part of "i would prefer not to see it (WP:V) abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong." mean this to you? I can tell you that the practice to which i refer has me writing elsewhere than Wikipedia. I know others for whom this is true, and some who seem to be about to transit to that activity also. I don't think driving away writers is what is best for Wikipedia, do you?

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:NOR, with which you appear to be associating notability. I thought ANIs were supposed to be more thorough and specific than that. Since i'm just now learning about the details of administration and negotiations in Wikipedia i'll watch for what standards should be engaged in an ANI. So far it appears to me a distraction from conversations better had elsewhere about the actual categories and their use and abuse. Making it personal seems to me the wrong way to handle such discussions, because it assumes bad faith rather than addressing the issues proper in a polite and clear way in the context of the topic, category, and page of the dispute.

I will now no longer respond to your accusations without substantiation referring to my writing. I have adequately refuted your contentions about what principles you think i "seem to dislike". I will now proceed to address only what i regard as substance in your comments.

Your point about WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy seems very sound, and i like it very much. Can you give me some advice here? If nobody discusses the implementation of that policy on the Talk page of the Pseudoscience category, then where will it be discussed? I don't see anyone arguing that i am incorrect on that page, only (at least recently) a silence, allowing me to make the first (possibly unpracticed and misguided) attempt to do what was already agreed: discuss each of the subcategories and consider them for inclusion or exclusion. If anything, i offer an intermediary position between those who demand the category's deletion and those who seem to be abusing it. I don't accept the legitimacy or wisdom of that policy's implementation, and so of course i proceed from that basis, explaining what i think is logical and rational (and most conservative). Others may argue to the contrary regarding each of the subcategories' inclusion/exclusion in response. If they do not, and if people just remain silent, does this mean that there is a consensus, or that the category has been abandoned, or what? I hear your direction to "persuade a lot of people" before i start implementing my ideas of it. I thought the best course was to have a conversation about the implementation, and then implement what was hammered out in the Talk page. How long should i wait in silence unopposed to my arguments for these subcategories' exclusion before i begin implementing that? Should i wait 3 weeks and then begin implementing those which aren't covered by the policy arbitration first, referring to those who object to my edits to engage discussion on the category page instead of engaging in an edit war with me? You're an admin here, dave, surely you know the best procedure. Thank you for your assistance.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the above was written there has been movement both in the removal/addition of categories and in the discussion about the legitimacy of my criteria for evaluating the category's inclusions. I am looking forward to the citations which will justify the evaluation as pseudoscience(s) what are not covered by the disputed arbcom. I am not required to accept that arbcom, and generally agree with the policies with which it is associated. I am still wondering what is happening with this ANI and whether it has any merit.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question..." Ah, Dave souza, since when do users bring complaints to AN/I because they assume good faith? I would have thought that, by now, you would have figured out that this is where users come when they have run out of good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but probably not relevant. What would seem to me to be relevant would be Cat and Self-ref's flouting of WP's policies regarding verifiable, reliable content, vis-a-vis the persistent use of the word "hostile", to paint said policies as "evil". Let's try to stick with that point, and leave the digressions on user talk pages. Thanks. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant? It is a comment exactly on the accusation (disguised as a question) originally made by Zero1328. If you can't remember, take a look at Dave souza's edit just above, and at the top of this section on the page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But, how does it address the real issue? It doesn't. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and came back to find this. I've seen ANI discussions before, and this one is certainly atypical. Normally the complaining party supplies diffs, examples, a desired outcome, and such, but this is just a lot of opinionating and fake mind-reading. The complaining party has failed to bring forth (dare i say it?) verifiable evidence that i don't support verifiability, NPOV or other Wikipedia policies -- because i DO support those policies.

My concern has been that editors with an agenda (political and/or religious, primarily) are misusing deletion selectively against topics that fall into their pet peeve categories. I gave stated (and supported with diffs and examples) my belief that at least one editor deleted rather than upgraded older and less-well-sourced articles on spirituality, self-help, New Thought, Creationism, Christianity, Spiritualism, divination, folklore, et al. I write in many categories (e.g dog breeds, collectibles, celebrities, music, science, religion, folklore, etc.), but only in religious and magical categories have i seem articles targeted for stubbing and deletion by editors who show great disrespect for the writers who created and/or upgraded the articles in the past.

We all know that Wikipedia standards are changing, and that old articles with no citations as well as last year's articles with end-of-article footnotes are getting tagged. It would not be difficult for the taggers to play fair and notify the writers who have worked on the articles that inline citations are being sought -- because getting the refs will be easiest for the writers who wrote the pages, since they were working from material they have in print or know how to find online.

My record of writing, copy editing, and cite-tagging for veriifiability is clear. I am not interested in low gossip, name-calling, or baiting. Since no "incidents" have been mentioned in this supposed incident report, i shall now take my leave, thanking those kind souls who supported me, and leaving what remains of this gossipy thread to the mind-readers and mentalists who prefer Wikidrama to writing encyclopedia entries.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat, glad you could join in. Unfortunately your confidence in your mind-reading powers seems undiminished, and again your argument is based on your presumption that an editor acting properly in accordance with policies, working through related articles in a normal way, had an "agenda". Your belief in his "agenda" is unfounded and irrelevant, and again you don't seem to realise that the editor was never in a position to delete any articles – that's an admin decision. You do seem to have learnt the idea of requesting references, though an unreferenced tag with the edit summary (entirely void of sourcing)[2] is rather POINTy on an article with two inline cites to BBC articles, and external links including the Guardian and The Times. However, your next edit is fine,[3] and you are of course free to delete any completely unsupported text. As always, it's up to those wanting to keep the information to provide verification. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero, so does this ANI have a resolution, or a point, or a director, or a facilitator, an authority, or what? I'm curious. Is there a massive POV push? Has it been determined? By whom? I thought i was attempting to restrain one. Seems to be a matter of perspective.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

self-ref, it is all just a farce. As far as I know, POV pushing applies only to material editors put into articles, and Zero1328's question was about discussion on various talk pages. For instance his question mentions:

I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

Obviously Zero1328 is referring to discussion on talk pages and not to material in articles that violate NPOV. Even if Zero1328 did not understand that, it is beyond comprehension why Dave souza (who is an administrator) never explained that in any of his many answers. A purpose of talk pages is to resolve POV issues, but such discussion is not POV pushing. (If my understanding of this is incorrect, I would appreciate it if someone would explain.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Malcolm, that sounds very clear. If true, this is at best a distraction from the real issues.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prom3th3an

Prom3th3an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm wondering whether I'm the only one who has had enough of this individual. As far as I can see from their contributions they add nothing whatsoever of value to the project and their childish disruption soaks up far too much time and energy by editors who are actually here to be useful. Recent "contributions" [4], [5], and this [6] nasty exchange they just removed from their talk page really sums up the way they drain oxygen and energy from the project. I'd personally like to see them indefinitly blocked but, if there is not consensus for that, I'd like to see a topic ban from wikipedia space. I'd appreciate thoughts and comments on this Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty serious. Has there been a request for comments on this user? SoArrr!Why 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to reedem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that really is only an opinion. If multiple editors have attempted to resolve conflict/issues with him/her, then a RfC would be perfectly applicable and would gain wide community input. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think with WP:AGF we should assume him to be a user worth redeeming. But my question was just to learn if there was one, because if so, we'd have something to work with, some disputes already lined out, some opinions already expressed. As for Wisdom89's comment, well, we don't know if they have. I think a RFC/U might be a way to see if multiple users have such opinions. SoArrr!Why 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also be thinkin' a RFC be the way to go. It be crazy to make editors walk the plank without parlay first. I be inclined to think there be a way to bring the scalawag back to our side. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since RfCs are finally becoming quasi-useful, it wouldn't hurt to go that route. Wizardman 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see it only as more drama and a further waste of the communities time but I can see which way this is going. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I predicted this earlier in the month, where I referred to his hostility and bitterness (his words) towards administrators a "trainwreck" waiting to happen. He has had his rollback and account creator privileges revoked, and has been banned from IRC for trolling. It's clear from his prior incidents, battling various administrators and his actions at IRC, that he no longer is a constructive contributor and is only picking and choosing his battles, to which I was warned of earlier that I'd be invoking a witchhunt. seicer | talk | contribs 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what could be classed as disruptive:

• Closing a Mediation Cabal case.
• [7][8][9][10][11] *Spamming* a lot of user talkpages with what look like "tips".
• On a similar note, I'm struggling to know why he has this page in his userspace...

• Also, he has 6,297 edits in total, only 1,957 are in the Mainspace, only 31% of his edits... D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a ban of limited duration. His recent exchange with Raul on his talk, coupled with previous blocks and warnings et al, are all enough to earn himself a break from the Wiki. Either a block for a while, or, at least, a stab at mentoring him. But, alas, I fear, it is "too late" for some users. Utan Vax (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I'd support indefinite block. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those diffs seem to warrant any kind of temp ban from project space - especially the "tips" spam Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Your probably jealous of Jimbo that's all. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" A response to me on Jimbo's talk page. It is worth pointing out that dis uzas spelin and gramaz r wurs dan most peepils. Support indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noted this user's struck-out comments at #Request for community ban above? I notice that nobody has commented about them there. Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

From my run-in with him earlier (aluded to by Corvus), I think it's clear that this user has earned a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He struck the comments - he shouldn't have made them in the first place, but at least he had the decency to strike them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, struck them but left them there for everybody to read. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to change the context of Raul's reply, as it would have seemed out of place if I removed the remarks (Like he was attacking me for no reason) so i did the next best thing, struck them out per WP:CIVIL. I also gave a sincere apology on his talk page.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When you want to remove one of your comments that someone has already replied to, one approach is to replace your comments with something like "Comments removed. Raul (or whoever), please accept my apologies and feel free to remove this part of the thread and your reply". That is an alternative to striking. Another possibility (though it takes a few estra edits) is to include a link to the diff of the comment being removed or replaced (that raises the same concerns as leaving stuff visible, though it places stuff a click away, though it does reassure those who want to make sure that you didn't remove more than you needed to). Finally, to ensure that the subthread doesn't end up not being replied to, leave Raul a talk page message explaining what you did and repeating your apologies and your offer for him to remove the whole subthread. You can even add a link back in the subthread saying "Raul notified of this offer". That way, if Raul doesn't follow up, but choses to leave the subthread in open view, people know that is his choice, not just yours. Yet another alternative (I saw SandyGeorgia do this recently) is to put off-topic or distracting parts of a thread in a collapse box, though sometimes this backfires and draws more attention to the off-topic stuff. This might all seem complicated, but then that is a consequence of people opening their mouths and talking before they think. Stuffing the genie back in the bottle takes some diplomacy sometimes, and some damage takes a long time to repair. Having said that, I personally think your explanations and contriteness here should give you a chance to show you can reform and improve (though I say that without looking in detail at what has happenned). Some of things things that you have done to irritate and annoy people are not deserving of a community ban, IMO, but as I haven't looked in enough detail, some of it might be of more concern. Still, padding the charge list with non-serious concerns not only wastes people's time, but does actually, IMO, weaken the overall case (which is not to say that a re-presentation of the ban proposal concentrating on the possibly serious stuff wouldn't be more deserving of consideration). ie. I agree with those who say an RfC (with clear presentation of evidence, as opposed to a chaotic ANI thread) is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid I was not aware of the other methods of removing ones own comments without changing the context of anothers. Its not everyday that situation pops up so I hadnt put much thought into it. Given your detailed summery of alternative ways of doing so, I agree I could have handled it better, but that is the beauty of hindsight.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have taken much foresight to see that the comments should never have been made at all, let alone the issue of what to do about them once made. Orderinchaos 11:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i find blanking of comments disruptive, as it interrupts the flow of a thread, and (especially when those comments have been replied to or commented on) may alter the meaning of a thread as a whole. I much prefer striking, though I do agree that this should be done with an appropriate edit summary, and in some cases a talk page apology. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, that's the second time recently I've seen you propose or support a community ban based on someone attacking or insulting you. If a community ban is needed in such cases, surely it will happen without you weighing in on it? To put it another way, if (according to some) it is not acceptable to personally block someone for insulting you, is it acceptable to support a community ban (which would end up being a block by a more circuitous route) for the same reason? I think what I'm trying to say here is that if you were involved in the precipitating or recent incident, you should be a "witness" if you like, rather than part of jury. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal and support of a community ban by an involved editor are two different things. The first is more improper, as it can been seen as vindictive or vengeful, and can be, and often is, dismissed easily. The second is more important, as it says ' I can't try to work with this user anymore, and am all out of AGF'. Support statements can be more carefully examined for vindictiveness or actual 'run of of patience' feelings. Sometimes we have seen insulted users come here and say 'no, not yet, I'm willing to accept him getting one more chance', so reading the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a useful distinction to make, between proposal and support. I agree with what you are saying here. Especially the "the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group" bit - I should have said that in my initial comment. I'd still be more comfortable if people stated in commmunity ban discussions whether they had any previous involvement with the user (and to be fair, most people do make that clear if asked). The difficult thing to see, when looking at a community ban discussion, is to see who the genuinely uninvolved people are. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an - Proposed community ban

Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive, but simply to stir people up and crate drama. His block log is demonstrative of this, as are his ridiculous comments. His mainspace contributions are minimal. I do not believe Prom3th3an is a net positive and propose a community ban. Giggy (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His block log shews effectively only two blocks - all the rest are adjustments. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and let me add that they were for very minor disruption. Oppose community ban or topic ban. Take it to RfC. I suspect mentorship could work well here and I'll happily take him under my wing. He's got a lot to give, he just needs to change his attitude a bit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arghh. Make him walk the plank for his disruption, incivility and drama-mongering. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to help this obvious troll find the door--endorse ban. Blueboy96 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban per Ryan. The block log is unconvincing..and the number of edits to the mainspace is pretty irrelevant. Take it to RfC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am on the wall on this one, I have seen some rather questionable contributions on and off wiki that make me want to support here but at the same time I am not sure that all other resources have been exhausted (RfC ect..). I think I would support a ban if I was to see a few more attempts to educate and solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'll echo Tip - if other avenues are exhausted to no avail, I'd reconsider, until then, I think talk of a community ban is premature. Besides, aren't bans invoked after an issue is brought to Arbcomm? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, a ban doesn't need arbitration committee sanction these days, and hasn't for a long time. We do still (as a committee) handle appeals because some bans have been poorly judged, but the majority are fair. A ban isn't usually a step the community goes to without some good reason, so it's more to ensure fairness and a route for review if there's a genuine issue. RFC isn't needed either, many community bans happen without it.

Roughly speaking, what you're really after for a community ban is a consensus that the patience of the community is pretty much done, it's not visibly changing, general net detriment (repeating problem, unhelpfulness), and time to say "the problems mean this isn't really working out for all of us". That may or may not be the case in any given situation... hence communal discussion. RFC is useful when there's a wish to explore in more depth, for example if there are concerns but unsure how widespread, or if it's not completely clear what the real problem is. If it's fairly straightforward, then a debate like this at ANI often covers the same ground more quickly and with less wasted bureaucracy. If there is a clear and visible serious problem, with strong evidence, then there's no "rule" saying RFC has to be undertaken. It's useful as a clarifier though, in some circumstances. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per reasoning above and Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki. -- Manticore (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I too would like to see an RFC first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I've personally had enough, and Manticore brings up a god point. Xclamation point 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban Prom3th3an has never caused me any grief, and has seemed like a perfectly reasonable editor to me. I would like to see an RFC first. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (not an admin- delete if this is not a valid comment)

• Support - He's harassed me and basically in IRC and Wikipedia to stir up trouble with other users. His morals are lacking. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Errrrr... just how do you intend to prove that he has harrassed you in IRC when you have already admitted to me that you do not keep a log? That's gonna be kind of tough, don't you think? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just file an RFC and we can get a ban from that consensus. I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but I really don't want AN/I to get the image as a good venue to community ban a user. These are the drama boards but plenty of users don't read them or don't feel comfortable commenting. I'm not saying an RFC reaches a wider audience, per se, but it gives him a chance to have people with defend him and weigh in. Absent some serious incident, I don't think we should be debating a ban in this venue. As for the up/down on the ban in general, I'm neutral. I've seen that user here and there and usually not liked what I have seen, but that could be said about me in plenty of cases, so: meh. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to propose and decide on a community ban. RFC rarely result in blocks or bans and they would need to be endorsed here if they did. Based on the statement below do you see any evidence that they will change their ways? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I always though WP:AN was the venue for community ban discussions? ANI is for urgent incidents. AN is for the longer, more careful discussions, such as community ban discussions. I'm annoyed I didn't notice this before. ANI and subpages (in the case of another discussion) are not the places for ban discussions. Quite apart from the fact that they distract from the incidents that need dealing with and take longer, community ban discussions should be treated with respect, not suddenly produced in the heat of the moment as part of an ongoing ANI thread. That is a knee-jerk reaction. Any community ban proposal should have careful presentation of evidence, and clearly delineate the point at which the discussion will end. Otherwise you get discussions closed as a ban after only a day, and others that drag on for weeks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Per this D.M.N. (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban proposal: a ban is not yet warranted by Prom's behaviour. I reiterate the suggestions that an RFC be filed, and note that the proposal to put Prom. into Mentorship would indeed be wise; I think he simply needs a stronger editor to guide him on the right track (eg., with his small heated exchange with Raul yesterday, he apologised upon my suggestion -- obviously willing to listen and learn). I would caution him in the strongest possible words, however, to think before he acts and to give due thought to the consequences of each edit he makes; if he fails to remedy the currently poor conduct he is practising, I do fear a second ban proposal would not result in such a sympathetic consensus. Anthøny ✉ 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per AGK (Anthony) and my comments further above. Premature - RFC needed first. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. This user, who is fairly young, needs serious help and probably mentorship to get them on track, there is too much drama and too many incidents to ignore. However a community ban at this stage when other means have not been tried first are ridiculous. Orderinchaos 11:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose If you give him time (and intense mentorship), he'll come around. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Prom said he is sorry on IRC, I have the log :) Give him more time 2 weeks perhaps.

iDangerMouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He said sorry the last time too. Then this happened. Orderinchaos 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Give him 2 weeks only.... iDangerMouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Anthony as well as my own earlier comment. Having discussed it with him, he's noted he's ready for mentorship or anything the community will throw at him, and appears to be genuinely regretful of his actions. I considered this a very serious matter and did let him know of how this could've turned out. He knows that he has a fair amount of work ahead of him, and this might require a frustrating amount of time and effort, and is willing to do what it takes. I see no reason not to afford him another chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- this looks like self-perpetuating wikidrama. You are giving attention to people who misbehave because they want attention. Wikipedia isn't a social network, people. You don't need to psychoanalyse problem editors. If they cause problems, slap blocks on them, escalating lengths in case of repeated offense. Some will get it, others will keep going until blocked for good. All this social drama draws away admin resources from issues with the actual encyclopedia (disputes, trolling, pov-pushers). There is no need to community-ban this user. He's been given a couple of blocks of a few hours' lengths. Well, if he keeps prancing around, just double the block length in every future block and the problem will go away one way or the other. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I met him only as a mediator, and he shown himself to be a good one. I was later surprised to learn of the drama surround him, but I cannot support an argument for blocking that is framed like that one ("Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban, but I would support a topic ban from the noticeboards (except for matters directly concerning his own conduct) for a period of time to be determined. Prom needs to refocus on what it is we are here to do. I would also be willing to resume adoption/mentoring of Prom, as I had ended that relationship when he entered admin coaching. –xeno (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Saw this on IRC earlier, I would Strongly Oppose a community ban, but I would Support mentoring. Can I just add that one of the blocks (the incivility one) was defending me after the whole Chemistrygeek incident. He, like many, believed I was innocent (which a CU showed I was) and his incivility was because he was "taking on the system" so to speak, saying that it was all ridiculous. (Or at least that's how I saw it). I do not endorse incivility (and I know I myself have been) but surely when it is for the good of the encyclopedia (ie not losing me as an editor) I think we can let it pass. Thanks, BG7even 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the user causes disruption, please go ahead and post some examples of it. The reasons adduced above are blah. I especially despise the notion that "hostility and bitterness towards administrators" is a good reason to cut somebody off from contributing to the project. No, we're supposed to put up with stuff like that. We're admins, not royalty. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

Statement

I've just spotted this, and I must admit I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of people who think I am deserving of a community ban or other type of restriction. However, I heed your concerns and this has been a wake up call. I think that a RFC/U would have come notice to me as to how much trouble I was causing and I wish people would AGF instead of making s summery like "RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to redeem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me" I would seriously give anything a try to avoid a community ban, I must admit it looks ugly, but when you break it down I am trying.

• In regards to Raul I was totally out of line, I should not have acted upon what one hears on IRC, after realising this I removed or struck out my comments and apologised to Raul without any sort of request, I understand if he would still want me community banned, but never the less its the intention and the thought that counts.
• I closed the mediation case with best of intentions because it had principally moved on to RFAR and the mediation case was WP:STICK.
• The tip "spamming" was to members of this Wikipedia:WikiProject_AP_Biology_2008 group, I could have put it on the project page but I it to seem a bit more personal considering the barnstar’s I gave them all (which is funnily not mentioned) for the effort and enthusiasm they have put in. They are all new users and I thought that those two tips would help them fit in. I gave them the tips after congratulating the co-ordinator for the idea.
• The joke block page is in good humour, its a preload that comes up when you click "To vandalise my user page click here instead." on my message portal. It was going to be used for April fools day (see history) but until such a time I changed it to its current revision.
• My block log has two blocks, one 3 hour block for civility issues and one 12 hour block for WP:TE. There are far more colourful block logs out there who belong to users who did mend, I would like the same opportunity.
• The so called "Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki" on a test wiki that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, has nothing to do with Wikipedia or its projects. However if you want an explanation email me. Note that Manticore is actually a key staff member on the test wiki and has not interfaced with me on Wikipedia at any point, I question his motives as it would seem clear he would have a clear-cut bias.
• In Re: To Tyler Puetz's claims, He was ranting and trolling on IRC, saying how he cheated on a history exam and how he has been through courts (careful to mention for civil and criminal) for hacking and causing massive damges and how the CEO was pissed etc, How He has called the FBI and the police heaps etc. His age made it quite clear that he was making all this up, I and several others told him to stop, he didnt so I !op for trolling and an op re-centered the conversation. I find it ammusing how he said my morals are lacking, when on IRC I said I had morals in regards to his cheating confession. I dont think I need to say anything more about that
• In regards to the very short removal of rollback and ACC which was initiated by MBisanz, it was restored within an hour later with the following sumamry's "after review, the user hasn't abused rollback, but doesn't need the account creator flag" and "Further review - this editor had a clean record up until now & removing these bits smacks of punitive measures"
• The block silence for "trolling on IRC" was because I was discussing my 3 hour block intesivly, I have since then not been silenced. I was not aware that IRC was offically related to wikipedia, so I dont know why it was raised here.

I felt that alot of the points people has raised needed addressing as I felt it was Mis-construed or skewed by leaving out alot of the points such as my apology to Raul or the tips were not actually talkpage spamming or the rollback removal was actually an admin's mistake and was quickly reverted.

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it not worry you that so many people have had enough of you? Please can you explain how you will change your behaviour if you are not blocked/banned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of upmost concern and hurtfullness that I have ended up here, being discussed. If you had asked me four months ago the possility of me being here or having a block I would have laughed the suggestion off becuase Community bans were are thing that happened to other people. Now the scenario seems so more real. I was, up untill now organising measures in place to help me get back on track, I can but hope that I have the chance to finish them, and to see if they work.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people have brought it to my attention that my statement implies I may be trying to defend my actions as completly innocent. This could not be further from the truth, I admit I have done many wrongs over the past 2-3 months however I am willing to change. If its any constellation I think mentoring would be the best resolve from this and that I would try my hardest to gain as much as possible from it. I am willing to burry the hatchet, get over that which has plagued (what some have described as) an otherwise promising editor for the past 3 months. I still have alot more to give and do. Again I stress that this particuler discussion has been a wake up call that going around feuding with other editors whom you have a brush with isnt acceptable. And I am most willing to consider anyones suggestions or requests.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Information (for what it's worth) -- I had not heard of Prom3th3an until the Steve Crossin incident (~Aug 23). In that incident, the Arbitration Committee were emailed with anonymous emails of what we felt to be a game-y and uncertain faith nature ("Have you figured out who it is yet?"), and then made posts on-wiki about it that led to this by Deskana and these comments by myself: Prom3th3an's comment, mine, Prom3th3an's 2nd post (later modified), mine. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think we should give the "devil" his due, After your requests for me to effectivly "butt out" of the whole steve-crossin thing, i did exactly that (butt out) from memory.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, where to from here?

Given a community ban appears to have been rejected, what should take place? I think for Prom3th3an's sake, there needs to be clarity, so that he can move on in the appropriate manner without this hanging over him in an unresolved fashion. My own idea of a solution would be some form of enforced mentorship, with recourse to blocks (not indefinite - enough to stop the behaviour without being punitive) if we see repeats of the personal commentary incidents.

I talked to the user at length last night on IRC and I think it's a reasonable conclusion he is good faith and means well, that the eruptions are more stemming from a lack of control/forethought than any genuine ill will, and that an area of concern is priorities. The priority of an encyclopaedia should always, first and foremost, be building its content and providing the means for content to be built, and anything else (drama, social networking, who's saying what at Jimbo's talk page, adminship etc) comes a distant second. He is an intelligent and capable user who is in the top classes at school, and I feel he could become a highly useful contributor with appropriate guidance and direction as long as he is willing to cooperate.

The level of mainspace contributions in recent weeks is something I have already raised with him, and seeing just two more in the eight days hence (both of which could be classed as technical or minor), I really hope to see an improvement in that as well. Orderinchaos 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input, concerns and direction Orderinchaos. I totally agree with the "priorities" statement and I have one thing to add and that is, I dropped all the work I had to do this weekend (including Year 11 assignments, 3 of them) to attend to this ANI thread, more particularly the community ban thread that another user has described as "self-perpetuating wikidrama" (Whether or not I personally agree with that statement is irrelevant), I would hope that what ever method/outcome the community decides is swift (without being hasty), free of unnecessary drama and stress for all. In self reflection the community ban thread achieved something it may not have intended, that being it made me realise that I've been walking a misleadingly fine line for some time. My thanks go to those who have shown faith that I can change, it is a moral booster that will help.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalled?

Im starting to get concerned that this (what would have seemed as productive) discussion has stalled. Theres still the matter of wether we accept the proposal above, or weather the community wants a RFC/U. I would like to get this dealt with (and over and done with) sooner rathor than latter   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can find a willing mentor who the community would trust, I'd be happy to vote for its closure. I have a few people in mind but it would be unfair to name them without asking their permission. Orderinchaos 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FGS Ψrom3th3ăn does not need a mentor, he knows where he went wrong, or at least where the community feels he went wrong. I completely concur with Bishonen, Admins have to remember they are here to ensure the smooth running of the project, they are not here to act in an overiding and imperious fashion, we have another body who acts in that fashion on our behalf. Ψrom3th3ăn has a had a wake-up call, give him a chance to sort himself out, and this will probably be the end of the matter. No story. Giano (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Giano ... from what I see, Promethean has had his proverbial member slapped. Many of his "reasonings" are indeed sensible, but I believe it has been the sum of the issues that has led people to where we are today. I would be quite happy to say "hey, Promethean ... you've played with fire. Today, you've been singed, next time you might get burnt." Let's not tie him to any rocks quite yet, as I'm not in the mood for liver (mythology puns purposeful). BMW(drive) 11:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, I have met someone who knows whom my username is derived from. Rather ironic to say the least.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if most regular editors my age hadn't picked up on the Prometheus reference - I dunno how much Greek mythology gets taught to youngsters these days but I'm a grumpy old 'un and I recognised it immediately. I'd say that we can archive this discussion now. You clearly have a sense of what issues you need to work on and I don't see anyone clammering for the task of mentoring you and perhaps you can manage without. My final advice is to stay out of project space and go do some article work - yes before you say anything this is advice I can probably take myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Noroton's disruptive editing has made work on various presidential election-related articles just about impossible (see Talk pages of Bill Ayers for a start). This has gone on for months, and instead of improving with experience and coaching, his work has deteriorated. He has shown no interest in encyclopedic facts, structure, style or wording. Instead, he has a clear personal agenda and searches for 'sources' that support his virulent anti-Obama attack mode, no matter how fringe (or second- or third- or fourth-hand 'quotes') they may be. He completely ignores the spirit of Wikipedia and instead looks for 'loopholes' to justify his POV edits. This simply can't continue. We're getting to the end of September and he's diverting editors who could be doing work elsewhere into constantly reverting his edits and discussing with him (for the umpteenth time) variations on the theme of what 'encyclopedic' means. Other editors have simply given up in disgust and left. If he's blocked until mid-November, it's possible he will come to his senses after the election is over. Right now, he seems to believe he's on some mission to save the world from encyclopedic editing. I think we're at the end of the road right now, and blocking is the only thing left. Flatterworld (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome this thread, although I don't have much time today, I'll be back either late tonight or early tomorrow morning (that is, about 8 hours or 18 hours from now). I'd like administrators to look at Flatterworld's comments at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and Violence (this diff [12]) and Talk:Bill Ayers#First paragraph (this diff [13]) and see if Flatterworld is not acting more like a troll than a constructive contributor. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about information previously not considered (which is what I'm also trying to do at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC) and Flatterworld, on the Bill Ayers talk page, is immediately trying to turn a civil discussion into a mudwrestling match. I've certainly let Flatterworld get under my skin in the past, but I'm really trying to avoid responding in kind to impolite comments. Please help me to do so. Please remind Flatterworld that working with others in a civil way, discussing new facts and how they may be helpful in developing articles is what talk pages are supposed to do, and working together to reach consensus is what we're supposed to be doing to build the encyclopedia. And please tell him that if he can't work that way, he will be banned from Bill Ayers and related topics. Because, really, he's being a pest and he seems to think it's proper behavior.[14] I asked MastCell for help here, but he seems to be away from the keyboard. This kind of abuse is depressing. -- Noroton (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll be making new proposals soon at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC with information previously not considered by editors on that page. Some editors interested in shutting down discussion now while their own POV is reflected on the pages of Weatherman (organization)-related articles might find it useful to review WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if no administrator is willing to do so on their own it is time for a community topic ban. For my part, after trying for months I am more or less giving up on interacting with this tendentious editor. At the same time he is mangling some important articles, and I do not want to let him bully me into letting him have his way with the encyclopedia. I took a bad faith report he had filed against me here as an occasion to file the content-oriented Obama/Weathermen/terrorism RfC here where we conclude conclude once and for all in an orderly way whether his content position has consensus (it obviously does not), reach a result, and stick with it. But he is gumming up the process with procedural game-playing on the RfC. After utterly failing to get consensus for calling various living people terrorists and murderers, he refuses to accept the result, announces he has won, forks the discussion to re-propose the exact same thing again and again edit wars BLP vios on the affected articles in the middle of the RfC discussion to the point where one is protected and another currently in a state of edit warring. This continues a months-long campaign of BLP vios, edit warring, game playing to the point of bad faith, personal attacks, incivilities, fabricated complaints against other editors, and dozens and dozens of rejected proposals all on a single POV point. It may not be too late to simply close the RfC as no consensus, revert the edits he has warred into place, and start an RfC or other behavioral process from there if he does not comply. But he obviously is not complying with consensus or our behavioral policies, and he is demonstrating a propensity for messing up RfCs, so that time is probably now. There are 2-3 other editors of dubious legitimacy and an equal number of new SPAs making the same point who will probably show up here or anywhere else we try to deal with them, and who themselves probably should be dealt with as well. Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't think an AN/I report at this time could lead to a lot of argument but is unlikely to lead to any administrative action. We should probably conclude the RfC and if the results aren't respected, file a new AN/I report, behavioral RfC, and if all other recourse fails, an arbitration case over editing abuse. I note that some of the parties seem to be planning (another) arbitration case against me(!). Hmmm. Anyway, for the sake of Wikipedia tranquility and so that this board can concentrate on easier problems it's probably best to withdraw or conclude this one unless any administrator is ready to deal with Noroton and some of the other editors at this time. Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize all the hard work editors like Wikidemon, Scjessy, and Flatterworld have out into editing them and scrubbing them of any content they dont deem appropriate, and I realize with all that time and effort that you would certainly feel that these articles belong to you, but they don’t. The sooner you realize that other editors are entitled to edit these articles, the sooner this conflict will end. CENSEI (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really wish to debate this editor, but when the many established editors from throughout the project reach a stable view on article content it is called consensus, not ownership. Further, when there is consensus against including material in an article disputed as non-neutral, BLP violating, etc., at some point those advancing the material have to realize they do not have support to include it. Creating a "conflict" when they cannot get their way can become a behavioral problem eventually if it disrupts the encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked over at the Bill Ayers article. I saw that Noroton is definitely interested in seeing some content and wording included. I do not see tendentious editing. I do not see abusive POV pushing. I see zealous, but legitimate advocacy and patience on all parts, and see no need for a community ban of any scale, topic to WP -wide. I did note at that talk page some personal attacks against Noroton, and some POV pushing by another editor, tangential to what's discussed here. ThuranX (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you did not look very carefully. Nobody has bothered to compile a real incident report here, and I do not think this is the time or place right now. However, there is a months-long pattern of POV, abuse, insults, edit warring, etc. that has been a rather significant problem on several Obama-related articles and shows no sign of abating. Noroton has been here at AN/I quite a few times. At one time when he was being particularly tendentious I compiled a brief 2-day slice of his editing problems, over at the article probation page here (he also filed a dubious complaint against one of the editors he was having trouple with). That is all stale now but it might begin to give an uninvolved editor a sense of what is going on.Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So people who don't agree with you are blind. Lovely. If you don't like the report, fix it. The request was to look at Ayers' article, I did, i saw nothing rising to the level of a ban of any sort. You don't like it, file a better report. I read through that page for about 20, 25 minutes, and all I saw were a personal attack against him, and the unrelated POV push. Further, I don't see why you all can't agree to classify Ayers' plans and actions as violent, instead of label the man, and let readers draw the conclusions? No one can deny that blowing up a building full of police wouldn't be 'violent'. ThuranX (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "people" in general, only that you are mistaken if you do not see the editing problems with Noroton. I am not going to fix the report - if you read the above, I did not file it, and I am counseling the person who did that this is not the time. The content issue is being discussed at RfC, but the latest issue was a behavioral problem - an edit war that got this second article long-term protected. Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you; I'm uninvolved and don't see it, you're on the 'other side' and are making hay while the sun's up. ThuranX (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of accusations being thrown around without many diffs. So far, Noroton is the only user to provide any diffs detailing misbehavior. So I guess what I'm saying is: you need to back up your claims of poor behavior. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And now that I've taken a look at Talk:Bill Ayers, I suggest that Flatterworld (talk · contribs) start communicating in a more civil manner. The following edits are uncivil: [15], [16], [17]. Regarding that last one, caps locking and bolding is generally considered to be rude. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, everyone. -- Noroton (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article

Resolved

 – article indefinitely protected by User:Slakr

[18] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are here, could an admin please take a look at the Bill Ayers article, in view of calming an edit war over there? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An edit war that you and Scjessey have provoked and participated in. CENSEI (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A misleading non-sequitur attack from one of the problem editors I refer to above. I'm fully expecting plenty of tit-for-tat counterattacks - I've been subjected to them as long as I've been trying to keep peace on Wikipedia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Obama yet my check political inclinations at the door while I Wikiedit Wikipedia. Still, in this totally whacked out and silly political season, it would be great if we could wait until the first Tuesday of November has gone by before we tackle Flatterworld's complaint. However, if it's decided to go ahead now, let me say that I am familiar with the diffs Noroton provides in the section above and understand his frustration with Flatterworld. Doesn't Flatterworld's modus in this very report mimic hi/r talkpage style: to eschew actual discussion of precise citations from sources and exact language of WP guidelines and instead make simple pronouncements in the tone of Trust My Words? As is best on an article's Talk page -- also, here. With the exception of open-and-shut cases, the best protocol while alleging another contributor's problematic behavior is to provide diffs thought to plainly back it up.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we're using a resolved section on an edit war for complaining about other editors. Flatterworld has been just fine. Noroton's calling Flatterworld a troll, above, is par for the course. Noroton is getting worse, and is vexing quite a few long-term, serious, legitimate contributors like Flatterworld, a 2-year editor with 10,000+ mainspace contributions to 3,800+ articles. We are growing tired of discussion and citations, which have been provided again and again in response to Noroton's many dozen attempts to upset consensus to avoid calling Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn terrorists or murderers, and to avoid linking them and terrorism to Obama. Chronicling his behavior problems would involve several megabytes of differences, something best done should there be a need to explain this to the uninitiated in a serious discussion of a topic ban. Noroton is also a prolific editor who makes uncontroversial contributions in other parts of the encyclopedia. In the meanwhile, a pause in the game playing, edit warring, incivilities, etc., would be most welcome.Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a multitude of sources that "described Ayers as terrorist"? A compromise solution may be that rather than calling Ayers a terrorist in his article, the article should note that he was "described as a terrorist" or "described as a member of a domestic terrorist organization" didn't look that much into this to know which would fit better but I seem to recall a long list of sources that was presented at an Rfc about this issue. Hobartimus (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The solution you are describing to point out that people call Weathermen terrorists is Noroton's proposal for Ayers' article, which so far has not gained consensus at the RfC because some describe it as a BLP violation, POV, undue weight, violation of WP:TERRORISM, etc. Noroton was participating in the edit war to insert distinct but related contentious information in the Ayers article[19][20][21][22] just before it got protected,[23] and was one of two editors edit warring against consensus on the Dohrn article to insert the very material proposed in the RfC while the RfC was in process.[24][25][26] leading to protection of that article.[27] Now he's WP:CANVASSing a long list of editors including at least two SPAs [28][29][30][31] and one confirmed sockpuppet[32][33] to alert them to his new contributions to the RfC. Wikidemon (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. I appreciate the time you've all taken to look into this and comment. -- Noroton (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

User:Levine2112 reverted my explained removal of an off-handed comment without substantive explanation. Another editor shares my concerns that he is being tendentious and obstructionist. He has stated that he thinks people pointing out that he is edit warring are "lying". He's also on a weird harassment campaign of editors who resist his alt medicine POV-pushing. Please advise. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note previous run-ins with this character: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has been placed on 0rr for the article based on his/her threat [34] to edit war. Any reverts by said user to that page will result in a block. User has been notified. Vsmith (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User warned as requested below. Vsmith (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What threat to edit war? I simply stated that I was going to revert. Not continually revert. Just revert that once. There is no implication (much less a threat) of edit warring on my part. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a sec... I'm not opposed to a 0RR restriction, if needed, but let's make sure that we have proper authority for it. There's a requirement that the editor be formally notified ahead of time, with a template or formal warning to their talkpage which informs them of the ArbCom case, so they have an option to avoid the restrictions if they wish. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Also, there should be a time limit specified. Lastly, these bans need to be logged at the appropriate ArbCom case page. But no matter what, it's the same as when blocking an established user, we have to warn them first, and give them the opportunity to modify their own behavior, before imposing a sanction on them. --Elonka 19:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say said user is aware of the Arbcom case - so it seems the legalese stuff is a bit redundant. Duration of restriction - how about a month. Will amend my notification to said user's talk page. Vsmith (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Amended notice. User has the option of avoiding the consequences of the restriction - simply don't revert. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of general sanctions is to bring an area into good conduct that's been a persistent problem. To do that, administrators need, and use, a wide range of restrictions which they apply at reasonable discretion, and that is backed by the Arbitration Committee's decision. So yes, for an editor who is engaging in revert warring, 0RR is a completely appropriate answer and uses the remedy exactly as intended, to achieve the goal.

However you're slightly misunderstanding the practicalities. Such sanctions are usually intended to deal with actual disruption in most cases, not just that they "might" or "will". Admins and other established users should be aware and take note of others' concerns more than most. Just because a sanction exists does not mean it should be used before its time. You haven't said "please don't edit war", nor warned him that he faces restriction if he reverts in a non-collegial manner, and that's fairly useful to do.

The warning in our decision is not arbitrary, it's not just "he knows sanctions exist" or "legalese". It is so the user knows they themselves specifically will face restriction if they persist in a specific behavior they are doing. It's not optional. The correct use of a sanction like this is to consider if the time's come to restrict their conduct, and if so to tell them that if they repeat you intend to do so. At that point, it's their call. Could you amend your post and make it clear - and perhaps a bit more congenial too.

You might like to try something like this: "This [=LINK] really isn't okay. The topic area is under restrictions [=LINK TO DECISION] to prevent exactly this kind of edit warring. If you have a dispute, please follow communal norms. If you unilaterally revert, whether right or wrong I shall place you under a restriction, since this kind of edit warring has to end." That kind of wording is both firm, but also, explains fairly the concern, and gives a better chance to resolve it amicably. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for further clarifying for me. The problem I saw was that the user stated an intent to revert or edit war on a particular point. That threat on such a contested page was going too far. Said user is well aware of the nature of the page and the arbcom case - so it seemed best to nip the threatened behavior in the bud. But, as I seem to be lacking support - I'll amend again. Vsmith (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand. A "recipe" I often find myself ending up using is something like this: be clear what the problem is (disputed article to the point it has had general sanctions approved on it). Be clear what they are doing that's not okay and why (proposing to revert war which is exactly what we're trying to prevent). Say what they should do to solve their problem (dispute resolution, not edit warring). Say what is likely or will happen if they continue (restrictions on reverting, whether right or wrong). That helps a lot in disputes, and also as an admin helps you ensure you stay firmly in a neutral "whats best" stance by being clear what you're trying to achieve.

The reason why an article gets general sanctions in the first place is when its impossible to sort out the content issue until the conduct issues are brought under control, so it's a case of "right or wrong, doesn't matter, this isn't okay". That applies to an awful lot of disputes, and helps users understand you aren't taking sides if you say so. You also want to be careful that if someone's are being provoked, or others are doing stuff too, to note it. It reduces the risk that people see you as being one-sided. It takes a few more words, but it can help avoid confrontation and heated anger and get people who might have disagreed, to understand what you're trying to accomplish and why. Hope this helps :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Levine is a seasoned edit warrior and proponent of fringe views, a 0RR restriction is reasonable I would say. Levine is fully aware of the contentious nature of these edits and the history and restrictions which apply to the articles, requiring additional explicit warning seems to me to be needless bureaucracy and an invitation to gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am helping to mentor ScienceApologist. Levine2112 cannot credibly claim to be unaware of the sanctions in effect at these articles. They have been involved in the homeopathy disputes since before I set up the community article probation that predated the ArbCom case. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• There was notification at the talk page.Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 12#Notice Here is evidence Levine2112 is aware of the original probation.User talk:Levine2112/archive7#Homeopathy article probation notification User talk:Levine2112/archive7#Article Probation .28civility.29 QuackGuru 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I've notified Levine of the ArbCom pseudoscience sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This demonstrates, IMHO, complete ridiculousness or complete misunderstanding. My goal was to have a stable article and discussion environment and I did nothing to betray this goal. I had no intent to edit war, nor did I allude to any such intent. I simply stated that the "agreement" which ScienceApologist claimed existed, obviously did not and was his own fabrication. In fact, the only agreement at that point was to revert to a version of the article which all parties felt comfortable enough with while discussion resumed cordially on the Talk page. This is all I did. I reverted once to the version which was agreed upon and stated my intent to do so on the Talk page. Please read the Talk page here and see how Fyslee, Arthur Rubin, Ludwig2, and myself (all on different sides of the disputed article) all agreed to revert to the stable version and begin discussing any desired changes. I am happy to take the "warning" but I object to characterizations of my behavior as "edit warring". The only edit warring that I saw was from ScienceApologist who started the downward spiral of this article from its previous peaceful and stable version to the quagmire of edit warring that it is now in. We can all see the results of his actions (and the allowance of such actions). The article is in turmoil. It has been almost completely whitewashed (much reliably sourced criticism has been removed) and thus no longer comes close to conforming to NPOV or CON. Whereas before, there was at least a willingness to discuss controversial edits before they were made, now there is no such regard given. I am glad that Elonka's restrictions have been re-imposed because that seems to be the only thing which curbs edit warriors such as ScienceApologist and QuackGuru (among others). My feeling remains that the article should be reverted back to the last stable version, and discussions about any edits proceed at Talk with none being enacted without consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the mind's worst disease comment about anyhow? I would like an explanation. Thanks. QuackGuru 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a little Eastern philosophy which I though may help you. If you are truly interested and want to learn more consider watching this short video presentation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unaddressed issues

And this justifies you again blatantly violating CIVIL, HARASS, and NPA? Your misrepresentations of others? --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It justifies my actions as being ones of helpfulness in the face of disruptiveness. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You're saying that repeated, blatant violations of CIVIL, HARASS, NPA, etc are acceptable if the editor making the violations thinks they are helpful? --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. Which one(s) of my actions at the Quackwatch article or talk page are you interpreting to be a blatant violation of anything? Please provide a ref and an explanation of why you specifically feel I have blatantly violated CIVIL, HARASS or NPA. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you're suddenly confused after you said you were justified. What do you think it was you justified?

One diff has already been given. It speaks for itself for anyone familiar with the policies and guidelines in question. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by you stating that I have blatantly violated CIVIL, HARASS or NPA in terms of the Quackwatch article. Please provide diffs that justify such an accusation or please withdraw it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, if anyone is going to be making accusations of policy violations at ANI, it's necessary to provide proof, in the form of diffs. Without proof, please don't make the accusations, thanks. --Elonka 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that, I would like be given proof that I threatened edit war. This is the stated reason for my "warning". I would like to be provided with some proof in the form of diffs that I threated edit war. Without such proof, the warning should be rescinded. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The diff has been provided. How many times in the same discussion should a diff be given? Per WP:TALK I expect that editors contributing to a discussion will actually read the discussion and look for the references to previous points within the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, in the diff provided which is being called 'harrassment' [35], Levine says "hope this helps you if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. the struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease...."

In what way is this harrassment? I would say it is quite the opposite. Sticky Parkin 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Truly. And I thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just maybe I'm referring to the other diff? I guess looking at a total of two diffs is too much for some editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That second diff reveals that you were harassing me yet again - even after I've asked you over and over not to post on User page. Yet you still did, and really only to harass me. In my edit summary I point out that your post was false. You said that I shouldn't revert an edit without commenting on the talk page, but if you look at the facts, you will see that indeed I did comment on the talk page and explained quite clearly why I was going to revert. So what's the issue with the second diff as you see it? As I noted, I appreciated your apology to me following that post as I thought you had recognized that what you posted was untruthful and viewed as harassment. So why are you changing your mind now? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) So you're allowed to violate CIVIL, NPA, and HARASS because, whenever it is convenient for you, you say I'm not allowed to post on your talk page? Sorry Levine2112, but I'm allowed to post to your talk page. Get over it. Stop using it as an excuse for your misbehavior.

Regarding my apology, please do not misrepresent me to justify your harassment and incivility. I told you, "I'm happy to explain my previous comment in detail." Let's look at some diffs:

• 20:12, 19 September 2008 Levine 2112 reverts without any corresponding discussion
• 22:28, 19 September 2008 Levine 2112 reverts again, still without any corresponding discussion
• 00:59, 20 September 2008 Elonka starts a discussion about the edit-warring
• 01:36, 20 September 2008 Levine 2112 joins the discussion

My comment to the four editors involved in the edit-warring, including Levine2112, was "Please do not simply revert edits. Instead, please make a clear corresponding comment on the talk page discussing your reasoning." --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, so by the look of this, I commented in clear correspondence to my reversion within 5 hours of my edit. However, your message to me came at 17:17, 20 September 2008, nearly 16 hours after I had post my clear corresponding comment. So we would have to agree that telling me that I did not provide a clear corresponding comment is a false claim on your point. Perhaps you missed the fact that I posted a corresponding comment. If that is the case, I apologize for calling your post a "lie" rather than just an "oversight on your part". Regardless, I must have taken your advice to heart because this whole ANI post seems to be about my corresponding comment to ScienceApologist that I was going to revert his edit BEFORE I reverted. In retrospect, I wasn't clear enough because Vsmith misinterpretted my post to mean that I was threatening to continually revert, but in actuality all I meant was that I was going to revert that once. Vsmith and I have talked about this and he has apologized to me for the misunderstanding. As for you telling me to "get over it" - frankly, that is rude. If I request that you stop posting to my User page, you are certainly allowed to disregard my wishes, but it is still rude behavior on your part nonetheless. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened next? Levine2112 reverts without a valid reason.[36] Levine2112 did not explain his reason for reverting, only his intent to revert. QuackGuru 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. I explained quite clearly that the edit I was reverting was made without discussion or agreement. That was my reason for reverting. Is that so difficult to understand? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to revert without a clear explanation of your disagreement with the edit. You reverted without any specific objection to the edit. QuackGuru 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that it is not a valid reason to revert an edit. I disagree. I think given that the article is fragile, that the edit was contentious, and that there was an agreement among the other editors to restore the article to the prior stable version and discuss all future edits and reach an agreement before implementation, my reason for reversion was quite valid. My only mistake was not clarifying that my intent to "revert accordingly" should have been written "revert once accordingly" because it seems that Vsmith had interpeted it to mean "revert over and over again accordining". Frankly, I thought the "once" was implied, but I guess I can see how others may not infer that. Anyhow, Vsmith has apologized to me for misunderstanding my intent and now that my intent is clear to you (and all), you should not continue to say that my intent was to edit war. That is not even an assumption of bad faith - it's just bad. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting because you feel the article is fragile is not a valid reason to revert. No specific objection was made to the edit. There is no agreement among editors to discuss edits first. Please tell us a valid reason you reverted or is it because you don't like Barrett? QuackGuru 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I continue to disagree with you. I feel that given that the article is fragile, that the edit was contentious, and that there was an agreement among the other editors to restore the article to the prior stable version and discuss all future edits and reach an agreement before implementation, my reason for reversion was quite valid. If you read the archives, you will see that there is a clear agreement among editors to discuss edits first. In general, this should be the case in all contentious articles. There is always WP:BOLD, but in the case of contentious articles, it is best to follow WP:CON. This is what Elonka has been trying to enforce at the article and this what many of us - including myself - have come to respect. Editors such as you seem hellbent on quibbling over what is the meaning of ORR or what is a revert, when at the end of the day, if we all just work together, we can accomplish writing a decent encyclopedia article - which by the way, is our mission here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This comment by Levine2112 asserts that he disagrees with the edit but never explained any objection to the specific edit. Levine2112 wants everybody to discuss all edits first. If editors do not have a specific objection to the edit then we have consensus. Please abide. The text failed verification anyhow. QuackGuru 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, because Levine2112 discussed two reverts within five hours of making them, after someone else brought up the issue of edit-warring, Levine2112 feels justified in responding to a edit-warring warning by assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, harassing others, and misrepresenting others. Thanks for clearing that up Levine2112. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I discussed one reversion within 5 hours and the other I discussed minutes BEFORE the reversion. I never edit warred. I made no personal attacks. I harrassed no one. And I misrepresented nothing. You, Ronz, on the other hand, have assumed bad faith in placing a message on my page claiming that I didn't comment on my reversion 16 hours after I had commented on my reversion. You have harassed me by commenting on my talk page when I have asked you time and time again to stay away. You have misrepresented my actions over and over again. You continue to harass me here with your spin and condescending tone. I assure you, your poor behavior here is not going unnoticed by a couple of key admins. So before you go pointing fingers, consider your own actions here first and how they are looking to others. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside

On an aside, would somebody care to explain how the article Quackwatch falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy? Shot info (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Where Elonka said Homeopathy, I guess she should have said Pseudoscience. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the evidence doesn't support that - and even at this very moment in time still doesn't support that. Shot info (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We used the Homeopathy case before, because its scope is "articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted", and the Quackwatch article is homeopathy-related (the term is right in the article). Though if folks think that the newer Pseudoscience case might be more appropriate to use at this point, I'd have no big problem with switching over. The discretionary sanctions are the same, regardless of which case we use. --Elonka 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to your reasonings for how you got to your conclusion. So what you are saying is effectively "If Article X has a word that is mentioned in a RfA then it falls under the broadly interpreted clause"? Shot info (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Levine of the ArbCom pseudoscience restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW Phil, I think you have two RfA crossed in your warning to Levine (the SA/Martin one and the Pseudoscience one). Shot info (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's more or less intentional, the Pseudoscience restrictions require the notifications to be logged on the other ArbCom case page for some reason. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought you may have had a cutnpaste error :-) Shot info (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the crossover is that when the ArbComm set up the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, it was as part of a request for clarification/amendment of both prior cases. The MartinPhi/ScienceApologist case is more restrictive about which admins can enforce its remedies (members of two Wikiprojects are prohibited). Supposedly, from conversations with the amendment clerk, the ArbComm was going to issue a later clarification about they actually intended, but until they do, better to keep the admins out of trouble by having the links and logs on the page where the admins will be cautioned that certain admins may be supposed to avoid enforcement activity. GRBerry 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is a major critic of homeopathy and one of the few sites on the web that takes the time and trouble to point out that water memory is complete bollocks, and why. It is also a major source of criticism of other forms of pseudoscience and quackery, so the article (and indeed the site) is under constant attack from kooks, quacks and other assorted ne'er-do-wells. The major bone of contention right now appears to be that mainstream sources lend the site a credibility that the frings and pseudoscience proponents would rather it did not have. They try to fix this problem by citing biased, polemical, unqualified or non-expert sources - in other words, another example of trying to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world dispute. I suggest arbitration (again) as nothing else seems to shut these people up. Levine's idea of a "decent article" is one which undermines the credibility of a source he clearly dislikes intensely. I have strong suspicions that Levine has a real-world conflict of interest here. At the very least, 0RR should apply, and actually I would be more comfortable with a complete ban from that article for that editor. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • After discussion between myself and admin Vsmith, we decided to place the article on a 1RR restriction for 30 days. See also Talk:Quackwatch#Conditions for editing. --Elonka 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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):

• 68.220.180.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.184.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.160.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.28.33.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.162.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.163.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.175.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.187.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.177.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.184.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - first known one
• Iluvteletubbies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nowthatwasawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bambirocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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[37] [38] [39], removing plot points and other major bits of content while adding their own made up stuff[40] [41] [42], and doing massive refactoring of talk pages[43] [44] [[45] [46] [47]. 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)

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)

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)

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 [48]. 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)

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)

• What about 85.127.170.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? If I have time, I may partake the calling of the school if it is verified that all of the accounts involved are related (user accounts, that is). seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, normal admins can't block anything larger than a /16, although four of those will cover off a /14. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 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)

If we could do some of these partial blocks, it would be good. He just returned again with 65.0.184.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back again with 68.220.177.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Any ideas on how to block him at all? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and anon-only rangeblocked 68.220.160.0/19 for a week. That should hopefully cover a decent chunk of it temporarily. --slakr^\ talk / 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, not even 24 hours...he came back on 65.0.160.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and not only hit Talk:Teletubbies but apparently decided to also play with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Interestingly, this one seems to actually be a repeat IP for him, from the previous edits. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*screams* Now he is back with another registered account: Ohnothesimpsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and it needs to be indef blocked. I reported to AIV, but reviewing admin said it should be handled here. A ban throughout wikiworld since he's causing problems on at least two wikis already? More range blocks? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's related to a particular school, maybe someone - preferably local to the area - should contact the school. We had a problem here in Western Australia with what turned out to be a trio of vandals who were wreaking unholy havoc in a range of areas and had gotten well and truly ahead of themselves, and after the school intervened, all problems ceased.

I've blocked the account indef for block evasion per the above but I'm happy for any subsequent resolution of this matter to unblock the account - it's more a case of "this account should not be editing so we'll stop it from doing so". Orderinchaos 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the ranges here with the ones on Simple English, there is one stand out entry but the rest fall under the same ISP/location. 72.28.33.218 does not geolocate near the known location and would likely not match if checked. The ranges needed to shut this down are 70.146.192.0/18, 68.220.160.0/19 and 65.0.160.0/19. I would suggest having a CheckUser look at the ranges for collateral damage as this is taking out a major ISP in a fairly good sized US city. Creol (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is someone working on this idea? It would really help if he was at least slowed down. Dealing with this almost every day, including new registered accounts, is getting really old. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from archive since new suggestions had been added

Have another one: Bambiisadinosaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We have this over on Simple English Wikipedia... obviously, being smaller we can see articles as they come up. He'll often copy and paste stuff from here, along with all the templates. We block/delete on sight. Majorly ^talk 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That would probably explain his creatingthis. I usually spot him when he starts in on one of his usual articles, but by then he's often hit another 10-20. *sigh* -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wtf is up with Wikipedia's servers today? Anyways, I thought somewhat interesting to note that I used to teach in the elementary school adjacent to Lincoln Middle. Still live in the area. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from archive yet again. He is back with yet another named account Bambi the Unicorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and is seeming to thumb his nose at the fact that no one is able to block him by going behind himself to self identify earlier named accounts as being his socks[49] and on this new account[50]. He also came as an IP 65.0.162.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). And for a "kid" he's smart (and annoying) enough to deliberately jump between his IP and his username to make it harder to revert his edits. He has also logged in as some of his blocked users to refactor his talk pages. -- -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And another account Wellohgoshno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as evidenced by his signature sandbox edits[51]. Anyone care to go ahead and block? How many more will he make...weee -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodone121 and Huntingon's disease

Goodone121 (talk · contribs) has listed Huntington's disease as a good article despite inadequate GA review. This issue started on 10 September when he nominated that article on WP:GAN despite no previous involvement and without discussion with the main contributors (the ones who would need to action any recommendations made). In discussion with Leevanjackson (talk · contribs), the main contributor, I did a review anyway which failed. A few weeks later, with most of my recommendations still awaiting implementation, Goodone121 nominated the article again, and again without any discussion. I removed the nomination, because Delldot (talk · contribs) (who had already reviewed the article on a prior occasion) and Leevanjackson agreed that the time wasn't ripe.

Now Goodone121 has started a WP:GAR, which nobody has commented on, and now claims that the Huntington's article therefore meets WP:WIAGA and must therefore be a GA. There has been no review, and there is basically consensus that the article is not ready for prime time.

Delldot and myself have warned Goodone121 that he was being disruptive, yet the behaviour continues. I would very much like an uninvolved admin to review this case with a view of blocking this contributor, who is wasting the time of some very content-heavy editors. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say, I renommed only when progress was made. I also listed as the template said that the initiating editor should close. I am not using this as a "backdoor ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John. This is now the second time this user has landed on ANI. I think a block would be inevitable in case of reoffending. JFW | T@lk 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor continues to insist that the Huntington's article is GA despite general agreement that it is not. Could anyone review these edits and consider a block? JFW | T@lk 14:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

IP back for a fifth time

Please see this Also, should I just keep reporting this guy under the same section? --Enzuru 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Back here too. --Enzuru 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't figure exactly what's going on. Could you list the prior IP addresses or something to help explain. Would you rather I just semi-protect your talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. This individual previously were warring on Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khamenei, Shia Islam, and List of marjas, and after the first two blocks (one of which is here), started on Template:Shia Islam and Twelve Imams and now are undoing any change I make as you can see here. An IP I listed earlier included this one. --Enzuru 02:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also this IP --Enzuru 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Enzuru is referring to this [52] and this [53], both above, the only other thing i can find in the archives is this, [54], which seems to be unrelated--Jac16888 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 64.55.144.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 12 hours and 193.188.117.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours. There is probably no point blocking 193.188.117.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) anymore. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They are back here --Enzuru 08:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Back here (taken care of but only temporarily) and here --Enzuru 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He was at it again but was only blocked temporarily. --Enzuru 09:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have hard blocked 193.188.117.64/29 for a month. This range is within the range operated by Bahrain Telecommunication Company, so please write a stub about this company so we know who to contact about abuse! ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Only a redirect was needed. --> Batelco. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 10:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There exists Boycott Batelco as well though I am not sure if it is notable enough to warrant an article. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

217.17.242.219 is directly operated by Bahrain Telecommunication Company, but I dont think a long range block is appropriate against this. The person could come back on a different IP in the "217.17.242.*" range. We will have to play that one by ear.

The IP 64.55.144.50 could strike again; if that specific IP does reappear, it should be hit with a month long block.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I saw you blocking some of those IPs with "edit warring" as a rationale :) -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 10:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 84.255.189.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours, and reverted. is the Batelco ADSL service. If 84.255.189.236 re-offends, increase the block duration incrementally until we work out how long the ADSL IPs persist for. If another IP in that range repeats the same nonsense, that should also give us a clue how often the IP addresses rotate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 64.55.144.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Threat of legal action

Resolved

 – user IndependentMedia indef blocked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:IndependentMedia created an advertisement for a brand new, non-notable website. When it was speedily deleted, he created a new "article" consisting basically of a statement that he's going to sue me and Wikipedia.

"If you have a lawyer, please forward this to him immediately. If your lawyer is involved, than it is unlawful for me to continue to contact you directly. So it is advised that you seek counsel immediately before going any further.

1. I am an attorney in a case against Wikipedia and "Orange Mike".

2. The case opened 25 minutes ago when I realized an article about a non-profit website was deleted as "blatant advertising" when an extremely for-profit site "YouTube" which is a piece of garbage in comparison, is allowed in its Wikipedia "article" to bullshit on its greatness, when it is inarguably the worst website in the world when you consider its resources. BetterStream was started to bring balance to media. If any media gets in the way of this truth mission, they will be sued and attacked in every legal way allowable for the next five hundred years straight. That's right, we will reincarnate and continue the lawsuit over and over again. I hope you don't think I'm being facetious at all. Now this is one-sided. I'm curious to hear your side.

3. I promise not to file a lawsuit, or add Wikipedia to an existing lawsuit against Google, until Wednesday, 9/24. I will give you at least that much time to contact me via phone or email.

4. I spent awhile trying to follow the links to learn what I could do to object or mediate, I have not been fruitful in this search. I always find it easier to file a lawsuit than to be dicked around by some corporate labyrinth disguised as a non-profit. Yeah, I'm not falling for the BS 501(c)(3) huh?

Please contact me at <email & phone redacted>"

Suggestions, anybody? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Slakr (talk · contribs) has the fastest blocking fingers; indef block for legal threats in place. (actually, upon review, the block was done several hours ago.) Tony Fox (arf!) 02:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"they will be sued and attacked in every legal way allowable for the next five hundred years straight" combined with all that abut their website being the best in the world compared to youtube, the worst, suggests nothing more than a child--Jac16888 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. That person has never seen a law school. They wouldn't even allow a judge to be bothered for the five seconds he or she would take to dismiss it. --neon white talk 13:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he's not averse to filing lawsuits..._Gb^T/c 07:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Send us a postcard from Trenton, NJ, Mike :o) Guy (Help!) 11:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are being facetious at all, but I do think they are insane. I dunno about you guys, but if reincarnation is in my future, perpetuation a frivolous lawsuit probably wont be high on my list of things to do in the next life. Resolute 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore the threat. IANAL, but we don't have any obligation to host his advertising. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport

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

Brand new editor Wikiport (talk · contribs) has been engaging in very disturbing conduct over the last few weeks. He has twice made spurious speedy (G11) nominations of Fox News Channel (here and here, and later claimed both were "typos" (note edit summaries). He has removed an admin's comments from a talk page. He got in a rather nasty spat with admin Pedro (talk · contribs), and also accused him of threats. When met with any opposition he accuses established editors of serving agendas. See examples of his snide faux-friendly attitude here, here, and here. He continually refuses to read the appropriate FAQ or archived discussions, which specifically address the issues he's raised. The final straw has come in his baseless accusation of sockpuppetry. He's been amply warned and counseled, administrator assistance appears to be necessary. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that Pedro gave him a "last warning." You've informed him so I think I'd rather wait on Pedro's response before blocking on this. At this stage, it just him accusing you, "Blax", so I've warned him about his response to your complaint of personal attacks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a new editor, so yes I admit I have stepped on a couple of land-mines. I did make two (G10) nominations for the Fox News Channel. However, I was quickly corrected by Pedro, in which everything was explained. Now, regarding the accusation of sock-puppetry, I didn't accuse Blaxthos of it, I merely stated that I have seen controversy regarding him and an issue regarding immigration; a question which was raised long before my arrival. Now, in my attempt at trying to get other editors BESIDES Blaxthos to look at the FNC article, it has been met with constant opposition from him. I understand his issue of the archives, but it still doesn't prevent other editors from having a say in the matter. I have asked Blaxthos on both talk pages, and the talk page for FNC to cease this silliness and move on to something constructive. I will collect the pertinent links and post them here. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FTR, I've never been accused of (or engaged in) sockpuppetry, nor have I ever been blocked or party to any sanction or administrative action. Anything more than a glance reveals I discovered a battalion of sockpuppets via WP:RFCU, which were blocked indefinitely, The thinly-veiled accusation, repeated again here as a sideways insinuation after being sternly warned by Ricky81683, is a willful misrepresentation of the facts, and only validates my point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is his chief complaint, as I stated, I never accused him, truthfully I didn't even know what a sock-puppet was until I saw this information below on his own talk page. This is silly, and getting a bit out of hand. It seems that he isn't willing to let bygones be bygones and move on to something more creative than arguing.

Again, I read this from Blaxthos's talk page, and took it as "controversy", and quite frankly concerned as he seems to continually push his consensus. I simply pointed out controversy existed. Wikiport (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the section just above it, posted here.

For private reasons, I haven't used a user account for years. I have, instead, been an IP anon on Wikipedia. However, IP anons cannot submit checkuser requests. Can you submit it for me? Here's the request I wrote.

That's a sample checkuser an anonymous editor asked me to format properly and file for him (which was done) that resulted in the aforementioned army being blocked. Please take the time to read before pulling the trigger. Just more validation that this user doesn't understand what's going on, and refuses to better his viewpoint by reading anything at all. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have both voiced our opinions more than enough on this subject. Let's allow for someone impartial to take a look at everything. Thanks again! Wikiport (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Echoing what I have said on your user talk: I have reviewed your editing, and found it extremely poor. Your content changes are adding fuel to the fire rather than assist to address the problem you see, this was particularly disingenuous, and your comments to users have an acidic tone. This is your final warning: either edit with respect for other editors, otherwise you will be banned. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit [56] is actually reasurring - it seems he's finally understanding that I made my actions with the +sysop hat on and not as fervent editor of the article (Fox News Channel). Nevertheless, I think Wikiport needs to start assuming a bit more good faith and needs to watch how he phrases his remarks. He also needs to learn that templating the regulars and making throaway "you've been reported" comments is not going to help his cause. I think I've made it abundantly clear that editors will be pleased to hear him out and help him with any perceived issues at the Fox News article, and that equally he needs to reciprocate this help by meeting others with civility and courtesy. Bluntly, I could have blocked him for WP:POINTy actions but I've held of as I do wish to help. How long my or others patience lasts is entirely in Wikiport's hands. Pedro :  Chat  10:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I find your deep reserves of patience towards Wikiport amazing -- he's truly lucky. I'm not sure how much sincerity any of his comments include (especially the "reassuring" one), but as of this morning the taunts and incivility continue. Maybe it's because I've been dealing with him more closely, but I'm wary of the utility of re-re-final warning him "for real this time". Simply put, my patience is depleted; I don't believe he's here to improve Wikipedia at all. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, lets agree to disagree. There are much more important issues that warrant the energy being spent here. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

harassment, incivility, and long term abuse from McJeff

McJeff was the first editor that I interacted with when I began editing wikipedia in June. He has been consistently abusive, harassing, bullying to me and other newbies, and has engaged in incivility that would never pass the outside scrutiny of uninvolved editors. Since August, McJeff's rollback has been removed twice [[57]] and he was blocked once for 3RR [[58]]. I am now only going to report some of his abuse since August, and only abuse involving the article Tucker Max, since it would take too long to fully document his harassment.

• Here he says (referring to me), that I'm a tard and a faggot. he calls me obnoxious and tenditious (sic). says my contribution 'isnt worth discussing' [[59]] this part is bizarre. he filed an RfC, yet continues to accuse me of being the one who actually filed the RfC [[60]] (really strange.) further tries to 'establish' it was my (?) RfC [[61]]. here he admits to filing the rfc, but claims it's still my rfc [[62]] here he claims i am the sole editor in favor of a criticism section [[63]], which is patently false. he accuses me of 'filing an RfC everytime i dont get my way', when in actuality, i've filed one, and it was to remove an anonymous blog, which mcjeff edit warred to include [[64]] more uncivil allegations: he (falsely) accuses me of 'admitting to guilt without a single leg to stand on' [[65]] .
• threatens to checkuser me and another editor, for disagreeing with him [[66]] (he did not go through with it - it was just a threat).
• edit wars over the inclusion of an anonymous blog, after an RfC had outside admins say the blog should be removed (BLP violation) [[67]] adds the anonymous blog back again [[68]](fyi, the blog that mcjeff so desperately wanted included happened to be written by User:RyanHoliday, who is a sock of User:TheRegicider The admitted sock and McJeff teamed up to edit war the blog's inclusion, after an admin removed it. more edit warring to include this COI blog [[69]]
• calls another newbie User:aharon42 'deceitful', whose contributions should be 'disregarded' [[70]].
• Calls me 'hard of hearing,' displays WP: Own [[71]].
• removes another editor's (and my) relevant comments from the talk page [[72]] (he 3RR'd over this and was blocked). [[73]] [[74]] [[75]]
• calls a legitimate IP editor with a legitimate question a 'troll' twice [[76]].
• tells me my 3rr warning to him doesn't count, cause i warned him about Tucker Max not Talk: Tucker Max [[77]] and actually tries to argue this with admin (it did not work.) accuses me of 'entirely ad hominem attacks', that i 'shouldn't talk', and the editor's comments he removed 'requires no further discussion' [[78]] but he refused to add the comments back (an uninvolved outside admin added it back later). possible COI [[79]] claims to have inside info about Rudius Media (parent company of the article) 'preferring' a certain JPG image in the article, but will not state how he knows this. the other editor who uploaded the image, turned out to be an employee of rudius media [[80]]
• he calls me 'tenditious' [[81]], requests that i apologise for reporting him for 3rr and removing my comments [[82]]
• tells me to look up 'tenditious' in the dictionary and brags that his 3rr block was removed early [[83]].
• says 'tendentious' describes my behavior perfectly [[84]] he asks the reliable sources board if court documents are a reliable source, they tell him no, and he reverts my edits anyway and edit wars over it [[85]] [[86]]
• removes another editor's unrelated modifications to the article in his haste to revert me (after he consulted with the reliable sources board and they told him unequivocally not to add them [[87]]
• he tells me i have a COI because i have visited the website gawker.com [[88]] and attacks my comprehension of wikipedia policies, and calls me tendentious [[89]]
• he tells Tucker Max's lawyer, who was revealed to have a strong COI as reported to and verified by the COI board, that i have a 'fondness for baiting people', and that i'm tendentious. [[90]] tucker's lawyer's COI verified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_with_Rjm7730)
• edit wars over including a court document as a source, after he was the one who asked the reliable sources board about the source, and they told him it was specifically not permitted [[91]] and [[92]] - for the reliable sources posting.
• edit wars to include a blog [[93]]. accuses me of violating WP: Out [[94]] for revealing that tucker max's lawyer was editing tucker max's legal section, and adding the his own bio to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_with_Rjm7730
• he tries to get me in trouble for a 'borderline COI' because i supposedly read gawker.com, a website that started criticizing Tucker Max in August (i have been editing the article since June). [[95]] the editor on the COI board responded by reverting mcjeff's edits and telling him not to add them back. (by the way, I have no COI for having visiting www.gawker.com before - ridiculous)
• then he disregards the advice he sought and edit wars against the editor who advised him from the COI board [[96]]. he claims there are 3 editors on tucker max (not true), and 2 of them are on mcjeff's side (not true), and that it is their consensus of 2 against my 1 (not true). [[97]] the editor on mcjeff's side, helping his imaginary consensus, happens to be User:TheRegicider, who is the soon-to-be banned, self-admitted, sock of User:RyanHoliday, Tucker Max's employee, who's been surreptitiously editing Tucker Max with the most egregious abuse of conflict of interest, pov editing, and sockpuppetry. TheRegicider has been doing things like adding links to ryanholiday.net to wikipedia articles (his site has advertising - form your own conclusion), and adding links to blogs written by himself. I have filed a checkuser on TheRegicider/RyanHoliday, although he's since admitted to being a sock. [[98]]. McJeff also forgot to mention the other editors who disagree with him, and agree with me, in his 2 vs 1 fantasy. Atlantabravz, for example [[99]], or every outside editor/admin to ever recently get involved who's vehemently opposed McJeff.
• McJeff writes "Don't talk down to me, kid, you're the one that broke policy, not me" and "I will post things on your talk page if they need to be addressed directly to you", to Atlantabravz [[100]] [[101]]
• finally, mcjeff accuses me today, in a grand finale, of 'continuous strife', edit warring, violating blp, filing two rfcs, outing another editor, incivility, being 'unpleasant', and that my contributions to wikipedia 'do not exist' [[102]] he writes all this on TheRegicider's checkuser page, to be considered when checkusering the admitted sock. sorry that this was so long. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. i know. really sorry. i just had to report the abuse Theserialcomma (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So you want us to...? —kurykh 05:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

i would like for someone to decide whether he should be warned for his behavior, and if he is warned and continues behaving inappropriately, there should be sanctions imposed on his editing to curb his abuse Theserialcomma (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at dispute resolution, you might like to consider a a request for comment.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U is the RFC path that Scott meant. Also, you could post it at Witiquette Alerts. Regards SoWhy 08:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

considering his history, his abuse clearly isn't going to stop until someone steps in and makes him stop. i think he should be blocked for calling me a stalker (which is flat out abuse) all because i correctly identified another editor as a COI sockpuppet [[103]] calling someone a stalker is just gross and exaggerated incivility. flat out lying about my affiliation with gawker.com, a website i know nothing about nor have any affiliation with whatsoever, is also completely uncivil. he keeps repeating this nonsense like it's true, without providing any evidence, and he hasn't stopped yet. if blocks are meant to prevent future abuse, then a block would be appropriate for this situation until he is ready to stop making ridiculous and harassing allegations Theserialcomma (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I filed several different AN/I's on Theserialcomma a few months ago. The response was mostly handwringing, a lot of "Well I agree he's unpleasant, but I don't see how I can intervene.". I have also at various times attempted to patch things up with Theserialcomma, but he has ignored them all.

If you go through our respective contributions, you'll find that I am a reasonable editor who contributes well, and he is a terminally tendentious, argumentative, negative influence on Wikipedia. He has no mainspace edits aside from a few edit wars over a BLP-violating "criticism" section on the Tucker Max article and a few 'delete' AfD votes, and in fact shows all the symptoms of being a single purpose account who's smart enough to do enough random things to avoid looking like one.

As far as incivility goes, I am perfectly civil to anyone who doesn't provoke me. Theserialcomma started the incivility, I was unable to get him to stop by going through the proper channels, and turnabout is fair play.

If there's any actual interest, I can provide diffs of long term incivility and personal attacks, specifically baiting, on his part, as well as my attempts to not fight with him. Unless those diffs are requested by an uninvolved administrator on my talk page, I will not return to this discussion. McJeff (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

mcjeff is clearly unsuited for wikipedia. he cannot argue without calling people "faggots"[[104]] Theserialcomma (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, here is a link that pretty much contradicts the thesis that McJeff is trying to push: [105]. From the comment, "I admit I started this discussion incivilly, but I am trying to amend that - he is not reciprocating yet." McJeff admits that he started being uncivil initially, and from his latest comments on the Tucker Max talk page here [106], there is no doubt in my mind that McJeff is completely out of line. He has accused an editor, Theserialcomma of having a single-purpose account with no proof, called him a "fake editor," called him "obsessed and creepy," said that he does nothing but bawl and whine on talkpages, made an unfounded and completely over the line accusation of him having an "affiliation" with Gawker, and misrepresents what admins and other editors have told him in previous RfCs or ANIs. Atlantabravz (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

TheSerialComma seems to think I'm an administrator here. I'm not, and probably never will be, I'm too blunt-speaking to ever get enough up votes, since civility beats policiy and rightness on WP. That said, I did, as the above edits show, call for SVernon19 to be added to the CheckUser on User:TheRegicider. I have also objected in the past to Mcjeff's behavior. TSC is not much better, but Mcjeff has run a years long campaign to keep his hero, Tucker Max's page, clear of any disparaging materials. No amount of discussion, citations, or consensus budges Mcjeff. I'd support a topic ban for all four of the above editors. Mcjeff, TSC, SVernon19 and theregicider should all be banned from editing anythign related to Tucker Max for a one year period. If they're really here to edit wikipedia, they'll find other topics; if they're jsut here to blow Tucker max's ego, they'll leave. ThuranX (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Return of the Vandal User:Pionier

It seems that the former vandal User:Pionier is back again, using an IP address User_talk:62.200.52.25. He is doing almost exactly the same edits as before Miguel Pro, Cristo-Rei etc. and is removing category Jesus as he did before. And the IP traces back to the London area, again.

I started a design document that will eventually detect people like him more easily and that document uses this fellow as an example. Here is teh document: User:History2007/Content protection. I guess he just prompted me to go and finish that database, with his return. If you have any suggestions on my design for the database, please feel free to add comments on the talk page for that document.

He made several edits today and he knows how to disguise them, so they look innocent. He aims to distort the category structure in Wikipedia. And he gets away with some of it. User:Renata3 blocked him for 48 hours, but he will be back. Please look out for him.

Key question: Is he the same person as Eurovisionman? Both in London, both persistent, but using different personas? He may have a real multi-personality disorder anyway.... Please do look out for him. Thanks History2007 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right about him being Eurovisionman, he's also editing from 64.230.7.84, so it could possibly be proxy servers? (The IP addresses aren't located near eachother physically)

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened...64.230.7.84 (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There are edits by 62.200.52.25 that are still on top; adding many pages to Category:Lithuanian Roman Catholics without text & references supporting that claim. I have blocked 64.230.7.84, however 62.200.52.25 is probably not worth blocking as this person is probably not using this IP any longer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this persona of this multi-person has a serious obsession with Lithuania, Christianity, Jews and chess players. He can NOT stop himself and will edit those pages driven by whatever psycho-ailment he is suffering from. But that very same obsession is his trademark and calling card, so he is easy to identify, in this persona. It is a question of reverting "everythig" he changes because some of his changes look innocent, but are not. It took me a few minutes to realize how he was quietly distorting Miguel Pro. His changes should not be left on any page. I think he would be a good topic for a dissertation in psychology on obsession. History2007 (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, someone who has abused multiple accounts to the point of being indefblocked has lost the right to contribute to Wikipedia, and their sockpuppet's stuff is usually removed immediately upon discovery. If an editor in good standing later wants to restore any of the edits, though, that is fine, too, I'd think. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of his edits still persist and no one notices them because they are innocent looking. E.g. Cristo Rey Network has been added as a catehory to many pages to which it has no relevance. There must be better tools fo rdealing with these people, e.g. AdminTools that do multipage reverts with ease, etc. Is there an "Amninistrator's ToolBox" in Wikipedia that makes life easy for the admins? History2007 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Only rollback, really. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case - previous WP:AN/I threads about the same user: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Abuse by User:Tvarkytojas User:T_bullshider PLEASE PLEASE HELP, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#Persistent disruptive re-categorizing anon, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:Pionier. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re MEDRS guideline and my action in edit war

WP:MEDRS was/is meant as further help and infomation (as guidelines are meant to be) on some aspects mentioned briefly in the main WP:RS guideline. Having been developed over some 22 months and a RFC to promote to guideline for about 3 weeks with heads up posted widely, I concluded that at 84.2% a clear majority consensus had been reached and promoted the essay to guideline (not that this seems strictly needed by an admin). See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline. Long discussion threads then had on the talk page, as well as my user talk page and at Wikipedia talk:Consensus (see Wikipedia talk:Consensus#RfC: definition of consensus and its following thread) where, IMHO, the minority opinion sought to have this overturned on two aspects. Firstly issue of whether secondary sources should be prefered in general over primary sources (WP:MEDRS merely reflects current WP:RS in this regard) and secondly that WP:Consensus needs be an absolute 100% unanimous decission for WP:MEDRS to be a guideline and that even a small minority dissent therefore equates to no consensus. Majority view has been that consensus requires only an overall clear majority (but respecting of course minority views). 3 editors removed the guideline tag from WP:MEDRS, with Paul gene (talk · contribs) removing a total of 7 times in the last week (being reverted back by 4 different other editors).

Yesterday I took several actions which have been critisied on the talk page, which would be more appropriately aired here and therefore I welcome other admin review:

• Paul Gene seems to be edit warring and against multiple other editors, I so issued a warning on his talk page and reverted the page back to (IMHO) the consensus version. (others have commented on his involvement per User talk:Paul gene#MEDMOS and MEDRS)
• Given though he has not been the only editor who has expressed disquiet at the guideline status, it would not have been best approach to directly temporarily block this one editor, but instead given the constant to & fro over the page's tagging seems a edit war in general and I have for now protected the page (open to issue of "wrong version protection" given previous restoring of what was RfC 84.2% opinion). Explanation for this given at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Edit warring - page protected (in essence guideline tag does not imply total agreement from all editors and thus promotion to being a guideline does not require total unanimous agreement, else if I alone objected to WP:RS or WP:MOS should these not be guidelines? Also example given of WP's 1st policy promotion being just a few % more than this RfC's).

Subsequent critism of my actions at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Administrator's poor judgement and improper actions. Thoughts please both on my approaches here (if I did wrong or poorly, then I appologise and please do unprotect or revert back from "the wrong version" as well as take over admin mopping around that page). David Ruben ^Talk 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• This looks like a straightforward case of a user trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" real-world problems. At root, he seems to be opposed to the use of review articles because, well, they don't support the conclusions he'd like them to support. And up to a point he's right - I have seen complete twaddle published by Cochrane - but in the end he is saying that we should, as editors, make the judgment between the competing merits of primary surces ourselves, and that simply is not permitted by policy, so in the end if the real world is wrong, Wikipedia will be wrong too. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As Guy says, a lot of users want to use directly medical studies insted of medical reviews because they don't agree with what the reviews say. This guideline just makes clear that medical studies are primary sources. This dispute is really about "Reviews X, Y and Z, which were published on the leading journals of the field, are all wrong because they don't take into account studies U, V and W which I personally consider relevant". Exact same situation as the homeopathy arb case. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• What is unfortunate about this particular timesink is that, in a content dispute, WP:V suffices to cover the content at MEDRS anyway, and the additional info there was only intended to provide specifics about medical sources. Whether the page is or isn't a guideline will not change good, policy-based editing on medical articles in practice; the absence of the page as a guideline will, however, make editing harder for new editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• So, would you suggest a topic ban from that page? Guy (Help!) 11:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed this with some people, and I think we can assume good faith on the part of Paul Gene. We just need to explain consensus to him better. I can't immediately oppose a temporary topic ban (for failing to work on consensus) or temporary block (for edit warring), but I'd like to see if it's possible to talk with him first. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

+ See: Wikipedia_talk:CONSENSUS#Consensus_being_replaced_by_silence_at_Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_.28medicine-related_articles.29.23Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe (banned user)

User:David Tombe appears to have returned after a permanent ban:

[107]

The evidence is the edited page, and the signature on the edits.

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: User talk:217.44.75.36 appears to be him as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both IPs, and left messages on the respective talk pages, with instructions on how to appeal the ban if he is interested in abiding by our policies. While I'm not particularly hopeful that he gets it (remembering that appalling time-waste on the Mozart talk page), he's welcome to ask, and if he agrees we could try to get community consensus to let him come back. If he agrees. Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza13

I have blocked Misza13 for running an unauthorized bot and refusing to comply with the BRFA policy. Work it out. Prodego ^talk 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This must be one of those advanced forms of satire, involving actual indefinite blocks. east718 // talk // email // 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Goddamn I hate this board. Immediately unblock. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prodego, are you intending to stick around and discuss the block, or are you leaving the block for others to deal with and hopefully lift as we see fit ? Nick (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, unblock Misza, leave a flaming bag of dog-doo on Prodego's door for such a flagrant abuse of his tools and violation of WP:POINT. WilyD 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree with unblocking. Was Misza13 really running an unapproved bot? Surely such users get blocked. -- how do you turn this on 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punative. Nondisruptive users don't get blocked without warning - period. Prodego has had this explained to him many times in the last week or two while he's been plotting this block. He knew it was a bad block, and he did it any way. Not to prevent disruption - there was none. Only to punish Misza13. Terrible, terrible action remarkably unbecoming of an administrater. WilyD 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I should also note that as of only a few days ago, this version of the bot policy had stated that should the measure pass, admins would have about 2 weeks to comply with it by filing a BRFA. The new version of the page is different, but it does seem, at least to me, way excessive to immediately block someone due to the page only changing within the last couple days. Very angry mob-ish. --slakr^\ talk / 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza's last admin action was over an hour ago, and the one before that was nearly 20 hours ago, so I don't see why an immediate block was necessary before discussion. Not to mention that Misza's bot is immensely helpful, despite lack of official approval. Mr.Z-man 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock - even if the allegations are true, Prodego was not the admin to have blocked in this case - throwing WP:POINT out of the window. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Got beaten to the unblock :( I don't see any necessity of an immediate block. I also haven't heard of factual complains about Misza's work ever. Nor he ever wasn't available for discussion. There is no need for such a pointy block. Sorry, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. Seriously, Misza's been openly running an adminbot for more than a year. His code is open source and public. And given your involvement with Wikipedia:RFAr#Unapproved admin bots it seems strange you wouldn't block any of the other admin bots. Wikipedia talk:BOT#adminbots proposal already has an ongoing discussion about adminbots, which you have apparently ignored. One of the unresolved points of active discussion is how to deal with existing admin bots, including discussion of a grace period and/or grandfather clause. Misza is participating in that discussion, contrary your statement about "refusal". There is no need to start handing out blocks right now with no evidence that Misza is causing harm. Dragons flight (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to undo this incredibly bad block myself, but I see Anetode beat me to it. Blueboy96 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the block and am glad Misza13 was unblocked by Anetode (talk · contribs) and then this action was supported by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). Also - why is this discussion taking place both here and at WP:AN? Cirt (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Because otherwise people might only make a complete tit of themselves once? Guy (Help!) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments need a health warning Guy. That's the funniest thing I've read for ages. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dammit all to pieces, Guy, I've spewed Pepsi all over my keyboard. That was awesome. Gladys J Cortez 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock. (multiple edit conflicts) To call this action harsh would be a severe understatement. What was the WP:POINT of all this? RFerreira (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hearby propose that every single admin be desysopped and banned, and 1500-someodd new admins be chosen at random from the pool of remaining editors. I'm guessing there is about a 75% chance that this would improve upon the current situation; there's a distinct lack of sanity, rationality, calmness, respectfulness, and humilty around here lately. --barneca (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good fricking grief. it seems that any time an admin blocks, shouts 'i blocked X' in here, then logs off, there's going to be drama. More and more lately, I feel they know that, and do it in that way for that reason. Ugh. ThuranX (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not always, no... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Misza filed a BRFA to get his/her bot approved by the community? I do agree this does look punitive, and should have been discussed first. But it does not excuse the fact he's running it without required approval. -- how do you turn this on 21:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Anetode also beat me to the unblock. Does it not matter to anyone that Misza13's bot is able to stop pagemove vandalism after only 1 or 2 pages are moved? Please don't reinstate this block unless and until the issue is fully discussed somewhere, including an opportunity for Misza13 to comment. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will ask again - why is this discussion taking place in two places - both here and at WP:AN? Cirt (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add your personal opinions, admin or not, filled with drama, below this line. Be sure to stay on whatever side of the general debate of adminbots that you've previously been on, else someone will bring up a diff to dispute your new opinion: Keeper ǀ 76 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC) ----

Cirt, the AN one's been closed. Obviously, the thread starter didn't notice this one here. -- how do you turn this on 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much to How do you turn this on (talk · contribs) - it will be much easier to follow one thread. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I strongly strongly disagree with this block, less than a week ago Prodego was warned by an Arbiter not to follow through with a proposed adminbot block [108] to cause an RFAR at [109]. That Prodego would block now, after Arbcom has found no issue worth exploring, seems in incredibly bad faith, if not outright disruption. Prodego has indicated previously he has issues with the Admin bots practice, most notably by filing an RFAR on the topic, how does he even begin to approach uninvolved status of a blocking admin? MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a comment, from someone who ran an adminbot in the past: I can understand why Misza did not file a BRFA. The reason is because going through a BRFA would result in it not being approved, because opposition will be raised even if there is a 0.0000001% chance of false positives. Xclamation point 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about random sysop actions. This block was ridiculous, if the bot was unauthorized, block the bot not the user running it. I can't believe this is how we pay Misza13 for all the work done by MiszaBot. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

X!, there's always false positives with any bot. Why are some people allowed to run bots without approval, just because they think they'd fail a BRFA? If the community don't want such a bot, they shouldn't have to have it. Misza (and you, and others) running bots anyway is in violation of the bot policy, and not the community's wishes. -- how do you turn this on 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Misza was wrong for running an admin bot is a separate question, since it was not an emergency (he has been doing things that look admin bot like for probably a year), Prodego should have filed an RFC on Misza's conduct, and if that did not change things, filed an RFAR on specific actions Misza took. I do not see the need to leap into a block for this clearly non-emergency situation. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean, he was running the bot on his own account. Normal editors get blocked for doing plain old edits in a "bot like" manner. Why is Misza an exception here? -- how do you turn this on 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out Curps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) some time. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Normal editors" usually get a query in their talk page, if a block is issued in such a case its most likely because the user didn't respond and continued the edit pattern. If Misza was running a "full" bot instead of a script, it would have been logical to at least allow a chance for explaining it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Misza runs a full adminbot. He has done so for ages. The code is public. It's even been mentioned in the Signpost. This is not a secret. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then that's just lovely, the block was issued even when its old news? I think someone wanted to create random drama. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) This shows a severe lack of judgement and temper by Prodego. Utterly unsupportable. SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I think the bot was a bad one and agree that removing it is a good move. I would say, however, that people follow Misza's suggestion below, and chime in on the talk page of the bot policy, so that we never have problems like this again. -- how do you turn this on 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also let Prodego know on his talk page of the fact it was overturned. -- how do you turn this on 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be a kill joy here, but Prodego did have policy on side. WP:BOT reads "Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval (for example, by editing too quickly). A block may also be issued if a bot process operates without being logged in to an account, or is logged in to an account other than its own." Now, Misza was running a fully automated bot on his admin account that has had no approval. Maybe policy needs to be changed to reflect current practices (i.e. the current discussion on approving admin bots) but it's not fair to completely shoot down Prod for it. I think it was a bad block really, but policy certainly suggests it's within his discretion to block a bot without approval. Instead of concentrating on shooting Prodego down for the block, let's move our efforts onto clarifying the bot policy to say that admins who run bots on their accounts must take fully account for any wrong actions and face any consequences that come about from them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general point, I believe Wikipedia would be the poorer for the loss of either Misza or Prodego over this matter. WJBscribe (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prodego has stated his intention to depart. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Policy is what we actually do, and sometimes it gets written down, and sometimes what is written is reasonably current with what is done. There are several admins who run bots that have gone undisturbed for a long time. Prodego filed and RFAR which was declined with advice to start a discussion on updating the policy. If the arbitrators thought there were serious violations of admin authority here I'm sure they would have accepted the case. As things are, Prodego's action was clearly calculated to be disruptive. Thatcher 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what happened here, I was surprised to see that Prodego would make such a mistake. Nonetheless, I still think that he has been doing an amazing job. One mistake, as bad as it is, can't end everything and I'm entirely sure that Prodego still has a place here. As for Miszra13 (whose comment was added below), I hope that he/she wasn't negatively affected by this incident. Bots (don't get me wrong, I could never run them) are difficult to maintain, and hopefully Miszra13 can confirm anything in regards to his/her bot. ~ Troy (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave blocked Why should admins get special dispensations that we ordinary peons do not? What makes them special? Jtrainor (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, usually admins would have to be very experienced, as most requests for adminship are often rejected due to a lack in any of the key requirements. Second, we non-admins (like myself) can still make many meaningful contributions (the basis for any adminship in the first place). You don't need to be an admin to do what's needed. You can still report any major concerns/issues on here, at ANK, AN3, AIV, RFP, SSP, RFCU or at requests for editor assistance. Also, I'm just going to note that I am against blocking Miszra13 again because, under the previous circumstances even, that block wasn't warranted. ~ Troy (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misza13/Archives/2008/09#Gra_wp_reverts I ask everyone read that before passing judgment. I added the relevant section below Prodego ^talk 01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I will not request any approval simply because a) I don't play process for the sake of it or to the process wonks' (such as yourself) satisfaction b) the bot already is approved, authorized or whatever you call it and operaties within policy. If that policy is IAR (which is the default if nothing else can be applied), it doesn't matter - the admin bot section of WP:BOT does not have community consensus and remains tagged as proposed until few hours ago was only proposed (still, it's disputed and doesn't apply retroactively anyway, so this is moot).

Furthermore, I am surprised these questions come from you, who has a longer tenure as an administrator - the bot has been operating for nearly two years now and everyone and their grandma is aware of its existence. Finally, if you still perceive that the blocking policy "tells" you something you cannot resist despite no evidence of damage being done, I must suggest (per Luna above) switching to knitting every now and then.

I hope this clears things up so we can move on to building a free encyclopedia. Regards, Миша13 10:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I point you to the above, Misza was warned, and admitted to knowingly violating policy for a reason that doesn't seem to be quite acceptable. Prodego ^talk 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza's bot has been publicly operated for several years, and is common knowledge. It has been discussed on ANI before. Given this, Misza's assertion that his bot has community approval is perfectly accurate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was just about the dumb idea of the year. We were talking through the issue in a more reasonable manner at WT:BOT, and I got the idea that Misza13 would run his adminbot through the process as long as we tried it out on some new bots first.

When I was concerned that Misza was hiding something about his bot, he even took the time to point me to the source code and explain to me how it worked. I left convinced that he wasn't hiding anything, he just didn't want to be the sacrificial goat that went through the process first. Seemed reasonable to me -- on the off chance that the new process is a big clusterfuck, we might as well not make a big clusterfuck around a bot that's been running for a while.

Guess what: it's a clusterfuck now. I hope this ill-advised action by Prodego hasn't set back our progress toward a sensible adminbot policy too far. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What can I say?

Thanks for the support to those who voiced it, much appreciated. This raises hopes should I (and other operators) decide to go through a formal approval with my (our) bot(s) (unless its made obsolete by the abuse filter sooner). But before that happens, I encourage everyone to hop in to WT:BOT#adminbots proposal and lend a helping hand with an ongoing discussion - we could really use more input to iron out the policy before we start rolling bots through it. Cheers, Миша13 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that where the bot is being discussed? Are all your bots (admin or otherwise) either approved or up for approval? If so then somebody should call curtains on any drama, mark this resolved, and be done with it.Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The conflict here arises from the gap between actual practice, and where are policies lag behind practice. This is one of the reasons we have an "ignore all rules" policy, which I still think is one of the most brilliant ideas in the history of our project, since it always gives us an "out" in situations like this one. Our actual daily procedures on Wikipedia always runs slightly ahead of our policies: for example as we develop more robust vandal-fighting tools, and as we encounter difficult situations not foreseen when we wrote the bulk of our policies years ago. As we age, policies become harder and harder to amend, due to inertia, due to "we've always done it that way", and due to the rise of the bureaucracy which always follows as the pioneering spirit fades (Franz Kafka: "all revolutions eventually evaporate, leaving behind the slime of a new bureacracy.") Prodego believed his block supported by policy, and it actually was supported by the letter of it: but at the same time it was a harmful block, because blocking Misza's bot opened the door to various odious types of vandalism. Clearly we have a need to amend a policy.

In my opinion the correct solution is not to block Misza, but to update policy to allow Misza's bot to run. I suggest a grandfather clause to allow existing bots, such as this spectacularly successful one, to continue as before. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Misza's attitude towards unauthorized bots was healthy - it was that IAR attitude that lead administrators to enable and apologize so long for Betacommand (who would often run disruptive bots without approval, shielded by administrators who approved of his efforts). However, AN/I isn't the best place to discuss that, nor is blocking and unblocking administrators the best way to make the argument.Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Key difference between me and Beta is the word "disruptive". Миша13 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

Prodego (talk · contribs) has resigned and left a note on his userpage. seicer | talk | contribs 01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't view that as an actual resignation, and I said so there. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't think he wants to actual resign for a terribly long period of time. He said he would be back. I just hope that we can clear this thing up and not have to worry about it any longer. ~ Troy (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Don't worry PM, I will come back" No further explanation necessary. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how they will most likely be acting upon this at RFAR, he better be coming back with an explanation. A great administrator otherwise, who made one serious mistake, and then "resigned" promptly thereafter. Not good in my books. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Happily: Part of my ethic is to treat everyone equally. I was forced to make a choice here, between what policy said and what I feel is the right thing to do, and a few users saying I shouldn't block Misza on his talk page. The policy says "Accounts performing automated tasks without prior approval may be summarily blocked by any administrator". I did not summarily block, I left a note and requested an RfAr. With the response to the first being a refusal to request approval, and the response to the second being that arbcom does not take advisory cases, I did the only responsible thing. Followed the policy equally, as I had done before, and blocked the unapproved bot. Additional offwiki circumstances related to an IRC channel required me to either implicitly condone Misza's admin bot, or to block it. I did what I feel was right, block. If Wikipedia doesn't agree to treat everyone equally, I don't know that I know how to be an administartor, and if that is the case I might need a break to sort things out or until things here get sorted out. I hope I have been a good administrator, I have spent nearly 3 years trying to do exactly that, and it is really all you can ask me to do. Prodego ^talk 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagreed with your block and run behavior, because it leads to this drama, I also don't think you abdicating is a responsible attitude. If you really intend to react this way to every admin action you make which gets questioned, then give up the buttons. But if you can learn and move on, then keep the buttons. Misza13 should have sought approval, and the 'horrible results of your block' were instead on misza13's shoulders, because if the bot had approval, then there wouldn't be such misplaced reliance on the 'bot to protect from vandals. Now the bot can get approval, go back to working ,and all will be well, AND approved. Stick around ,jsut don't block, dump, and run again. That's the bad judgment in my view. ThuranX (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Prodego said he would retain admin rights until ArbCom decided they could take them from him, AFTER the 'I resign' message, he obviously does not mean to surrender his access immediately. Indeed, I suspect he is now hoping for an ArbCom case on the chance that it would address the policy-contradiction underlying this action... retaining his admin rights gives the 'angry mob' reason to try to take them away. Which creates the ArbCom case he had previously been denied. I like it. In short, Prodego is placing his Queen in jeopardy for a chance to capture the enemy King. Nice move.
That said. There has been some progress on bot policy lately. It is possible that this already was moving towards resolution. Prodego's action has demonstrably had the, almost certainly intended, result of pushing that movement further along. Drama? Yes. Disruption? A little. POINTy. Yeah, that fits. But... ultimately good for the project.
Good block. Even though it was wrong. --CBD 10:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's already been an ArbCom case in this area. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki. Back in 2006, Marudubshinki was desysopped for running an unapproved adminbot. So right now, any admin running an unapproved adminbot is at risk for desysopping. The problem seems to be that we've had some "below the radar" adminbots running succesfully for a while, but without policy to support them. We need to fix policy in that area. I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots that adminbots need to be operated like other bots, with their own 'bot account, user page, etc. That would improve the transparency of adminbots, which is needed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not interpreting the ruling correctly, or not stressing the relevant parts. I've been below the radar for about a year, but for the next year, it was pretty much a "public secret". Still, not until someone with an apparent lack of uderstanding of WP:IAR came to know of it, things were fine. Both Marudubshinki and later Betacommand were desysopped because not only their bots were making blatant mistakes but the operators themselves remained deaf to the many concerns raised on their talk page. None of these apply to me - my bots are accurate and I am responsive to reasonable disputants. So these are not exactly valid precedents for this case, sorry. Also, the RfC you added to is dead for over a month. Current development takes place directly on WP:BOT and WT:BOT where I am waiting for input, yet to little avail. Миша13 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass De-linking of years by Lightbot

I am bringing this up here because I believe that Lightbot is engaged in a series of edits that are disrupting Wikipedia. Specifically, it is de-linking all year references, which is not in conformity to the Manual of Style. I and several other users have complained to User Talk:Lightmouse, but the operator is convinced that this is proper. The Manual of Style does not prohibit the linking of years alone, and a discussion is ongoing as to when, if ever, this should be done. Whether so intended or not, the bot's program of mass de-linking constitutes a preemptive strike that will render the discussion moot. The bot was approved to make such edits over the substantive objections of a number of editors.

I have also mentioned this on WT:BAG, but I am concerned about the speed with which harm is being done to Wikipedia. The MOS states that dates should only be linked with "good reason." A bot cannot decide whether good reason exists so should not make the edits. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is related to WP:MOSNUM, which now states that "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated." - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems to be lone year links. ie. "1066 and all that" (lone year linking), as opposed to "7 July 2005" (date formatting linking). Someone made the point elsewhere that if all years are delinked, then the year pages end up as orphans. What then? Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete 'em, I guess? Then the categories too, then the subcategories for birth and death years (definitely "overlinking" amiright?) then Category:Living people as it will become nigh impossible to maintain. — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Was the bot approved to do this? Corvus cornix_talk 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot approval page at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3 is at best misleading, since it doesn't specifically say that the bot will remove all linked years. Please block the bot. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The impression I get from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3 (the very recent bot request) is that it was approved to do quite a lot. I'm strugling to work out what it can't do. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• (cur) (last) 04:20, September 11, 2008 Lightbot (Talk | contribs) (1,337 bytes) (Units/dates/division by zero/other) (rollback | undo)

Hmm... — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been perusing User talk:Lightmouse. There are some serious concerns there, IMO, mainly the conflating of "date autoformatting" and the single links to years. These are two separate issues and should be dealt with separately. If the bot operator can't or won't separate the two types of "date audits", then the bot may need to be stopped. I also agree that the bot operations have moved outside of the remit of the initial bot request. It also looks like a rather buggy bot - with problems being detected by live runs and then fixed before starting again. To a limited extent that is needed, but some of the bugs seem like they should have been picked up on test runs first. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I find the guideline here a bit confusing. It seems to me that the guidelines have changed so that we no longer automatically link dates, but I can't find any indication that we never link dates. Following that, I have a hard time understanding why a bot to remove all date links (even if they're just years by themselves) would ever be approved. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates" "I would like to make it explicit that I will make other edits. * These will usually be minor improvements that are often done by other editors or are part of general MOS guidance" ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And? What has that got to do with the questions in this thread? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking if it had been approved. I'm asking why it was approved. And I must say that approval seems inordinately broad. I mean, it sounds like it can make any edits it wants. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's in response to the people calling for the bot to blocked as operating outside of its approval, when there are two very clear quotes about what it is approved to do, especially the second quote which, from my interpretation, means if something is stated in the MOS, the bot can do it; it's stated in the MOS that year links are deprecated, therefore Lightbot can unlink them. Why it was approved I can't answer, but the relevant forum for that question is not ANI. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think that the MOS says that. It says that linking as a result of autoformatting is deprecated (why are we using this jargony term anyway?). It certainly does not say that all linking of years is impermissable. Second, I don't care if it's approved or not - that approval is ridiculous. If it starts up again delinking years before this discussion is complete, I'll block it in a hearbeat. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the most recent "are any year links OK" thread: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates are not linked unless.... Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently "deprecate" is being used as a term of art: we used to approve it and now do not. I doubt this will be widely understood; other uses of "deprecate" have force closer to "anathematize". But this rule, whatever it means, and whatever its support, does not support what Lightbot has been doing: isolated years were never autoformatted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the MOS does it say, "Go out and remove currently-linked dates". Corvus cornix_talk 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about solitary year lengths, but I am concerned that the bot has been makeing a substantial number of errors, such as changing [[January 1]] [[2008]] to January 1 2008 (with no comma after the 1). There is no test suite of tricky dates to test the bot on after it is modified. I am dissatisfied with the quality control for this bot. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the bot is buggy, yes. But we will all naturally gravitate to the bug that concerns or interests us most. I guess we can all agree that there are a lot of problems that need further discussion, testing and fixing? My "years" concerns are now here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is clearly in error, as the BCE in the first date was removed. I can understand that it could be read to include BCE in both dates, but the bot should not make that assumption. Corvus cornix_talk 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck getting his attention. The guy running lightbot is to dates what Betacommand is to photos: "I'm right and you're wrong and dat's dat." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This comparison is an insult to Betacommand. — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it looks fine to me. The edit left the visible text of the article unchanged, so someone who doesn't mouseover the links won't notice any difference. On the other hand, it strikes me as a situation where we want year links (the guy lived during these years, what else was going on at that time?). --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By removing the BCE, it has the look of being wrong. Huh? He was born after he died? Corvus cornix_talk 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it looked like that both before and after the dates were delinked. --Carnildo (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot, when I have seen it operate, did not remove links like September 23, 2008. This is a good thing; even if there is consensus that autoformatting should go, a bot is not yet the way to do it. But it does delink 2008 by itself. This is not something a bot should be doing; some year links, like the years of creation at Earl of Devon, are both intentional and valuable. Bots cannot exercise judgment; bots could usefully assist an editor in forming edits which would remove unnecessary links.

If Lightbot is restarted, it can be stopped at User talk:Lightbot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it removing years. The bot does what it does and then editors sort out the end result in line with MOS, which only precludes unnecessary linking, not all linking (but would preclude most of those presently linked). If the links are genuinely useful on a particular article (eg William the Conqueror, or World War II, or one such as you cited) then editors are free to revert the bot. Orderinchaos 10:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On most ancient history pages almost all dates are single years. Often the exact date is simply not known. Not blocking this bot will mean almost all ancient history will be without any links to years. Using a bot to do such controversial edits is crazy.Dejvid (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually see, for the large part, the merit in linking years to begin with. If something happened in 1742 BC/BCE, what benefit would readers get from being able to click on 1742? Orderinchaos 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's comments: Well indeed, Orderinchaos. What I find extraordinary about this page is that our style guides recommend against the linking of chronological items unless they significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. A quick survey of WP articles, especially the top-end ones (FAs and GAs) will reveal that such items in almost all cases unlinked. The culture has changed, guys, and it's been quite acceptable—and widely regarded as desirable—to delink 1980, 20th century, 1990s and the like for some time. Is this a time-warp back to when I joined WP in mid-2005? Then, there was fervent debate on the matter. Perhaps all this page is is a place for contributors who are nostalgic about that debate to belatedly let off steam. It's a pity that Lightbot and its inventor, Lightmouse, are being used as the whipping boys.

Dates in antiquity: on Lightmouse's talk page, I've posted an analysis of how unlikely it is such years are useful to the reader of an article that links to them, using 613 as the example, since someone else had raised that very year-page in defence of year-linking. Please go have a look at the analysis.

On the bot itself—we're dealing with a highly skilled and professional bot-manager in Lightmouse, who has long and strong experience. He is hardly a backyard kid out of control—he engages with those who provide critical feedback, and continually modifies the bot to improve it, much of this in response to such feedback. He is polite at all times. WP is lucky to have Lightmouse in this capacity.

More broadly, I hope that everyone here has viewed the relevant parts of the video of a recent Wikimania address by researcher Dr Bill Wedemeyer, Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, who conducted an extensive study of the quality of (mainly) scientific articles on WP. What this disinterested external researcher says about WP's MoS and its role bears thinking about: that we should work towards greater automation of the MoS compliance tasks that lend themselves to such automation. Dr Wedemeyer is, I believe, envisaging a time when WP's editors can be spared ever more subtle and complex aspects of stylistic cohesion by the operation of very smart bots; at the moment, our bots are at a very initial stage, and it is in all our interests to support their development in such a simple matter as that which this page appears to be obsessed; squabbling about "mass" operations on WP to bring articles into compliance with MoS is like spurning the automation in factories and homes that makes our lives better. Lighbot is, I believe, part of a trend that will free up our editors to concentrate on the creative dimensions of their contributions. Tony (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to believe that Lightbot has been programmed correctly, although the BCE removal gives me pause. I am also quite certain that Lightbot is, in practice, edit-warring for a practice (no linking of years at all) which, however much Tony likes it, has no consensus, and is not supported by the wording of MOS. Human editors should not do this, but humans sometimes show restraint, or can be countered by another human; bots must not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody is saying that dates should always be linked. But I still haven't seen any guideline or any discussion that would lead me to believe that no years should ever be linked. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Questions that I still have regarding this bot:
  1. Is there any consensus in the MOS or anywhere else that all years should be unlinked? I don't think so, but if someone could point me towards a guideline or discussion, that would be great.
  2. What exactly is this bot approved to do? Right now, all I can tell is that it is approved to make "other edits" with no specificity regarding the "general MOS guideline" with no specificity. It sounds like it's approved to make any edit at all regarding any MOS guideline. Is that correct? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this is the reason I never both linking dates - because some robot will come along and de-link them, and editors will re-link them, and robots will de-link them, and so on - because you all can't figure out whether, or why, to link dates - or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Several similarly-named accounts created in a short period of time

Four very similarly named accounts have just been created in rapid succession:

1. 23:57, 22 September 2008 User:Mono Means One and Rail is Rail (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
2. 23:57, 22 September 2008 User:Mono is One and Rail is Rail (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
3. 23:56, 22 September 2008 User:Mono=One and Rail=Rail (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
4. 23:54, 22 September 2008 User:Mono means One and Rail Means Rail (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎

This probably needs watching. -- The Anome (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno here... I have a slight suspicion that we have a sock puppet here... I could be wrong. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being overly blunt, "Duh". Indef block all of them as obvious sockpuppets. If the user claims the others were doppelgangers, unblock, but reblock as soon as the non-primary account edits or the primary account makes a disruptive edit. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we make preemptive blocks? Taemyr (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we generally don't. Sometimes users don't realize their account was created due to page-caching issues, and so inadvertently make multiple accounts when they notice the first name isn't working. AGF there, Erik. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, they appear to have been blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So why, precisely, have these been blocked? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there exists no legitimate reason to have an army of accounts, all obviously tied to each other. — Coren ^(talk) 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, of course there was a nice message left on all the talk pages, and one of these accounts was left un-blocked, then? Right? - brenneman 08:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; I didn't do the blocking. — Coren ^(talk) 12:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All four accounts were blocked indefinitely, and no message was left for any of them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I blocked the four accounts as obvious sockpuppets. If one of them asks to be unblocked, I'll unblock one of them. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Its hard to see why a sock puppeteer would create four accounts with such similar names with any intention of, say, using them to falsely demonstrate consensus. It would be interesting to hear an explanation for such a set of IDs being created. Edison (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63

Resolved

 – Mtngoat blocked 31 hours by user:Toddst1

[110]

Mtngoat63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), A new WP:SPA with a 2-3 week history and no apparent purpose on the encyclopedia other than to make a single point (apparently a WP:COATRACK that Barack Obama is a disciple of the " Alinsky Method" -- but the content does not matter here).

Editor has been editing disruptively and uncivilly on The Obama Nation, Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis

Has been given talk page warnings on content and policy by three editors: User:DGG,[111] User:GoodDamon,[112] and me.

Nevertheless:

• Edit warring in the The Obama Nation article (on article probation)[113][114][115][116]
• When notified of article probation[117] protested in various forums that I was out to get him/her.[118][119][120]
• Started long rant on Talk:The Obama Nation to complain about "bias" and accuse other editors of being "sockpuppets"[121], hidden "real reasons"[122] (note - was warned numerous times there about article probation, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc.
• Edit warred to insert poorly sourced disputed content in the Saul Alinsky article[123][124][125][126] (without participating in talk page - merely asserted I was a "vandal", "bad faith", "retribution", "edit war"

Could someone please take a look at this? I have - wisely or not - gone up to 3RR on this and definitely don't want to revert this editor any further. However, I do not think they are ready to discuss their changes, be civil, etc., and they seem to be uninterested in learning or following our behavior or content guidelines. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have repeatedly asked and even "begged" Mtngoat63 to read WP:RS and similar policies and guidelines. So far, I have seen no evidence that this editor has read them. I concur with Wikidemon on this. --GoodDamon 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Update - after a further revert and warning[127] by GoodDamon the editor is now at 4RR. 4th reversion here[128] (1st 3 from above:[129][130][131][132]). Should I take it to the 3RR board or just handle it here? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would keep it here but file a more specific thread also at the 3RR board. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a 24 hour block on Mtngoat. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63 made it up to 6RR (2 more[133][134] despite a notice of this report[135] and 3RR warning, before being blocked for 31 hours.[136] I do not have much hope that Mtngoat63 will improve after the block but you never know. I see that GoodDamon got too caught up in vandal fighting, exceeded 3RR, and is now blocked as well.[137] I would urge people to take a second look at that, but otherwise I think we're done so I'll mark this as resolved. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's resolved now. I got overzealous, when I really should have just waited for an admin to deal with the issue after this report. I contended that Mtngoat63's actions had become tantamount to vandalism, but at this point I no longer believe that was my determination to make, and have agreed not to edit war on that point. --GoodDamon 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:J-love-lee

Resolved

 – blocked 72 hrs for incivility Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:J-love-lee made tedentious edits, so I warned him on his Talk page. He retaliated by first warning to block me for stupidity, then saying, "ooh [sic], im so scared", even after a final warning,on my talk page.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They last edited over 24 hours ago. If this kind of behavior returns, keep us aprised, and an admin will follow up, but I don't see any overt harrassment in the last 4-5 edits. Some juvinile crap, but nothing that can't be ignored, IMHO. Again, if this flares up again, let us know, but I don't see anything since his last warning that seems blockable yet... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Or we can just go block him (looks like Toddst1 got to it). Whatev... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Need temporary protection on Wales

Resolved

We have an outbreak of IP addresses (mainly recent creations) hitting Wales with changes to an agreed consensus, stopping just short of 3RR. It looks like some of them are sock puppets of Wikipiere who just had another ID bocked. Would someone put a temporary protection in place please before it gets out of hand? The established editors have referenced the cited evidence and past discussion and put a note at the start of the talk page, but to no avail. There are related hits on other sites association with naming and other disputes around Britain and Ireland probably from the same or similar sources. --Snowded TALK 04:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I cannot help you but maybe you'd get a faster response at WP:RFPP? Regards SoWhy 07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week and watchlisted - hopefully the IPs will lose interest, if not protection can be renewed. EyeSerene^talk 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and WP:RFPP noted for next time (regrettably there will be a next time) --Snowded TALK 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

60.230.193.231 Vandalism

This user has repeatedly added deliberately false information and has deleted true information. From the looks of it he has not been doing it long, so it's possible that this vandalism is by either a relatively new user or is a sock-puppet. Rucha58 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP has 3 edits, the most recent of which was 12 hours ago. A block is neither necessary nor effective, since it does not appear to be an active IP, so we wouls be stopping nothing. In the future, please report quick spates of vandalism like this to WP:AIV, where they can be dealt with quickly, but be aware that generally, for IP addresses, only where there is evidence of active (i.e. going on right NOW) abuse, or clear evidence of a single user IP address (same pattern of abuse over many days or weeks), that a block won't happen... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mboverload

Resolved

 – Complainant blocked as a sock of User:Rikara.

User:Mboverload keeps adding an AfD to an article that was just created a little while ago, that AHD a construction notice on it. Please tell him to knock it off. Thanks. RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Discuss it on the AfD page. You've got five days to improve the article to convince others that it should not be deleted. Your removal of the AfD tag is vandalism, please don't do that again. And what administrative action do you wish done? Corvus cornix_talk 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to discussions and consensus, the complainant continues to create articles related to a TV series that other members continue to get rid of. The complainant has made similar complaints about at least one other editor, although in a much more uncivil manner. A quick note of the WP:WQA, and the complainant's talk page will be ... enlightening. BMW(drive) 12:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Death threat

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Bencherlite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 07:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably nonsense, but: [138]. I've reverted. Corvus cornix_talk 06:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been given a temporary holiday from editing. Bencherlite^Talk 06:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those threats which is so non-specific and clearly vandalism that even I am happy with blocking and reverting. Bstone (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jemsmi

Resolved

 – Wrong board, report to WP:AIV once level-4-warning has been issued and user is still vandalizing. SoWhy 07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite two warnings in May, this user has returned to contribute more of the same vandalism. I suggest a ban. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you should warn them again to level 4 and if he/she continues afterwards, report him/her to WP:AIV. Regards SoWhy 07:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the advertisements on the userpages. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

Yasis day 3

See fun times from yesterday and the day before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive477#Yasis_is_wikistalking_me

And now today: [139][140][141]. Can somebody help explain that using IP's to evade a block is a blockable offense, and that repeatedly posting the same inanenesses to my talk page is harassment (not that it hasn't been explained to this user before, but I think they might be young or something). NJGW (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the sockpuppet allegations NJGW?

??? [142]

NJGW you are harassing me and making false allegations against me. Stop your childish attitude.

Yasis 202.156.8.10 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've indefinitely blocked Yasis, and it may as well be a community ban unless someone can come up with a decent reason to unblock him. I can't find any constructive edits from this person, and he continues to edit and abuse the fact that he is on a dynamic IP network. I've blocked the two ranges I can see he has been operating from as well for one month. Should he return under any IP address or account name, NJGW, you are free to contact me and I will deal with the sockpuppet account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Have a one. NJGW (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat by Annesingleton

Hi, I understand all legal threats need to be reported here. Its ambiguous whether this is against us or our sources, so I've put uw-legal on User talk:Annesingleton. ϢereSpielChequers 07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call imho. Seems like an account created for vandalism as the other warnings show. I'd report it to WP:AIV if it vandalizes once more. SoWhy 07:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:RCS

A day or so ago, there was a request for assistance at wp:blp/n regarding an article on Lauren Booth. I went over, did my best to improve the neutrality of the article and encourage some of the folks to strive a bit more for wp:npov. It's a work in progress (which I'm stepping back from, with the hope that others may step in). One particular editor, however, User:RCS, keeps reinserting an alleged quote by the subject of that article that I think is intended to make it appear as though she believes the situation in Gaza is a more significant humanitarian crisis than was the Holocaust. When I reverted and tried to point out to him on the talk page that attempting to paint her negatively by picking and choosing her quotes, he reverted with an edit summary in which he referred to me as "Ernst." He later confirmed on my talk page that he was indeed referring to Ernst Zündel, a truly vile, hateful person who is prominent as a Holocaust denier. I can take a lot of things, but this is a personal attack of the most demeaning kind; this, perhaps more than almost any other, is why we have policies against personal attacks and this is an instance, I believe in which that policy should be rigorously enforced. An apology or an "I'm sorry, I hope that didn't offend you" here doesn't even go remotely close to addressing how reckless, hurtful, and debasing his personal attack was.   user:j    (aka justen)   08:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed additional personal attacks by User:RCS here and here.   user:j    (aka justen)   08:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This really tops it all off. I guess I shouldn't be surprised: [143], [144], [145], [146].   user:j    (aka justen)   08:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What administrator action are you suggesting is required? It looks like a content dispute; have you tried dispute resolution? EyeSerene^talk 08:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Any content dispute does not diminish the demeaning intent of his personal attacks. He has a history of personal attacks. He personally attacked me in at least four separate edits. The policy in question here, wp:npa is clear: "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption." I believe attempting to debase an editor by equating them to a truly evil and vile person is such an extreme personal attack. Using such attacks in an attempt to chill those who disagree with him absolutely is "conduct [that] severely disrupts the project."   user:j    (aka justen)   08:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing editors with whom you are in a content dispute on AIV is certainly bad form, at best, and is something that I believe RCS has a history of doing. I'm still not sure there's anything needing admin attention here unless someone thinks this actually needs a block (this won't be me, as I don't do civility blocks except possibly for the most obvious, extreme circumstances). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article's led to one recent block, already; I'd rather try to calm the situation down than let it continue to spiral downward. It should be perfectly possible to have a reasonable debate without getting overly personal about it. I am amenable to hearing RCS's side of the story, but have to agree at first glance that the AIV report seems spurious, and the "Ernst" comment uncalled for at best. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts too. RCS does seem to have some civility issues, and the comparison with Zundel is a particularly odious one, but it seems to be in response to the continued removal of sourced material he added to the article (not that frustration excuses gross incivility). I haven't blocked because I, too, think RCS should be given a hearing, but some kind of civility parole may be in order. A few editors are skirting close to 3RR on the article by the looks of things. EyeSerene^talk 09:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

When we tolerate, justify, or diminish the severity of a personal attack in which one editor uses such attacks to absolutely chill another editor, we send a message that one can advance their viewpoint with just a few short words. And what's the harm? He has been warned now four or five times times for personal attacks. Yet, in this case, they will prove extremely effective. I will never edit Lauren Booth again. I will turn and run from any article I see his name associated with. His attack was hurtful. It was debasing. Look at his (removed) comment to my talk page and to that article page. He knew this. It was his intent. As of this second, not a soul has so much as warned him for his personal attack against me, let alone block him as I believe wp:npa says he should be.   user:j    (aka justen)   09:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, sorry about that. I've left a note on his talk page. EyeSerene^talk 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm seriously considering a block here. I feel the personal attack was severe - accusing any editor of being a holocaust denier is simply not acceptable and the nonsense report to AIV was pure disruption and an attack. My only pause is whether RCS was warned or whether they already knew better. I'm going to hold fire and wait for further comments on these two points. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Did we get timid all of a sudden? Comparing someone to a neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier is NEVER okay. No amount of "hearing his side of it" is going to make it okay. Content dispute or no content dispute, that's a plainly unacceptable personal attack. I might not block immediately, but I certainly would issue a sternly worded and final warning. We need to be prepared to say very firmly that this kind of behavior is inappropriate, and frankly I'm quite surprised at the hesitancy of some of the voices above. Dragons flight (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Was that support block or support warning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I might have been more clear on a few counts, above: it's pretty late, here, and being tired I will hesitate to take bold action where others might have more complete information, or better have their wits about them; I generally prefer to use calm language when possible, in a tandem attempt to make it clear that I am calm and to encourage other users to remain so (strong language begets stronger language, once people get their backs up). I did issue a warning in a null edit to Lauren Booth, and assumed more detail would be filled out here. Regarding blocking, I'd think I'd rather wait and see if disruption continues -- and support coming down hard if it does -- but will trust to the judgement of others in that regard as well... if you believe this is a repeat problem, or likely to repeat, more immediate action might be called for. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RCS says: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RCS&curid=4568470&diff=240410705&oldid=240410260. Thank you very much! --RCS (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that you and other editors have been discussing the content removal. It's clearly a difficult article, but no matter how aggrieved you feel by his reversions, insulting J was the wrong way to go. Looking through the page history and related pages, you are clearly not the only editor at fault, and I think that's why there's no consensus to block at this time. However, please note the 'last chance' nature of the note I left on your talk page and the comments other administrators have left above. Personal attacks on other editors are never excusable, and will not be tolerated. EyeSerene^talk 11:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats for reverting BLP violation at Jeffrey Masson

I am being threatened by administrator Will Beback for discussing a conflict of interest issue with User:Esterson, and also for reverting BLP violation. Esterson made an edit (see here to the article on Jeffrey Masson that was a clear case of BLP violation, given the way it tried to discredit Masson. Together with the fact that User:Esterson is part of a group of scholars who have been trying to discredit Masson for many years (something he certainly does not deny), I considered it perfectly reasonable to raise the possibility of conflict of interest with Esterson, and did so. Beback is threatening me for doing this (see the discussion here. I raise this issue here partly because I'd rather not be threatened for doing the right thing, but mainly because of the possibility of further BLP violation by Esterson, who is being misadvised by Beback. Could uninvolved admins please tell Esterson to be more careful with BLPs, and tell Beback to stop making unreasonable threats? Skoojal (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not been participating in a collegial manner. In this particular matter, he has a apparent issue with another person, Allen Esterson/Esterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a scholar who studies Freud and Maric. Skoojal is making accusations about Esterson's editing violating COI and BLP, and is attacking Esterson in the process. I asked him to explain and justify his assertions but he came here to complain instead.

Skoojal and Esterson had previous disputes on another forum before meeting on Wikipedia. Skoojal recently wrote the bio about Esterson, a marginally notable academic. He has said that Esterson and he may be enemies.[147]It appears to me that Skoojal has something of an obsession with Esterson. He should not bring a previous, personal dispute here, per Not a battleground.

Regarding the supposed Masson BLP issue, that is a content matter that should be handled on the article talk page or an appropriate noticeboard. Skoojal has not substantiated his assertion that Esterson and unnamed scholars are biased, which he has said is based only on his own impression of them.[148]

This latest behavior is similar to his actions earlier this summer, filing a complaint here: against Jokestress. That complaint turned against him and he was given a "final warning" about editing warring. There was also a complaint against him at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive47#Frederick Crews. Editors complained about his obsessiveness at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#Category:Queer studies. He is also complaining about unexplained BLP issues at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Christina Hoff Sommers. There are a number of complaints about edit warring on his talk page as well. This isn't an RfC, but I hope that Skoojal will see that his aggressive behavior is not conducive to collaborative editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not "attack" Esterson, unless one considers that suggesting that someone may have a conflict of interest is, in and of itself, an attack. The suggestion was reasonable under the circumstances. Esterson's edits to Jeffrey Masson were obvious BLP violations, as anyone who takes the trouble to review them will see. I provided Beback with the relevant link. Most of Will Beback's comments above are irrelevant, and I will not respond to them. Skoojal (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is mainly at User talk:Esterson#BLP Violation at Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Will linked to both the userpage and BLP for Esterton above, I'd just like to point out that Skoojal created the Allen Esterson biography page on User:Esterson, and that User:Esterson has objected to the existence of this page here, and argued that is not WP:N (nor meets or WP:PROF) here. I'm nominating it for deletion through the usual process. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that evaluation of the article on him. As for the more general issue, I can only advise Skoojal and Esterton to keep away from each other here. Not that Esterton has done anything wrong in their interactions, but further prolonging it will not help matters. As for the BLP, 3 uninvolved editors have by now taken a look, and none of them think that the material added violates our policy. DGG (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The three uninvolved editors in question are all mistaken, to put it bluntly. It is up to all concerned to show that they know enough about the issue to be able to comment. Will Beback has effectively admitted not having read the two main relevant sources. Skoojal (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I concur with Will, DGG and Pete. In fact I'd point them to the talk history of other BLPs, for examples of the same behavior: Christina Hoff Sommers, Judith Butler. And the biography of the deceased Michel Foucault. It seems Skoojal has a tendency to edit biographies of people that he feels strongly about (see [149]) - this is problematic on its own, but couple that with his tendencies to get into edit-wars with other editors and protracted and often borderline civil talk-page exchanges and you've got a problem. But in these case there's yet another layer - Skoojal used the Frederick Crews article to "get back" at the subject (see [150]). There are also concerns about a COI with the Allen Esterson page due to an off-wiki disagreement between the two. Admins should also review the deleted history of the User:Skoojal page[151] for further evidence.
  Personally I think this pattern of behaviour in regard to biographies in general is tendentious and I think we need to consider taking steps to prevent it happening again. I'm also afraid that the pattern of behaviour in regard to BLPs is unacceptable - it places the project at risk and we must prevent that. We also have a duty to the subjects of these articles to prevent recurrence of this behaviour (see WP:HARM).
  I'm loathe to begin down this road because I have seen Skoojal make a lot of positive and useful contributions to biographies, but I would suggest that the attitude displayed by him - using BLP articles as a way to settle scores with living people - puts the project at risk.
  I should also disclose that I directed User:Esterson to WP:BLPN and our 'advice for subjects of BLP articles' when I saw his objection to the existence of the article--Cailil ^talk 22:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in fairness to Skoojal, it should be noted that in a number of these conflicts Skoojal was interacting with users who were less than appropriately--Cailil ^talk 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, rather than attacking me, it would be more helpful if you could comment on what Esterson did to the Masson article (and disclose whether you have read the books relevant to making a judgment about its rightness or wrongness). Using BLPs to attack people is exactly what I'm trying to prevent this time round. Someone's past wrong behaviour, in regard to different articles, has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of this particular issue. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber on WP:AN & Kmweber blocked

Resolved

 – Discussion is closed, Kurt is no longer blocked (and hopefully never will be again). — CharlotteWebb 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Still ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion; bot prematurely archived prior thread. --slakr^\ talk / 10:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are now getting support

I have been attacked twice now first rather surreptitiously here (a little "if you're not a musician" jab) and then this one (questioning my mental health and advising others to ignore me). I posted the attacks at Wikiquette alerts and got this response] supporting the personal attacks! Now what the heck do I do? Am I seriously at fault here? Is there a threshold for allowing personal attacks that I did not know about? Is it a consensus thing? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 11:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you've gotten some helpful feedback on your editing. This can sting now and then, without being a personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how is "...will cause many to question your mental health." reflect my editing? How does any of this reflect my editing since I have not edited anything? I've engaged in discussion on a talk page, that's all. What stings is not being told I'm annoying (if that's the best you've got I'm sound as a pound). What I object to is other users making blatant personal attacks and then getting support for them. I thought we had a policy of WP:NPA but maybe I'm wrong. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little uncivil, but probably borne of frustration at answering the same question over and over. The lists in question are obviously different, yet you keep insisting they're the same. They're not. Ultimately, yes, it's a consensus thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So it's acceptable for this user to question my mental health and proffer personal attacks? And no one has a problem with that? WOW, that's bullshit! What part of WP:NPA am I misreading? What part lists the times when it's OK to attack a person? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If other users agree with the advice given they're generally willing to overlook that it's been delivered in a snippy manner. --erachima talk 12:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about some editor saying "Look we're not doing it so shut up". This was a blatant personal attack. Wow, now I understand why people leave WP. This is unbelievable. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is only an issue for community action when it has become a habit on the part of an editor or we have something really noxious like racial slurs being tossed about. Even if we were to "deal with" the other editors that would just mean telling them to be nicer next time. So I'm sorry somebody minorly insulted you, but please grow thicker skin. --erachima talk 12:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, that's why I went to Wikiquette alerts at first. I know this is the wrong forum for this simple dispute but when I was told that this is acceptable I found I couldn't believe it. So I brought the question of what kinds of personal attacks are allowable here. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment left at the locus of dispute. Padilla is skirting the borders of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT both in the original dispute and with respect to this request. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Bloody hopeless. Nobody questioned your mental health (though now they might start doing so), they just said you were acting in such a manner which would cause others to question it. Not unreasonably, though personally I would not regard throwing a temper tantrum as a symptom of mental illness, just of immaturity. Moreschi (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry Moreschi but I believe the words "...cause many to question your mental health." mean someone is questioning your mental health. It's a direct quote from the response of Softlavender. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a snippet from my reply in WP:WQA which I just marked as closed due to forum shopping: "I see nothing overly uncivil in the two diff's provided. The length of the explanation about the types of changes, and why they are not considered acceptable show an extreme amount of patience, and a sincere attempt to assist what is perhaps a newer editor to the project/page in understanding what has already been worked on as a consensus over time. I am not sure what the "are you a musician" comment was really trying to say, but I do not find it uncivil. I also believe that the "ignore" request (which was very specific as to WHAT to ignore) was borne out of the frustration of the continuance of something that had, again, reached full consensus and that the editor believed that you were failing to comprehend." BMW(drive) 12:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You were fighting against an existing consensus past the point where it makes sense. You were proposing something that people know doesn't work because of technical restrictions (a huge sortable table) and most people just don't understand what motivates you. (Why is duplication in the handling of Mozart's works such a big problem? A lot more people are interested in them than in many scientific terms that have their own articles.) In response you got good advice. As happens all too often, the advice had negative overtones, making it easy for you to reject it. Angry editors giving their adversaries good advice while being unable to hide their feelings completely – I don't think that's what WP:NPA is about, even if it may fit superficially.

I also think you are reading the "Are you by chance a musician..." bit too negatively. Please keep in mind that other editors cannot know for sure whether you are a musician or not as long as you don't tell them. That someone got the impression that you might not be one should tell you something about the success of your communication. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, but the one statement you failed to address was the actual attack "...cause many to question your mental health." The musician bit was the introduction of an ad hominem, if I can't handle an ad hominem I should have bowed out long ago. The other part people are overlooking is why is questioning Mozarts stuff so unacceptable? The arguments I put forth were steps in a process to try and find if there was a different way to do this. Why is that so unacceptable that personal attacks are now justified? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What administrative action do you think should be taken? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Call me kooky but a warning about personal attacks might be in order. Some sort of support for the policy WP:NPA over at the Wikiquette alerts page to help those that poll that page realise that there is no threshold for personal attacks. I don't know, I'm not an admin, that's why I came here. I don't know what's acceptable any more and I don't know where to go. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the admins speak to that. One thing I can tell you, though, is that on many occasions I've argued at length for a position that I was certain was right, and consensus was against me. Eventually you have to realize that you're not going to win, and just leave it alone. If you keep harping on the same point over and over, you kind of ask for what happens. If someone questioned my sanity for beating the same drum after the issue was settled, I'd say they might have a point (which they have; and they did). So you're not blameless in this situation. And these are very mild "personal" attacks. You don't know what you're missing. Just leave this one be, and find something else to edit. I assure you, there is no end of stuff to edit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that Bugs. This was never supposed to be about the personal attacks. This complaint was about the treatment over at Wikiquette_alerts. This complaint should have had nothing to do with the personal attacks. I don't know if I'll ever be comfortable accepting language like that. I guess the best way to phrase it is this may not have been a personal attack but it was an attack that was personal (mental health is a touchy subject to me). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the guy made personal attacks angainst you. I think your just taking them negatively, instead of try listening to his advice. Calm down and get to work on something useful rather than being on here bickering about, what might have been at the most, misinterpreting by you. Happy Editing!

HairyPerry (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Padillah, please consider this a final warning. As Guy mentioned above, you are playing a game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; first at the article talk page, then at the Wikiquette page, and now (after specifically being warned about it) here. You've received more than enough feedback that those were not personal attacks. You ask above what to do; the answer is: Drop this, in all three places. If you cannot edit in this environment (i.e. where people bend over backwards to deal with long, repetitive and disruptive posts, and eventually express mild annoyance), then yes, you are correct, you would be better off somewhere else. --barneca (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Part of asking Padilllah to let this drop was an assumption that people wouldn't keep poking him with a stick. I'm certainly not going to block when people keep doing so. --barneca (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you feel you need to do, have fun. At this point I don't really care any more. Threaten away. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I think you misunderstood me. What I don't care about are your warnings. I still very much care that I have been attacked. I've got to figure out how to own my own article so I can get people banned by being belligerent and not listening. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Barneca. I wish the rest of my arguments were as clearly seen as that. I've gotten some help moving forward from Bwilkins so let's see if this can be resolved. I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but the differences in my arguments are very subtle. Thanks for the slack. Padillah (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Padilla, do you think everything is a threat/personal attack. Listen to the advice that someone is trying to gve you for once and drop this matter and make helpful contributions to the encyclopedia (if you still want to be here that is). The best thing for you to do in my opinion is take a break from editing and cool yourself down before telling people there making threats/personal attacks. Please listen to my advice. Happy Editing.

HairyPerry (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What on this or any other earth makes you think I want to be here? Why would a person continue to expose themselves to an environment that has shown so little disregard for their feelings? If a person claims to have been attacked doesn't that make it worth someone's while to tell the other party to tone down? Or even address the other party at all?!? But, no. Despite making my feelings perfectly clear I am being told that my feelings are wrong and there's nothing to even talk to the other party about. That being insulted on a personal level is discouraged but it's something I have to deal with because we are not going to mention to the other editor that there are many different people that edit here and he might want to take my feelings into account one of these times. Why would I want to leave such a nurturing environment as this? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. No one is here against their will. Everyone who edits wikipedia does so because they "want to" in some way. And your feelings aren't "wrong", but you have to take more appropriate steps to deal with the various slings and arrows that can occur here. One is to try to work things out with other editors before logging issues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly: there was no previous attempt to resolve the issue directly with the "uncivil editor". Rather than work out a problem it went straight to filing WQA, and then when the comments weren't the ones that were looked for, this AN/I was opened. BMW(drive) 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point. The editor is effectively "forum shopping" to try to get someone else to resolve an issue that he himself should first try to resolve with the other editors. Ironically, there's a degree of obsessiveness here, which is why he was "attacked" in the first place. And believe me, I know from obsessiveness. I was gently warned about it just yesterday. To call this level of obsessiveness "mental" could be a bit much, but one thing I know from experience here is that obsessiveness very seldom leads to good results. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No the editor is misunderstood on a level never before seen on this or any other earth. I thought I had explained this entry is not about the original complaint, it's about how the original complaint was handled (or, blown off to more to the point). The editor is not being obsessive about a single point, others that talk to the editor are shifting his arguments so that they only respond in respect to a single point rather than what the editor was asking about. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE I have suggested to both parties on their Talk pages here and here that they should discuss together and clarify, and RESOLVE this situation themselves, as is rule number 1 for dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I have volunteered to "informally mediate" if needed. We shall now see if they wish this resolved or not. BMW(drive) 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to comment but the phrase "misunderstood on a level never before seen on this or any other earth" caught my attention rather. The problem (as I see it) is that the original remark - the root of all this - is outweighed by the fuss that has since been made about it, and the longer this dispute continues, the greater that imbalance becomes. Based on that, I am afraid that this issue is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, unless everyone is willing to accept a decreasing of drama level and a less formal and confrontational approach. I hope BMW's attempt succeeds. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's either an incredible overreaction, or he's engaged in a little sarcasm himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, guys. ;) Padillah (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's incredibly obvious that the mental health statement violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I am sorry you had to be on the receiving end of such a statement, Padillah. I am not an admin (which they claim is not a big deal) so there isn't much I can do other than sympathize with you. I am sorry, also, that there are some in this thread whom are belittling and discounting you. I wish that would end. Bstone (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure it will, once this editor has decided to accept disagreement. Look back over the thread on the article's talk page. If you want to pretend that this editor played no part in escalating and personalising the dispute you are welcome to try, but you won't get much sympathy here. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad in Hinduism again

We have had a repeated problem on numerous articles with a virulent sockpuppeteer who is continuing to get way with misrepresentation of facts and is now acting almost entirely openly as an edit warrior repeatedly reinserting the same content - which has been repeatedly rejected - in articles. He is continuing to get away with it because of his unrelenting sockpuppetry and persistence. I am sick of reverting and sick of raising the same issue over and over and over. Essentially this editor wishes to assert that Muhammad was "predicted" in the Hindu scriptures and has assembled a texct which superficially looks to be well cited, but is in fact a compendium of ultra-fringe sources which completely ignore mainsteream scholarship. See See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RajivLal (2nd).

This editor, now under the names of User:.alchin007 and User:RedMonkey39 is no longer even bothering to conceal his sockpuppetry, as his edits summary clearly indicates. Making Sockpuppet and checkuser requests is time consuming and pointlerss when this indivisdual can apparently recreate himself so persistently. I think that this particular edit (he makes the same assertions over and over) should be recognised and treated as vandalism. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:.alchin007 and User:RedMonkey39 indefblocked. Perhaps you might have a case for requesting full page-protection (see WP:RFPP)? EyeSerene^talk 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Help in sorting out a mess

Forgiveness please if this is the wrong noticeboard. I'm looking for some help from an admin to sort out a weird circle of articles and behaviour. The circle includes the following articles David A. Prior, Winters Hollywood Holdings Corporation, David Winters (choreographer)‎, Ted Prior (actor), and possibly more. There is also the "new" User:wikibbb who has removed the speedy deletion tags on Winters Hollywood Holdings Corporation and made some weird edits to it in the bargain. I'm trying to figure out what is actually happening but, would appreciate some admin involvement/guidance. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a walled garden. One of those pages has been speedied, and two others nominated for deletion. Should be cleared up before the month is out. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm the one that took 2 of them to AfD but, there seems to be more (the picture one I can't remember the name of at the moment). I'm just wanting to make sure I'm going about things the right way and not destroying actual encyclopedic material (not to mention having no proper idea on how to suss out the multiple accounts involved (cause I'm guessing some of them are just well intentioned contributors, while others aren't).Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that David Winters (choreographer) is no longer tagged for speedy deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 18:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Action International Pictures. Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Ave Caesar & CadenS on Jesse Dirkhising

I'm having a problem with two editors on Jesse Dirkhising, an article I've fully vetted, re-written and am trying to get to GA status. The article has been largely free of disputes and stable since the rewrite several months ago.

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

My introduction to CadenS (talk · contribs) was a bit more blunt as they were a newbie, as far as I can tell, and on the Jesse Dirkhising article they plain out just accused me of a few things and lobbed a few personal attacks my way then left the article about six months ago. We had been dialogging on their talkpage as I tried to help find them some grounding and on-wiki resources so thought that whatever hard feelings were there had dissipated. Then again within the last month or so on E.O. Green School shooting I could feel the level rise a bit and CadenS takes a bit of a dig at me and follows it a day later by accusing me and two others of "hateful attacks". No requests for explanation are answered but they seemed to be dialogging with others on their talk page so I left well enough alone. Now CadenS is back to Jesse Dirkhising and their first edits there were to change instances of gay to homosexual, which is generally considered pejorative outside a research context - for instance, it's not the "Homosexual Pride Parade" except to some conservative religious folks - it's Gay Pride. They also changed some content thus misrepresenting what the sources stated. I reverted back and point out the concerns and they respond by calling me a POV pusher. At this point Ave Caesar reverts "restoring encyclopedic language" which i revert and going back to the sources to see if there is a better way to reflect what they state I return to the article to insert a quote in hopes of resolving misrepresenting a source to find CadenS has again reverted.

I'm unsure if they are working together on purpose but they are effectively causing the article to fail the GA process for being unstable, amongst other concerns, and I see no future in trying to complete the clean-up with two users edit-warring and inserting problematic and POV language. I would appreciate others looking at this and I'm uncomfortable reverting either of them and don't see engaging them any further as a good path for me. Just writing all this up has taken away the rest of my time for editing today. I have to get some sleep but I think the above lays out what I see as the issue. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that these users should be discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. Have you contacted kotra (talk · contribs), who is CadenS's mentor? Although that is an option, I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts. CadenS is clearly passionate about gay-themed articles and has been asked to avoid them in the past, to my memory. Though his comments about E.O. Green school shooting correctly indicated the poor writing and layout of the article, the stressful way it was brought about was unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I find Benj's choice of words ("they", "their", "them"), to describe me personally, as very offensive. I have a name. My name is Caden. That's C-A-D-E-N. I'm also a male. That's M-A-L-E. Therefore my gender is "he", and not "they" or "them" or "their". Got it? Now, in regards to the word "homosexual", this is the correct word to be used. It's used in the same way as the word "heterosexual" is often used. Homosexual is only considered pejorative by those who support the political correct movement. I did change some of Benji's POV content because he was misrepresenting what those sources stated. He deliberately did that to mislead the readers just like he's been doing with the E. O. article by adding the POV "see also" sections that serve his biased POV. The real issue here is the issue of POV language used by Benji and him misleading the readers by insinuating this in the main article. I also find it highly insulting that he is accusing me of working together with Ave Caesar on purpose. I've never spoken to User:Ave Caesar, and he or she has never had any contact with me. Furthermore, Benji claims I took a dig at him? Please. I was defending myself. I was replying to an attack made by him (on the E.O. page) towards me when he had the nerve to say: "Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else". I found his statement offensive, bizarre, and completely uncalled for. Caden S (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Caden: Chill, no one can tell your gender on teh Internet. A simple "Oh, btw I'm male" would have done. Your "get it?" etc is very hostile. I am sure no rudeness was intended. People on Wikipedia refer to other editors as "he" "she" and "they" almost at random it seems, and it is generally best to ignore or tactfully inform the editor using the incorrect term. As regarding "homosexual" vs. "gay" that is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article - but the parade is certainly the "gay pride" parade and not the "homosexual pride" parade, so at least one of your edits is simply wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it's me. I haven't been contacted, but as you say, all editors are responsible for their own actions (though I would appreciate it if these issues were discussed with me occasionally). I want to clear up a few things, though. Caden has already apologized for some of the issues raised above, and has voluntarily maintained long breaks from LGBT-related articles in the past. As for this recent incident (changing "gay" to "homosexual" on Jesse Dirkhising), that seems like a minor content dispute that you should discuss with each other first before bringing up here. So concerning Caden, I'm not sure what this incident report is for, since it's a minor dispute and has not yet received much discussion. Concerning Ave Caesar, I don't really have an opinion about their edits, except I very much doubt they are conspiring in any way with Caden. -kotra (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer, I'm sorry but you are so wrong. Benji knows full well that I'm a male and he knows my name very well. He and I have had conflicts in the past concerning the Dirkhising and E. O. pages. Furthermore, I know nothing about such parades and have no interest in them. And for the record, I made no edits on any parade so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, I agree with Kotra. He should of have been contacted regardless of my actions. He is my adopter. Caden S (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, did he? Still not seeing why you should bother to care. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a side-note concerning this: "I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts.". I actually disapproved of that comment, and I did not "talk him out of it". -kotra (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a content dispute and not really a matter for ANI. This should be on the discussion on the article talk page. The issue is over the inclusion of encyclopedic language. The user wishes to replace "homosexual" with the slang term "gay." --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bangle-butt

I just nuked Bangle-butt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per WP:BLP, having been attracted to Chris Bangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by a request to link a petition to sack the designer at Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist#petitiononline.com. The article documents (using the word loosely) a derogatory term used by detractors to describe a specific design feature associated largely, though not exclusively, to this one designer. It's a love/hate thing, and the biography and that nuked article are dominated by the hate group. Feel free to undelete the article and give it a more appropriate title, and strip out the derogatory overtones, if you can find sourcing. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the article has been around since 2005, and a 30 second search reveals more than enough sources that would warrant an article under that specific term. I think the article should be undeleted or started anew from scratch. --Conti|✉ 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how "No one bothered to nuke it before now" somehow makes a subject encyclopedic. Age does not always denote worth - check out any dirty old man or meddlesome old lady for proof of that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If it should be anything (doubtful), it should be a redirect to Chris Bangle with some sourced information (if that's possible) at that article. Black Kite 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea; I've redirected, although I have not added any content to the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the article numerous times in popular car magazines 100+ instances,3 instances,164 instances (mainly forums, some reviews. Here's a quote from a Motor Trend Interview with Bangle: Love or loathe his work, Bangle's impact on auto design has been profound. No other designer, not even legendary GM design chief Harley Earl, has so rapidly become a part of the industry lexicon. To "bangle" a design is now an auto-industry verb for ruining it. Auto writers use "Bangle butt" to describe a tail with an extra layer of metal on the trunk (think new Mercedes S-Class). Bangle, some rivals will remind you, is only one letter away from "bungle." Whether or not the term deserves it's own article is debatable, but at the very least should be addressed in Bangle's bio. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

blocking a user to stop harassment

McJeff's never ending harassment continues. mcjeff wrote this totally off topic personal attack on an article discussion page, not even a user talk page. can someone block him for his gross incivility? i provide recent diffs of his abuse[[152]]; he just provides more attacks. (he was responding to this from a blatant SPA.) is this abuser and harasser going to be allowed to bully people around without blatant personal attacks totally unabated?Theserialcomma (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Warned about personal attacks. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

John Carney (American football)

Resolved

- for now. I semied the article and left a bunch of warnings. Note that the subject of the article appears to be editing it to protect the BLP vios. This is allowed and needs handling with care should this resume. I'm willing to up the protection if this doesn't work. Ping me or make an appn to RFPP Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate some eyes on this article, as it has been the subject of a edit war recently with BLP violations on one side, and legal threats on the other side. All accounts involved seem to be essentially throwaway accounts. I'd just watch it myself, but I'm not sure how available I'll be to edit in the next week. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide

Resolved

 – pp-semi-vandalism

This article, which is pretty stable (former FA), is being vandalized regularly by diverse IP editors. Could an extended semi-protect be considered? Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sifl and Olly Show

Constant spamming from different IP addresses. This issue was brought up last week, resulting in a user block and temp. protection of page. However, when the page protection expired, the spam came back right away. Perhaps a longer protection is needed? -Brougham96 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please list atWP:RFPP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mista-X

Mista-X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some very slanderous and vicious accusations against me in a discussion about the racial aspects of violent crime in Toronto, specifically related to the Boxing Day Shooting incident of 2006. Mista-X initially made the very insensitive assertion that the article's only claim to notability is the fact that the victim of the shooting between two rival Black gangs was a White person - a 16-year old female named Jane Creba [153]. Completely ignoring the fact that it was one of the most brazen daylight shooting incidents in Toronto, based on its location alone - a popular shopping center in the city core frequented by holiday-oriented shoppers including families and young people. He then responded reaffirming his view with bogus and racialist theories [154]. Then when I responded about the reason for higher violent crime rates among Toronto's Black community lied within the community, and not the evil racist government he proceeded to accuse me of bigotry, fascism, racism, complicity with white supremacist organizations, being a white nationalist, being a militant white supremacist ("If someone started blasting at you would you simply duck and cover if you were carrying? Or would you pump back some of that H & K or Walther (my favs too) in the name of your white race?") being a member of the now-defunct NSDAP (Nazi) party and called Black law enforcement officers "uncle toms" and "tokens" [155]. This I believe goes beyond uncivil, the libelous accusations leveled against me, through completely unfounded, would place me in violation of Canadian Hate Speech laws and subject me to criminal prosecution. A very serious accusation that violates a series of WP policies. I've been the target of incivility several times on Wikipedia, but this I could not leave unchallenged. This combined with his controversial editing past including many blocks proves that the user is not a serious contributor but is a POV-pushing Marxist extremist. Koalorka (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour from User:Mista-X, in which he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to use Wikipedia to denigrate people that he does not like (see, for example, [156],[157],[158]. He has been warned and blocked for this behaviour many times before, and has actively disregarded these warnings ([159],[160]). I think we should be considering a community ban at this point, since no other measure is likely to work (we could start an RFC, but I think we've already seen how he reacts to criticism). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would Support the community ban. People who come and start spouting racial epithets against living people and users are people who need not be on here, especially if they've got scars from LARTs issued by other users. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, definitely looks likes banning time. Disruptive, pattern of abuse towards other editors, unable to distance himself enough from his opinions to write in a neutral fashion, and demonstrated unwillingness to change. No reason to continue letting him damage the project. --erachima talk 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of his edits since his recent block in the beginning of July seem problematic (he has only made 5 edits in that time). Maybe we should wait? Obviously if this behavior does start up again a ban would be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

← (edit conflict) A few things: one, I am actually uncomfortable with some of Koalorka's commentary on Talk:Boxing Day shooting, particularly this. I will not comment on Koalorka's edit patterns, though they may be worth a quick look. Second, am I taking crazy pills, or are the cited diffs between 5 and 9 months old? I find it odd to be "defending" Mista-X (talk · contribs), because in my interaction with him I've found him to be extremely tendentious, uncollaborative, and obstructionist (see this history).Yes, Mista-X may in fact be a reasonable candidate for a siteban; this diff ends unacceptably, though it is from April, people. This particular thread doesn't smell quite right. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose community ban unless a diff can be pulled up that's from no earlier than the beginning of August. This is attempt by Koalorka to ban an editor over an old grievance. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of WP:GAR by User:jfdwolff

User:jfdwolff keeps reverting an edit I made, closing a WP:GAR, instead of using proper procedure to unlist. He responded negatively to a caution I made on his talk page regarding the matter.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify which review this is about, what the dispute is, and why this requires administrative attention? --erachima talk 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See history of Talk:Huntington's disease and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#Reverting GAN fails. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also a thread from yesterday about Goodone121 and Huntington's disease. This user is trolling. I've had enough, and would like him blocked. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Goodone121 and Huntingon's disease. What exactly is going on here? How can one "use proper procedure" to delist an article that is not a GA? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have given Goodone121 a final warning! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)