Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive704

User:Lewisistheone1991

This new user is creating season team pages for college men's basketball teams for the 2010–11 season. That's fine by me. However, he keeps copying and pasting existing articles (ex: 2010–11 Colorado Buffaloes men's basketball team) into "new" articles that use hyphens (2010-11 Colorado Buffaloes men's basketball team). He's done this to tons of team articles, and I've told him multiple times to stop doing that. I have no idea why he's doing it; all I can surmise is he somehow thinks that's what you're supposed to do when the hyphenated version doesn't exist. I've had to manually move or redirect every single one of his article creations. Furthermore, I gave him a pretty stern warning back on June 4th to stop these practices. Not only has he not responded to anything I've written to him, he hasn't responded to anyone's concerns that have been left on his talk page. Since he clearly doesn't intend to stop duplicating articles into incorrectly titled pages, nor will he respond to inquiries/comments left on his talk page, is it unreasonable to enact a short-term block to try and get his attention? I've run out of patience with this user. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any incorrect edits of his since your June 4 notice. Maybe you did explain it adequately. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

He did it again with this, when the correct article was already made and in place (ironically by Lewisistheone1991). Jrcla2 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible WP:NLT on Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk page

Resolved

 – RockSound is SockBound

RockSound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA on the (somewhat infamous) Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This editor is somewhat aggressive in editing style. A recent comment is close to, if not over, the line for legal threats. I've requested on the article talk page and on their user talk page to strike the comment. Their response was polite, but reinforced their point. I would appreciate an admin taking a look at this and offering their thoughts. Ravensfire (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite how that discussion got so out of hand to be discussing if libel action could be taken over it or not. But that comment does not look like a legal threat, given the explanation. Best to just disengage and devolve that particular conflict. Berean was on a tangent. RockSound was responding to that. FWIW nothing in the article seems to me to be libellous, so there isn't much to worry about on that score. although, it would be nice for RockSound to specifically note he doesn't mean it as a threat of legal action --Errant ^(chat!) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Errant, you are correct. And I expressly stated on my Talk page that I was merely discussing a point of law and never intended any threat of legal action. I never even imagined that someone would try to interpret it that way. RockSound (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal First of all, I am not an SPA as Ravensfire claims. Anyone who does not share the pro-guilt view is immediately deemed an SPA, harassed and constantly hauled before ANI in a most aggressive manner by the pro-guilt editors who control the article. Mr. Wales has tried to intervene in this article to sort out some of the problems. I posted some of his comments today on the Talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&action=edit&section=14 It is a horrible situation there with a dozen or more editors already blocked on trumped up charges, all victims being from the side that does not share the pro-guilt view.

This claim that I made a legal threat is not valid. I am an attorney and merely clarified a totally erroneous statement made by someone to the effect that nobody could be sued for calling Amanda Knox and Sollecito murderers under US law. That is false information. If a person is falsely painted in a bad light, there can be a cause of action under US law. That was my only point. I most certainly was not making a legal threat. I made that very clear to Revensfire before he/she filed this ANI complaint.

To haul this up to ANI is just more of the ongoing harassment that any editor faces who does not share the pro-guilt view. It appears that there are two pro-guilt websites that some of these pro-guilt editors are involved in and taking their direction from. An aggressive PR campaign painting Amanda Knox and Raffeale Sollecito as guilty of murder, before the criminal proceedings have been completed, is being orchestrated by these two websites, and they have their tentacles into this article via some of the pro-guilt editors now in control of the article.

I do hope that Mr. Wales will return and help us in sorting out this situation. His help thus far has been beneficial, but much more help is needed. RockSound (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and lovely labeling of any editor opposed to your POV as "pro-guilt", an accusation utterly without merit or evidence. Your response on your talk page dismissed anything not from an administrator, which left me with no other choice. As has been requested before here, I would hope for uninvolved admins to watch the page and actively work to mitigate the hostile tone (see RockSounds response) that seems to be returning after a week or so of helpful dialogue and cooperative editing. Ravensfire (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I don't appreciate the frivolous allegations of a legal threat. It is very clear that I was talking in generalities on a point of US law, not about taking any legal action myself. And I explained that to you on my Talk page. Here was the dialogue:

I am requesting you strike out this comment on the talk page. Making or implying legal actions in an attempt to influence other editors is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I ask you to immediately strike your comment out. Ravensfire (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are an administrator, then I must decline your request as being misplaced. I made no legal threat whatsoever. I merely stated that the editor who asserted that there could be no cause of action over this article was wrong. I expressed my legal opinion as an attorney in the US that he is wrong that defamatory statements against Knox and Sollecito are not actionable. You should be able to grasp the fact that that is entirely different from saying that you intend to sue someone, which is what a legal threat is. I do not represent anyone in this case, nor have I ever said that I do or that I even know anyone connected with this case, so it is not even possible for me to make a legal threat on their behalf. I am simply expressing my opinion on the state of the law.

If it is alright for an editor to give false information that no legal action could ever be taken over this article even if Knox and Sollecito are falsely depicted as murderers, it is certainly alright for someone who actually knows the state of the law on this matter to say that he is incorrect, as a professional opinion. RockSound (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC0)

I am not an administrator, I am an editor like everyone else here. My hope was that you would see the request and strike your comment in hopes of the debate remaining somewhat peaceful. Alas, I was mistaken. Ravensfire (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you prefer that the false information about that state of the law of defamation in the US stand unrebutted? How does that help anyone? People need to realize that when you are writing about living people, the laws of defamation apply, which is what the BLP policies are aimed at fostering. The editor who wrote that no one could be sued for calling Knox and Sollecito murderers could not have been more wrong, and his false assertions need correction. RockSound (talk) 23:24, 10 June — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Side-stepping the main issue here (because I'd rather jump in front of a bus than start editing the MOMK article), I don't get why RockSound repeatedly entreats Jimbo to somehow resolve the dispute at the article. Especially in the last AN/I thread about RockSound and MOMK, xhe seemed to be under the impression that Jimbo controls all Wikipedia content and he is the final arbiter of the dispute. Frankly, I find it a little unnerving as it goes against everything that I (and I hope others) believe about Wiki. There is neither an individual authority nor a "mommy" who will listen to tattling. The articles should be a product of the community; no disrespect to Mr. Wales, but I feel like we can resolve this without him placing his rubber stamp upon it. Chillllls (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The legalese-speak of Rock's original comment,[1] sounds like an intent to intimidate, hence it falls under the "legal threat" category. If he had simply issued a friendly caution against blatantly calling someone "a murderer" (as opposed to "convicted of murder", which is factual), i.e., to wit, e.g., in lieu, by reporting that there is in fact a risk of libel suit in the U.S., that would have been a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, there is some unfortunate backstory to the repeated "appeal to Jimbo" seen in this topic area; the original open letter and the gleeful reception from activist blogs and a local Seattle media outlet. As for Rocksound, this user has been a resounding net negative to the Kercher article so far; we have repeatedly had to come to An/I to discuss this antagonistic, fierce behavior, now coupled with legal threats. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Has he cited anything to support the claim that an American could be sued for calling the convicts "murderers"? Or are we supposed to take his word for it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To claim that anything I said constitutes an intent to intimidate someone is outrageous. I responded with what you call 'legalese-speak" because if you look at the comment that I was reponsing to, it was specifically about points of law on defamation in the US. It is really stretching things beyond all reason to say that responding to a post on the legal requirements on defamation in the US constitutes "an attempt to intimidate". There have been many, many comments on this same Talk page about how certain comments about Rudy Guede (the man favored by the pro-guilt clique in control)could be seen as defamation, yet no one got hauled up to ANI over it. Double standards once again. RockSound (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comments continue to contain a threatening tone. I'd be interested to see an actual citation in support of your claim that someone could be sued for calling a convicted murderer "a murderer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Watch out for that bus Chilllls was warning about! You're about to get run over by the pro-Knox clique! Ravensfire (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not in either "clique", as I have no opinion on guilt or innocence of the convicted persons in that case. But do know that there have been many editors attempting to make the wikipedia article operate as an advocacy for the convicted, and as the notes to Wales indicates, they are very well-practiced at various levels of intimidation. Rock's threats are par for the course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you cared to follow the extensive discussion, a key point is that under the Italian Constitution they are currently deemed "not guilty". That is all cited on the Talk page, but the information has been kept out of the article. I am sorry if you find my comments "threatening". I am merely responding to the legal issues by typing at my key board. Any "intimidation" or "threatening tone" you detect is purely your own subjective experience, not my intention. RockSound (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested enough to read every last word you've written, I'd just like to see (or at least to be made aware) that you have citations for your claims and that you don't expect us to just take your word for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The citations to the Italian Constitution are on the Talk page, as well as the discussions about the current status of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as "not guilty" under the law of Italy. If you won't bother to read the Talk page to get the gist of my comment in its proper context then I am sorry, I cannot help you. RockSound (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming they weren't actually convicted of murder? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• RockSound, a single-purpose account who is now more or less completely dedicated to the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic, has routinely used the article talk page as a platform for advocacy and soapboxing. His strong opinion about the subject matter has had an all-too-clear effect on his ability to edit the article in a manner that conforms to a neutral point of view. In the last 24 hours, the user has restored questionable text to the article that had previously been reverted, and then edit-warred to preserve his preferred revision of the content while initially refusing to participate in continuing discussion at the talk page. His incivility has recently extended to leaving a gratuitous 3RR template on my talk page, even though I have performed only one revert on this article in the last 24 hours. If consensus appears not to support his views, that consensus will often be ignored outright as the user continues to push his own strong POV. I fear that this quasi-legal threat, coupled with a refusal to understand the consequences of attempting to make such threats, is simply the latest in a lengthening line of incidents that have brought out the tendentious nature of the user's general editing pattern. SuperMarioMan 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for closure: I don't know if it is appropriate for the "accused' to request that a complaint be closed, but this one is particularly frivolous and is merely more harassment intended to waste my time and drive me away from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. The pro-guilt editors have been conducting a fierce drive to get people banned or blocked on trumped up charges or just so tied up with ANI, or just so frustrated by deleting and deleting and deleting their work, that virtually only the pro-guilt editors are allowed to edit the article. This complaint is just more of the same. I rest my case now. Do with me what you will. I will not be returning to discuss this, since I have to get back to my real job's work. Thank you and Good Night. RockSound (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold the phone there, Mr. Lawyer. Your uncited claim that "...there is a cause of action in the US for defamation over this article" still stands. Until you either provide a citation or retract it, you're not off the hook here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire opened by saying he/she'd "appreciate an admin taking a look...and offering their thoughts" as to whether RockSound should strike a comment that Ravensfire had chosen to characterize as "close to, if not over the line for legal threats." An admin, Errant, duly complied, taking a look and offering the thought that it doesn't look like a legal threat, etc. RockSound has assured that it isn't, and explained why it isn't. Nuff said. Writegeist (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diff in isolation, I can see how it could be construed as something close to an NLT problem. While you did not threaten any legal action yourself, RockSound, your comment strongly implied that the current state of the article was such that someone (an editor? WMF?) could face legal trouble. Given you are very much a "pro-innocence" editor, it could be construed as an attempt to chill the input of those who are not advocates for Kerchner. It seems that was not your intent and taken in wider context I can buy that explanation. But it would probably be best to just go back and clarify that statement to be more reflective of your intended meaning. Resolute 01:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

koff!"Advocates for Knox", perhaps? pablo 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

lol. Epic fail! Resolute 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Question: Am I the only one who hears quacking here? This editors's style is very similar to Zlykinskyja's, in my opinion... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. See my comment further down.TMCk (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Please stop hurling one accusation after another at me ( and the other editors who don't share your POV).

I have returned even though I really am gone for the night to do my real work, to say that I did comply with Resolute's suggestion about editing the comment on the article Talk page to make it clear that I did not intend any threat. Here is what I wrote, which explains a lot more than the original very brief statement:

Italian law applies to determine the status of the defendants. Currently, they are innocent of any crime. If they are currently presented as murderers or guilty of a crime that could be viewed as defamatory under US law. Even if some sources present them that way, it should be noted that their current status is innocent and all information about them otherwise correct. The claim above that "it does not matter that an appeal is ongoing" and that "there can be no valid civil or criminal recourse against the author" who presents them as murderers is wrong.

I also added a note below on the Talk page to make it doubly clear that I intended no threat or legal action. I hope that is sufficient. Now I really do have to go. Good night and thank you. RockSound (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Rock added the "not true" after I had posted the preceding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

As you say. I'm a lawyer and an administrator, both of which is mostly irrelevant to the following: I don't like RockSound's edit because I believes it carries an implication that anyone contributing to the article could be liable for part or all of the defamation that RockSound Esq. opined existed. I think that has a chilling effect on people being willing to edit the article, benefiting her side (whichever that is, I can't recall off hand) on the question of guilt. Certainly it does not make people more anxious to edit the article. I would respectfully urge my colleague at the bar to consider well what he knows to be true because is is something a lawyer always watches: a legal pronouncement can have an intimidating effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Brother, as you wish. I have deleted my revised comments entirely from the Talk page relating to this Complaint, including my post above starting with "Italian law applies...". Thank you for your advice. Now I really am done for the night. Good night. RockSound (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I was getting worried, I haven't seen an ANI thread about this article for a few days and I was wondering what was wrong. -- Atama頭 07:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Rocksound is still under the mistaken impression that Jimbo has some sort of final say over what happens here. The last time he was brought to ANI, only a couple of weeks ago, he kept going on and on about wanting to get Jimbo onto the article again as if doing so will silence the critics. Personally I find that comments of this sort come close to a chilling effect on discussion. The other thing is that Rocksound, please use edit summaries more. I had a look at the MoMK history and the last 20 edits of yours had no edit summary whatsoever. Anyone wishing to see what was previously written has to open each revision up. --Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The style and content of RockSound's editing (especially the "pro-guilt" stuff and dancing on the edge of NLT) is very reminiscent of two indeffed users, Zlykinskyja and PhanuelB. Also the account was registered right in the middle of a batch of many other Kercher SPAs, as can be seen at User:Pablo X/spa. No doubt someone will suggest and SPI here, but we already know this gang are adept at fooling CU. Someone really just needs to step up to the plate and invoke WP:DUCK, really, enough editor's time is being wasted here. 86.148.71.85 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To add to the duck case: user:Zlykinskyja aka user:PilgrimRose aka user:Darryl98 too mentioned in the past that they hold a law degree. Also their editing interrests lay close together: Criminal cases (not only MoMK) and focus on a certain geographical area and history. To top this off, user:RockSound's account was created and started editing the day after Zlykinskia's indef block and editing in the same time frame. The duck is running wild here.TMCk (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Rock was also inactive between last August and this May. It would be interesting to know which user, if any, filled that time gap in a similar editing style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question. If confirmed I hope there will be a swipe for sleeper accounts as well.TMCk (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've opened an investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja.TMCk (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • They declined it due to the age of the presumed sockmaster. Were there any other self-declared legal-beagles dismissed around May 20th, when Rock resumed editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • So we have an account that edits in exactly the same way as user:Zlykinskyja, was created the day after they were indeffed, uses the same language and terms, and hasn't been removed as a sock yet? Which bit of "completely obvious" is proving troublesome here? 86.148.71.85 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • He gawn, bye-bye. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Meh. I only poke my head in here occasionally, but frankly why is no-one trying to fix the obvious problems with this article??. I've just indeffed RockSound as an obvious sock, and don't worry, I'm going to stick around to deal with any issues that might ensue. Seriously though folks, whatever happened to WP:DUCK? Don't faff around talking about it, if it's that obvious, just act. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to wonder if the author of that "open letter" is the sockmaster in this case, or if the sockmaster is merely a "fellow traveler". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The "open letter" would definitely fit her editing style (while she plays nice).TMCk (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

PatakaZikatuna (talk · contribs)

We have a situation; this guy's been at it for over a year (including socking) with his obsession with a certain Vell Baria, an obvious vanity-page or possibly hoax. He's now again creating discographies, song-stubs, and whatnot. Can somebody explain to him (as others have tried before) that this persn isn't notable and that he needs to stop? Thanks. (see also Vellbaria (talk · contribs)) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For added good measure, it's a biography (quite possibly autobiography) of a 16-year-old person with autism. I think we have BLP issues here. Favonian (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a hoax, as the links on the page I just deleted shows. {I just went through each of them to make sure there was no new notability.} I am concerned about people avoiding page protection to recreate a deleted article. Which reminds me. Dlohcierekim 15:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege III leaks

• Dungeon Siege III#Special Release Information
• Talk:Dungeon Siege III#Leaks

Please forgive me if this is not the appropriate avenue. I am having an issue with an editor here, Jpheonix (talk · contribs) (ip User:206.248.184.185) are insisting on adding information about about a leak of a game, specifically torrent releases, basically little more than advertising the torrent (currently without links). They are ignoring consensus on the talk page, and failing to provide reliable sources for notability of the leak, they have seemingly disengaged from discussion completely. Kinda at a loss of what to do now, I'm aware I'm past 3RR (which makes reporting the user for simply edit warring a little hypocritical), but it can be seen from the section of the article and talk page linked above that these edits are of little to no encyclopaedic value. THe user's attitude on the subject is clear from their contributions. Rehevkor ✉ 16:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jpheonix has continued to edit war, and has posted on his talk page that he is not going to stop. I can't see any alternative to a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for edit warring, primarily, but they also need to understand WP:NOTNEWS and our copyright policies. —DoRD (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks.

Yesterday I removed a line from the article Cláudio César Dias Baptista, which claimed one of his books contained a lexicon larger than the combined works of Shakespeare. The reference was a Portuguese dictionary definition for "lexicon" which stated Shakespeare's works contained 15.000 unique words. I took that as original research and removed it. The same article had a list of characters for the book Géa, which already exists in the article about the book itself, so I removed that as well. Today I noticed my edits had been undone by an IP that has edited the same articles a large number of times. The claim about the lexicon was also in the article Géa so I removed it there on the same grounds. The IP repeatedly undid my edits so after my third revert I stepped away and warned the user they were edit warring and risked violating WP:3RR. Then, looking at the Recent Changes page I saw that same IP (or one very close to it) had edited an article I had created. All they did was arbitrarily remove content. As I went through the list (which is in my user page), I saw several blanking edits by very similar IPs.

It's quite obvious that this user has serious article ownership issues. The user seems to be Mr. Baptista himself (who actively monitors his page on the Portuguese Wikipedia) or a student of his, as stated in Talk:Cláudio_César_Dias_Baptista.

Diffs from IP vandalism to articles I started: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

Diff for IP sock: [14] (IP user mentions they are the article creator), [15] (same claim of article creation, this time from User: Cláudio César Dias Baptista)

The user/IPs in question: User: Cláudio César Dias Baptista, User: 187.14.110.146, User: 187.13.52.45, User: 187.13.104.137, User: 187.13.34.128, User: 187.14.98.117, User: 187.14.99.197, User: 187.14.124.193, User: 187.13.56.232, User: 187.14.121.59, User: 187.14.96.239, User: 187.13.112.123.

Any assistance or help in dealing with this would be appreciated. I was considering doing a cleanup of both articles, but it's difficult when you're being hounded by a dynamic IP. XXX antiuser ^eh? 23:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they didn't stop there. Here's more blanking, also on articles where I've had major participation: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] XXX antiuser ^eh? 23:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to put this together, antiuser. Looks like pretty clear wikistalking to me. I think a softblock of the 187.12.0.0/14 range is warranted. It's fairly big (around 260,000 IP addresses), so maybe just a few hours to get their attention? — Satori Son 00:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from En Wiki about this matter few minutes ago. The pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa were not of my authorship but, as it's told in the discussion of the first page, by one of my readers and later perfectioned by many different IPs. Mr. Antiuser has not a personal name to care, but I have and sign here and in Pt Wiki ever with my own name. If you see the list of pages created by Mr. Antiuser and the ones where he collaborated, you will note that there is a political polarization in that work, which polarization is "tropicalism", "socialism" and "comunism", the opposite of my belief. I think that polarization is the cause of his insistent deletion in page Cláudio César Dias Baptista of the information about my lexicon in opus Géa, from my authorship. That information is authentic, important and although the quantity of words in a vocabulary is not a proof of the quality of a book, it's a valid indication. The Dicionário Aurélio do not 'states' by itself, but present, in the enter "Léxicon" a citation of the book of Camilo Castelo Branco where the information about WS lexicon (15,000 words) is written. My lexicon in Géa is of 30,000 words and can be confirmed by its reading. The same book of Camilo Castelo Branco is mentioned in the page of his name, in En Wiki. That is the complete information which the reader of my books who created the page of my name in En Wiki put in that page and was deleted by Mr. Antiuser. I work in a computer that is accessed by many people, some of them are readers of my books, so, it's possible that one or several of them undid the edits of Mr. Antiuser. In the link '65' you will see that the author of the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista entered a section in my own computer and I myself signed the entering to confirm that the reader was in the same computer with me and that I put my e-mail mailto:ccdb@ccdb.gea.nom.br there to everybody who would like to know more be able to contact myself directly and I would give then the e-mail of that reader, the author of that page, Rafael Konzen, who didn't want to expose his own e-mail in En Wiki pages because of the possibility of spam - more transparency from us is impossible. I also have many readers who access the books of my authorship via my site www.ccdb.gea.nom.br, 'CCDB Livros' section for on-line reading. It's also possible that one or more of them undid the editings of Mr. Antiuser. I affirm that I was not the author of these modifications; everything I do in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki I sign with my own name and only when logged in.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this edit left on my talk page this morning has some of the same English idiosyncrasies as Mr. Baptista's post above, even though he said he always signs with his own name. I'm not even going to address the ludicrous claim that there's political bias in my contributions to WP. Mr. Baptista uses the fact that his book has an article on Wikipedia as a promotional point [23], but at the same time he hinders the collaborative nature of WP by effectively owning these articles and holding them hostage. I'm probably not going to touch those articles again, but hope that an admin might be able to do something about this. XXX antiuser ^eh? 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In full disclosure, there was an SPI case about this in the past two days. I protected the Claudio article and one other, but I held off on a rather wide IP block. If you guys feel it's warranted, though, go for it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I submitted that before I realised how wide their IP range is. Might have not been the best way to go about it, even though it is sockpuppetry just the same. XXX antiuser ^eh? 13:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I still support a range block, but I'm going offline for a bit so it probably shouldn't be me that implements it. — Satori Son 14:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

From my sixty six years old I invested ten in writting the opus Géa and almost other ten in creating the site where it is presented for on-line reading. My name is known in Brazil and in many countries not only because of that work but also as an audio and electronics expert, the creator of the musical group Os Mutantes, a musician and a special musical instrument manufacturer. Anybody with that name, or even with no name but to whom somebody created a page in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki, will monitor that page, specially if its content is modified and the page starts to produce misinformation. The cause for me to create an account in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki was, is and will continue to be only to monitor these pages. You who reads me, if you have a page with your personal name in Wiki would do the same, perhaps. I don't need promotion, in fact, I avoid it, as you may see by the history of my life - I am known as the "Hiden Mutante", because I never liked to promote myself and to be seen on stage (although I played there also with the other Mutantes) in the media. People write books about my life and write pages in Wiki also. This is not the good thing for me you may perhaps think. If you read Aeneid from Virgil, you will see how he describes the Fame: A monster with one thousand eyes. I think the same as him about Fame, so many years after his time. The only promotion I need for the book Géa is the book itself and its content. If you do not think I am doing 'promotion' here, I would like to kindly invite you to read that book, which is published by myself (in Portuguese) in my site, also created by myself, http://ccdb.gea.nom.br. Then you will have a better perspective about the meaning of this discussion, the importance of the work Géa and the moral of my person. The "75" link above in Mr. Antiuser last paragraph leads to the page of my site where I present the opus Géa. I inserted there the information that the page Géa is published in En Wiki and that this is an international recognition, and that is not promotion, that is the simple truth. If you consider that that information is promotion for me, I would say that it's promotion also for En Wiki.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with your stature or status as a person, the importance of your work or any politics at all. It's simply about Wikipedia policy. It's within your right to monitor the page and to edit it when you believe it's necessary. However, repeatedly refusing to follow policy or even acknowledge the policy cited as the reason for an edit and then vandalising articles by the editor who performed the edit you oppose does nothing but disrupt and take away from the Wikipedia project. Please also be mindful that your actions in articles related to you and your work might constitute a conflict of interest, as it can be difficult to maintain a neutral point-of-view when you are that close to the subject. XXX antiuser ^eh? 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion 'should have nothing to do' but in fact it unhappily does with my person, because you, Antiuser, suggested that I was the person who edited the articles Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa and you are insinuating that I am such a person, when you say 'repeatdly refusing to follow policy'. I repeat that I was not the person who edited these articles and that my only purpose here in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki is to monitor them.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you say so, I will assume good faith and leave it be. However, I do find it uncanny that all of those IPs and your own account mostly focus on the same articles. Also, as you suggest, I looked deeper into your site and actually saw a reference to your pupil who created the articles on you and your book, one Rafael Konzen. On your website it's stated he lives in Manaus, yet all of the IPs that have performed the edits which I refer to are in the same range as the one who created the article - which is in Rio de Janeiro state, not Amazonas. Also, the same grammar/spelling idiosyncrasies are present in messages written by both your account and the IPs. That was what left me, as they say in Portuguese, 'with a flea behind my ear'. XXX antiuser ^eh? 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You say you only monitor the pages, but now you are alleging that I am attacking your articles with political motivations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cláudio César Dias Baptista. Please explain what political motivation I have for removing a piece of original research from an article which another editor whom I've never had any interactions with has nominated for deletion? This is a serious accusation you are making and unless you provide diffs to back up your claim, I will take it as a personal attack. XXX antiuser ^eh? 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Rafael Konzen lives in Manaus. He informed me that he created the page in his computer, but you know that computers are mobile things. What I know is that he didn't create the page in my computer. When he visited my house (distance from Manaus to Rio de Janeiro State is not a problem today), I logged in En Wiki and he wrote an answer in the talk page of Cláudio César Dias Baptista page, which I signed up to show everybody that there is a person who created that page who is not myself.

About the 'personal attack' you say that you can take my claim about your political motivation, I could see also as a 'personal attack' your suggestions that I am the person who made the attacks against the pages you mentioned. My claim that there are political motivations behind your movement against the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa is based in the fact that the pages you created in En Wiki shine with political colors and movements as "tropicalismo" which is in certain way a synonim of "socialismo" and even of "comunismo", easy to be noted by Brazilian people, but difficult to be noted by people of other countries. It's not necessary to have a flea behind one ear to see that your motivation is not constructive but destructive and that there is not 'original research' but real proofs in the section you deleted from the pages under discussion here.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide references of where you think I have acted with political motivations. I am doing nothing but acting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and you are accusing me of being a communist? Give me a break. By the way, I grew up in Brazil, so any cultural subtleties that you believe might be lost on me, be assured they are not. XXX antiuser ^eh? 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an extract of the page created by yourself, Antiuser, named Paulinho da Viola: 'One step further, the leaders of the Tropicália movement - Caetano Veloso, his sister Maria Bethânia, Gilberto Gil, Gal Costa, Tom Zé and Jorge Ben a.k.a Jorge Benjor - got into trouble with the right wing dictators of Brazil in the 60's and 70's and some of them - Veloso and Gil - ended up incarcerated and then exiled. The MPB (Musica Popular Brasileira) movement that followed later is deeply respectful of the samba tradition it is rooted in, but is also politically active. ' - that is just one of the motives which led me to think that there are political motivations behind your deletions in the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa. The whole of your (meritable) opus in Wikipedia created also the clear idea that there are these political motivations behind your actions in these pages. I saw many people who were not born in Brazil like us constructivelly working during the growing up of the two pages - if you read the contributions to both pages you will find the names of these people. But it's painful for me, a Brazilian, a person who worked so many years to see our Language, the beautiful Portuguese Language, grow up with a work done in the best 'vernáculo', Géa, with really twice the WS lexicon, see the page of that work being deconstructed (!) exactly by a... Brazilian, who justifies that action behind the 'policy' of En Wiki!Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To use another Portuguese proverb, you're trying to find hairs on an egg. I'll withdraw from this conversation as I believe there's enough evidence of personal attacks and sockpuppetry for admins to take whatever actions they deem appropriate. I ask that you please refrain from making baseless personal attacks and read up on Wikipedia policy, especially WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you withdraw, Mr. Antiuser. Now... if not the great question, not for you, but to our coleagues and the administrators of En Wiki, here is perhaps a significative question: Why just a Brazilian (Mr. Antiuser) is so occupied in deconstruct the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa about another Brazilian (myself), pages which were accepted and beautifully perfectioned by persons of other countries, who didn't find anything in these pages against any En Wiki's policy? Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You leave me no choice but to reply. You stated not long ago that you always post under your username. What about this then? An IP of the same range that you just claimed isn't you is making the exact same argument. Please stop making personal attacks and using sockpuppets to enforce your point of view. XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You withdrew byt I didn't. Here I see you again doing personal attacks against me, when you say that the IP 'of the same range' as mine wrote the same argument than I. Can you understand that 'same range' is not 'same IP'? And can you understand that I have many admirers, pupils, readers, all with access to En Wiki and which can read English, including my arguments, and also write their own comments utilizing the same or similar arguments? If the discussion is about a certain theme, of course the arguments will be similar! The number of persons who does the same argument is similar to the number of persons who vote for a politician - the vote is the same but the persons are not. You distorts the facts, saying that I am doing personal attacks against you, but the truth is exactly the contrary when you insist that I am the person who write all these entries in En Wiki.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The ip has also been adding irrelevant statements to the William Shakespeare and (bizarrely) William Shakespeare's religion page. BTW, it's not difficult or clever to have a bigger lexicon that Shakespeare if you just pile up words. It is not unusual for editors to concentrate on areas in which they have a specialist interest or knowledge. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Mr. Paul Barlow: Do you know the book Géa to say that it's a 'pile of words'? Please read it first, than do your comments based in facts. It's easy to pile words, but it's not to create twelve 250 pages volumes and a dictionary with 1,000 pages, as I did when I wrote Géa. The book is there in my site, http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br - section CCDB Livros - to be read on-line. There you may also see the opinions of many readers. In the same site you will see links to reportings in important Brazilian magazines and many of these reportings copied (with authorization of the source) to my site. Your comment is one of those that anybody can do, because it's ever easier to underestimate things which you don't know than to expose a solid argument, based in facts, which you would have to invest your time to know. In fact, you do not know the book and is doing a mere superficial and ill-informed comment.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This user has now created the sockpuppet account User:William T. Johannes to push his POV (along with his IPsocks) on the article deletion discussions. They have also added the lexicon information to a lot of pages relating to Os Mutantes. XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Psychoanalysis has, perhaps, a name for people who show your behaviour, Mr. Antiuser. You can find by yourself what name it is, if that name really exist. As I'm not an expert in psychoanalysis, I will not write that name here, or you would say that I am doing a personal attack. In fact I am just reverting the personal attack you are doing in this page and in many others of En Wiki, an attack that you're doing perhaps because, for you, 'it's forbidden' to have a lexicon twice the WS lexicon, as it's forbidden to exist a Brazilian 'Pai da Aviação' - Santos Dumont. Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cláudio César Dias Baptista‎ has confirmed Mr. Baptista's use of sockpuppets to fake a consensus on the AfDs for both his articles. XXX antiuser ^eh? 13:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• • The investigations may say anything, but the Truth is other: I didn't use any sockpuppets to fake anything. As the theme of this destructive page is exhausted, as Mr. Antiuser is who he revealed to be and as I have constructive things to do (mainly writting new books), this is my last entering here.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked user:William T. Johannes as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of user:Cláudio César Dias Baptista. Opinions from uninvolved users are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Géa, which have a serious sockpuppet infestation. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Danielalex36

User vandalized three biographical articles and made false claims (including incest) to promote the non-notable article of the nonexistent person with false references that he/she created, and has only been edited by one user, him/her. Said was available for reading by people who might not have checked alleged citation and said might have been taken with them, them a possibility of being anyone, partners, investors, etc for redistribution via mouth or etc. Damaging to New York Jets corporation and Johnson & Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the weasel (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diff links? Thank you. — Satori Son 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429454686

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429455104

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429770617

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429770661

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Lea_Johnson_Richards&diff=prev&oldid=429422438

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Lea_Johnson_Richards&diff=prev&oldid=430751553

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casey_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=429425276

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casey_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=430694843

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casey_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=430699293

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoire-Eleanore_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=430697878

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoire-Eleanore_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=432828328 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the weasel (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• After confirming that the person is not referred to in the references given I have deleted Victoire-Eleanore Johnson as a blatant hoax. I'd like some other admins to confirm this, but I thought it best to ensure we did no harm, while we are checking. The editor involved has made no recent contributions, so I did not block, but notified them of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I concur with speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. None of the references mention the person named, and a search finds only WP mirrors and Twitter/blog/social-network type sites - no reliable source for anything said here. The use of false references says to me that this is not just a new contributor who does not understand WP:Verifiability, it is deliberate deceit. Danielalex36 (talk) has returned to editing today, but has not responded to DGG's invitation to comment here. Unless he provides a good explanation, I think a block is in order. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lying down game and persistent vandalism due to media interest / fad

Lying down game is getting plenty of attention due to its presence in the media and the Planking fad. It is getting a large amount of advert spam, drive by vandalism (both of the fake information and random profanity variety). Given that it is just myself and the bots watching the article at the moment, could we get the article protected against edits by IP and non-confirmed editors? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd for 2 weeks. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As fads go, surely this is among the lamest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If planking was done while inebriated that would be excusable, but doing it while sober really pulls the other one.--Blackmane (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the one about the guy who did this on the edge of a building and then fell. He went from a plank to a slab. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree! I like it a lot when people die because they did something stupid, too. Wow, we're really good, superior people, aren't we? Kudos on living! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's Darwinism in practical application. Here's another example:[24] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he went from a plank to stiffer than a board. Thank you evolution! I also took the liberty of wrapping your comment in small, Bugs --Blackmane (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Intimidating/Threatening behavior from User:HXL49

Resolved

 – HXL49 is blocked for 1 week. Quigley (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Earlier today, I benignly declined a WP:RFPP request from User:HXL49. HXL49 questioned the decline, and I calmly replied with this. HXL49 then aggressively retorts, which, in my opinion, is intimidating/threatening behavior. My question is, is intimidating/threatening behavior such as this acceptable? I must note that this is not the fist time HXL49 has been warned (here and here) for gross incivility and abrasive demeanor in the past. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say block one week for personal attacks, I thought consensus was rather clear last time around that we wouldn't put up with him continuing this kind of behaviour - and he's clearly ignored that and is continuing regardless. I'd block myself, but I'm just heading off. That said, you (Fastily) would have been wiser to not attempt to deal with the request opened by him. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Kingpin, I would be willing to take a 24-hour (or even 48) cooldown block, but not from you, and anything more than that can be construed as punishing, not preventative. Besides, the 60 or so of my past edits have been with AWB.

Fastily, if you are going to come here for every incident, especially when I had tried to restrain myself, then no one knows what to say of you. My last sentence of my reply at RPP had a point: don't process anything that I request. We will both avoid anything like what occurred at RFP/A or even what occurred at RPP again. And you should have learned this lesson earlier. Finally, I did not make a personal attack against you this time, contrary to the false statement, perhaps lie, of Kingpin's above, and I did not even touch Fastily's talk this time around; I did not even address you until the last clause of the 3rd sentence, out of 5 sentences in the reply. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't lie, a threat like the one you made is considered a personal attack, please read WP:NPA (specifically the section on what is considered a personal attacks) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week, there's no room for threats like this [25] RxS (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If he's not going to get it then maybe a week's a bit short. That is an awful post and imo could be construed as a threat of harm. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem if someone wants to lengthen the block, I agree with you. RxS (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is particularly worrisome for HXL's future here especially considering it's only been a week since his last appearance here. --Blackmane (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

His 'last appearance here' also had to do with his interaction with User:Fastily, whose behavior towards HXL49 has not been angelic, to say the least. Quigley (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It may not have been the wisest move for Fastily to have responded to HXL's request, given their past history, but as he was acting within his admin capacity it is certainly within is purview to accept or reject the RFPP. My linking to the previous report was mostly to highlight the statement by HXL and his refusal to abide by WP:AGF. However, I believe that given he is now blocked, this should be marked as resolved. --Blackmane (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (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:DMSBel at Abortion

No action taken. Chester Markel (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2011 (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.

---

DMSBel (talk · contribs)

According to this list DMSBel is is topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly, including talk pages and Wikipedia space pages, for an indefinite period. Unfortunately, DMSBel has made several edits to Abortion and Talk:Abortion in violation of that ban (unless Abortion is not considered a topic of human sexuality). Abortion could be broadly construed to be a part of human sexuality, but I think you highly paid (with a health care plan) admins should make a final decision. Apparently DMSBel spoke to a friendly admin who made a summary decision that it did not. However, since abortion requires sex, I'm kind of concerned. Mostly, I don't care, but his editing in Abortion is no fun:

He's editing a ton on the article and the talk. Much of the edits are WP:TENDENTIOUS and some are polite and somewhat productive. But the problem is he uses a slow edit war by placing a POV tag (funny thing is, I consider it a POV article because it's written politically and not medically). All other editors want is a definite ruling from the community about whether his indefinite ban to cover Abortion. Or not. His activity here certainly would be used against him if he ever asked that his topic ban be removed. He can't control himself. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you honestly believe abortion doesn't "cause a death", you yourself should be topic-banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How is that useful? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This came up a few weeks ago, and while I am concerned about this, I did not see a consensus that Abortion necessarily falls under the topic ban. For the record, I'm the admin who determined consensus and enacted the topic ban (unless memory fails me).

I don't have the ANI archive link handy, but someone can presumably find it.

If his activity is felt to be disruptive independent of the topic ban, then it can be actioned independently. If you can get consensus here to expand the topic ban we can revise that. I am not personally going to stretch the as-written ban that far.

I'm only one admin here, so someone else may call it elsewise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your memory is fine, you left a message on my talk page regarding the ban at that time (ie. the enacting of the ban). Another editor asked you to clarify the scope of the ban some weeks ago after I reverted the removal of a picture from the article. I was in violation of a 1RR at that time as I had not been aware of what the general sanctions on the page were. Those two reverts (several weeks ago) and the tagging of two sections after consideration of issues raised by other editors regarding incorrect use of terminology in the article are the only actual edits I have made to the article. I have however discussed at some length with several editors regarding these matters on the talk page. There seems to be a misunderstanding that I cut and pasted a fairly lengthy section from earlier archived discussion back to the talk page. This is not the case, as the edit history will bear out. I suspect some frustration has resulted from that cut and paste back to the talk page. I disagree with the practice myself, its better to link to earlier discussion. DMSBel (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure that reproductive rights are not about human sexuality??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only peripherally related, in the way that AIDS and midwife are. The ban does say "intepreted broadly", but I would interpret that to mean topics about sexual behavior, rather than reproduction. Looking at the original discussion, it looks like DMSBel was disruptive specifically at articles related to ejaculation. In that context, I would say that articles related to human reproduction are out of the scope, however it might be appropriate to extend the topic ban area. -- Atama頭 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for actual instances as to which comments are disruptive. In some peoples view if you are in disagreement with them and you put forth your thoughts, that may seem to them like disruptive behaviour. Would someone like to clarify which comments are disruptive. The issue on that page that is causing difficulty is one that I had not initially got involved in despite requests from two other editors to take action. Eventually I commented on the issue and inserted POV and factual accuracy tags on the disputed sections. I was under the impression that when there is doubt about POV or factual accuracy these tags could be inserted. The POV and accuracy issues are actionable, but would need discussion and consensus. Regarding whether article is within the scope of my ban. Several of the editors there regard the article as primarily medical. I disagree that it is solely or primarily medical, and the other projects of which it is of interest too ranges from Medicine to Philosophy. DMSBel (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual issue

There's a consensus that DMSBel's current topic ban does not cover abortion. The scope could be extended to also cover human reproduction and anti-reproduction, if there's a sufficient reason. Orangemarlin, please explain how you believe DMSBel is disrupting the article. Chester Markel (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (note:sockpuppet)

I'd be more interested in hearing how Orange can get away with the ludicrous contention that "Abortion does not cause death". What planet is he from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A planet where they don't understand high school level biology, apparently. As even bacteria are "alive" in a biological sense, the same is true for a fetus. The moral and political controversy over abortion does not revolve around questions of whether or not life exists so much as "what is human", "what is a person", "what is sentient", etc. Wikipedia should never let down its vigilance against anti-science disruptive editing. Chester Markel (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The issue of whether an embryo or a fetus is a "person" legally is what the abortion debate has been about. No one with a lick of sense on either side of the issue argues that abortion doesn't kill. That would be asinine. If an editor actually makes that statement, they should be topic-banned, as they are obviously not competent to be editing that subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it's high time to topic ban JJL (talk · contribs), for arguing that abortion doesn't involve the death of a fetus[26], and grossly misrepresenting the meaning of reliable sources to accomplish this objective. "Death" is an appropriate descriptive term for the fate of the fetus in an abortion, as over 65,000 Google Scholar results[27] clearly show that the death of a fetus is normally described as just that. Chester Markel (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Really guys? Since when does holding an opinion that you don't like give sufficient grounds for a topic ban? Besides (and with apologies for furthering a content dispute on AIN), you're making a non-sensical semantic argument: of course abortion causes death of the fetus, much as appendectomy causes death of the appendix. But when people describe something as "causing death," without specifying what dies, the implication is that it's a person that dies, and that's not usually true of abortions and appendectomies. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. We have over 65,000 Google Scholar results for the term "fetal death"[28]. Are those sources written with "the implication is that it's a person that dies"? Not likely. As WP:MEDRS, the cited journals normally don't take sides on such hotly contested moral and political issues. Chester Markel (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Different argument. Sure, "causing fetal death" describes something that kills a fetus. "Causing death" describes something that kills a person, when the subject is otherwise left unsaid. Anyway, I'm not here to engage a content dispute, just to point out that disagreeing with you isn't sufficient justification to demand a content-ban... although needing an IP editor to explain that to you, perhaps, is. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The article currently states that "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." It's absolutely clear, from the context in which the word "death" is used, that it directly refers to the preceding description of "a fetus or embryo". Whether or not said "a fetus or embryo" constitutes a "person" is plainly not an issue that the introduction is taking a position on, one way or the other. The article is obviously not using "causing death" with an implicit subject. Your claim to the contrary is a misrepresentation of fact. Chester Markel (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the article better if it said "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by fetal or embryonic death."? That's an absurd redundancy. Chester Markel (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, JJL didn't claim that the phrase "resulting in or caused by its death" carried with it "person" as an implicit subject. He simply asserted that, according to the WP:MEDRS he cited, abortion doesn't cause fetal death. That's an obvious, tendentious misrepresentation of what RS have to say about this subject. Chester Markel (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What part of "I'm not here to engage a content dispute" did you not understand? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "causing death" does not necessarily imply human. P.S. You don't get to drive the agenda here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We disagree. P.S. That's not a valid justification for a topic ban. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The IP's got a point, Bugs. There was absolutely no call to make this into a dispute about whether or not a different user's talk page comment was correct. That's what the article talk page is for. Why don't we actually talk about the topic at hand? (This comment is addressed to everyone who has been feeding this silly digression, but Bugs, you started it, so trout for you.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Orange is the one who originated this discussion, and his behavior also comes under scrutiny. If he honestly believes that abortion doesn't cause death of the embryo or fetus, then he's incompetent to be editing on this subject and should be topic-banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd add my request to see diffs showing violation of specific clauses of WP:TE. There's a lot of traffic on that article and its talk page, and there appears, from the Talk pages entries and Edit summaries, there's no small measure of tension between groups of editors. On the talk page, User:DMSBel's behavior seems appropriate, but I admit not having looked at every change to the article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that, you should be banned from ANI. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You've been blocked 4 times in the last 6 weeks, so obviously your advice is valuable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, only twice. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, two blocks plus two removals of talk page privileges.[29] Like that's an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the tangent this went off on is (sadly) Wikipedia for you, though it don't have to be that way. I'd like to know if in my case heated discussion is being conflated with disruptive editing. Obviously the former is best cooled down, but frank and candid discussion is still at times a productive way to make headway. If memory serves me I have not actually made a single change to the article content in my time there (obviously I don't consider reverting removal by other editors of content that had been in the article for some time strictly making a change to content).DMSBel (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'd rather someone open a separate ANI on the other issue of lack of competency, as if it becomes entangled with mine I could be here till the other one is resolved. I don't see that I should have to keep following this to see if the issues brought up in regard to myself are being addressed. The removal of the biological term "death" did occur not long after my being brought to ANI over an issue OrangeMarlin failed to give any specifics of in regard to. I would prefer, and I think it makes more sense to discuss each separately.DMSBel (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The "death" thing seems silly to me, but that really is beside the point here. While it's true that we can and often do observe the behavior of those making reports on ANI (I even wrote an essay about that once) that's less of a behavioral issue and more of a content dispute (silly or not). The only person whose conduct has been alleged to be improper is DMSBel, but so far nothing has been put forward aside from a so-far unsupported claim of tendentious editing. Without examples, I don't see the basis for extending the topic ban. -- Atama頭 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion does not belong here in any shape or form. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OK have I a case to answer here or not? I have been checking this repeatedly for two days now! I asked for specifics instances of disruptive editing. So have other editors. Nothing has been stated. I don't care for this waste of time, I am sure Admins don't either. Diffs should have been presented at the outset. I had even before this was brought here, asked the Admin who enacted my ban to review my actions on the page in question.DMSBel (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been put forth, so I'd say no. -- Atama頭 17:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Might I request this be closed then? DMSBel (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikpedia versus the Real World

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that human sexuality could exclude abortion. In the wider world (such as university textbooks[30]) abortion is regarded as a topic under human sexuality. Why is Wikipedia applying a special definition different than the real-world one? To avoid confusion, perhaps you could refine the topic ban to say "human sexuality (excluding abortion)." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The scope of topic bans is a matter purely internal to Wikipedia's administration. It isn't subject to WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NOR, or any other core policies that apply to article content. If the community wishes to create an original definition of "human sexuality" for the purpose of topic ban enforcement, it's free to do so. Chester Markel (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If the argument is still "abortion requires sex, therefor human sexuality includes abortion," it's a non-starter. Everything humans do requires sex, so such an interpretation of the topic ban is essentially a ban on every article on Wikipedia. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Had you actually read what I wrote, you would know that the argument is that in the wider world (including the stated example of university textbooks, but also including education generally, government policy, etc. etc.) abortion is treated in the context of human sexuality. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, but I don't see that the word "abortion" appears at that link. I also read the very start of this discussion, where the argument was, quite literally, "abortion requires sex." I agree with Chester Markel, above. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The table of contents for the textbook includes a chapter entitled "Contraception and Abortion." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I found it now. Can I suggest you update your link to this? It's more obvious. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. 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.

Looking for help Talk:New France

Resolved

Moxy (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to stop certain Commons files from appearing here on english Wiki? I ask because I am involed in the article New France were we are have a problem that a French map keeps begin placed in the article (for over a year this has been happening). On english Wikipedia we have no clue what the map is saying - thus are having problem determining if its OR/Synthesis. . So I have brought the file up for deletion in hopes of a wider audience and received a very unpleasing response. Was here looking to get more experienced eyes on this problem before anyone gets blocked. I have tried many time to get User:Hypersite to engage in talks by way of his/her talk page and article page to no avail. Talk:New France#East Texas wasn't French ...What can I do ????Moxy (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be added to the bad image list with no allowed exceptions, but that's normally used for potentially offensive images that can be used to vandalise other pages. Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You might solicit the assistance of someone(s) from Category:User_fr to determine whether the image in question is, in fact, OR or synthetic. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried running the French text through a mechanical translator? Won't be perfect, but might give you an idea of what it's about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The "very unpleasing response" is due largely to the fact that Moxy is treating the DR like an FFD, arguing based on en:wp policies such as WP:OR that don't matter at Commons. Commons is a multilingual project, so we shouldn't be surprised that other languages appear in its images. I've voted to delete, but for reasons unrelated to Moxy's rationale. Moxy, there's nothing you should do except seek to gain consensus at the talk page that it doesn't belong; if such consensus be reached, you can add a hidden comment of "DON'T ADD THIS IMAGE" and proceed to keep removing it if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the link you provide on my commons page and understand that people can upload anything to commons (was not aware of this) - that's fine i guess. So how do we go about stoping it from being added here? As we do have policies here about OR and the fact our readers should understand what is being shown. If you were to read the deletion you can see that it being French is not a reason for deletion by why we dont want it here. I think we have consensus as its been removed by multiple editors multiple times over the past year. We also have the small talk going on over the past year (a small talk and is why I have tried here and other place to get more involved). Do you really think a note will stop the addition of this map knowing it's history? - do you have any other suggestion on how we can not have this here - as you can see we don't understand it or are interpreting it wrong. Moxy (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

" people can upload anything to commons" That's not the case. Commons is most concerned that images are free. They will not accept previously copyrighted material unless there is a specific waiver from the copyright owner, and do not support "fair use" images or files. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you i am award of copy right issues - just surprise about OR maps - I see that the map will be fixed. Thank you all for your time - I believe it's all going to be solved over at commons so i will close this. Moxy (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

86.151.156.67

This IP needs to be indef blocked for personal attacks [31] [32] [33], changing other users talk page edits in a way which changes meaning [34] [35] [36] [37], and for the vandalism which the user is already temporarily blocked for. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't indef-block IPs. I've revoked their talk-page access, hopefully they will get bored and go away. I suggest ignoring them if they mess about more when the block expires. If they vandalize again, somebody will block them again. --John (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please lift page protection on Santorum (neologism)

Editing at the page has been orderly until yesterday when a single editor, Avanu, launched an edit war, and at his third revert (against 3 different editors) spammed this noticeboard, and BLPN with a complaint, which was ignored at BLPN and dismissed, with some concerns expressed about the Avanu's behaviour, here. Fastily [protected the article at the request of an editor who, as far as I can see, has never edited or had anything to do with it.

In this discussion at the article talk page, Avanu received unanimous opposition to his edit, including from those on his side of the RfC discussion. I and another editor asked Fastily 9 hours ago to lift page protection, and our request was followed by one from Avanu to keep it (and his unanimously opposed edit) in place. An edit request for Avanu's edit to be reverted has not been acted on for 6 hours. Done 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at this article is robust but orderly and, amazingly, good faith collaboration from all sides means a consensus about the way forward seems to be crystalising. There has been no editwarring until Avanu started his nonsense yesterday. Would someone please lift page protection? We don't need it to protect us from one disruptive editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reducing to semi-protection, Martin. Would you please consider lifting protection altogether, because one of the prominent contributers is an IP, and the article is not being excessively vandalised or disrupted by new or IP editors? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure if I should remove that "resolved" tick up there. 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The information above has several inaccuracies, and really accuses me of bad faith editing, using terms like "orderly until yesterday when a single editor, Avanu" and "spammed". In addition, the "unanimous opposition" comment is also inaccurate. Reo argued that other things were higher priority, and Tarc and Collect made statements that showed they agreed that bias is present. The sentence which has "our request was followed by one from Avanu to keep it (and his unanimously opposed edit) in place" is *ALSO* inaccurate because I only made a case for continuing page protection, NOT a defense of my edit. In short, a very biased and inaccurate picture was painted in order to get an admin to intervene on this again. If we're going to work on this together, editors cannot do this. -- Avanu (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about opposition to your edit, not your stance. As for "keeping the page protection in place" = "keeping your edit in place", I wasn't implying you said that, I indicating that they went hand in hand, that one was the consequence of the other. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martin. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't that IP guy just register an account? -- Avanu (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Because she doesn't want to. You're all reminded, yet again, that if you discuss me on ANI, you're obligated to notify me on my talk. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that you've been blocked 4 times in the last 6 weeks, maybe you should just check ANI on a frequent basis and see if your "name" has turned up yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misstate my block log. I've only been blocked twice in the last 6 weeks. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, gee, you're right.[38] Blocked twice, and in each case a second entry to shut you up for the duration of the block. Thanks for clarifying that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, turns out that IP editors are held to a higher standard than those of you with accounts. For example, had I exhibited the same degree of incivility towards you that you've expressed at me, I'd already be blocked. How 'bout you drop it, okay? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha. As you noted on your own talk page,[39] IP's actually can get away with a lot of stuff that registered users can't. That's the real reason IP's won't create real user accounts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, did you even read that diff before you decided on what I'd said? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you lighten up just a little? This wasn't really a discussion of *you*, but IP contributors being blocked from editing there. It seems like each time you weigh in, there's a hint of frustration/anger in your tone. To me, it looks like the editors above were just trying to do you a favor. -- Avanu (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you were discussing IP editors generally, you wouldn't have used the phrase "that IP guy." Just saying. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that IP's contributions, and the amount of disruption it is causing across the project, it's either already been banned in some other form (or subject to a long/indef block) or it is going to receive that sort of remedy in the near future to prevent further disruption. Best to keep an eye on it before it causes anymore exhaustion for (or disruption to) the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that calling an IP "it" is inappropriate, after all there is still a person (a self-identified "she"). Now, if Watson started editing under an IP, that would be a different story. Personally I think Watson would be a great help at the Reference Desk. -- Atama頭 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to call up IBM, or should I? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What exactly would you propose then, some PC gibberish like "xe" ? Personally, I have always referred to IP editors as "it", and will continue to do so; if they wish to have a more cozy pronoun, then they can create an account. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of "he" or "she" or "xe" or "it", how about "ip"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with he, she, or xe. I'm not okay with "it" or words that aren't actually pronouns, and I'll consider it uncivil if you intentionally refer to me incorrectly in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopedia not a chat battlefield, your contributions are all the same, battle battle battle - do you intend to add any content or are you going to continue in the same vein? As a contributor currently you are a net loss, nothing but disruption at multiple locations would describe your contributions so far. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been very appreciative of the editor from an IP address' contributions. The above comment sounds very belittling and not in the spirit of civilly editing the encyclopedia. Gacurr (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be ok to archive and restart this thread since its really been little but off-topic comments since the beginning? -- Avanu (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that this article needs to remain protected, for the moment at least. 24.177.120.138 (talk)

I agree (and 24 and I haven't been agreeing so much on the talk page lately); I'm no admin, but I think the page should probably be protected until the RfC concludes, much as I hate to say it. It's political silly season, it's a controversial topic, and there's no shortage of editors who Act To Do What's Obviously Right without understanding consensus (or too often, bothering to actually read policy). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The page should be protected and the neologism maintained. Fans of Santorum might not like it, but this is a real neologism that started with a hosts dislike for the politician. Not including information about the term (and its history) would be confusing. Because the definition is out there on the internet. People are going to be looking for the etymology of the word. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

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.

---

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) has recently been making a large number of gratuitous personal attacks on editors [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence, this is hardly a first offense. Users who treat discussions on Wikipedia like flame wars may need to be blocked. Chester Markel (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty funny stuff, considering Orange thinks abortion doesn't kill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Provocative remarks that are utterly relevant to the immediate problem are always helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Always glad to be of service. The "immediate problem" is Orange claiming (in low-life language) to be much more intelligent than everyone else. Yet he doesn't know that abortion kills. If that's high intelligence, then goddess help us all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Baseball Bugs, please read WP: SOAP and quit posting irrelevant person opinions regarding politics on this page.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You have all of 19 edits, so what do you know about anything? This much I do know: That abortion kills an embryo or fetus is not a political viewpoint, it's a biological fact. The political question is whether the aborted embryo or fetus is legally a "person". That has nothing to do with the biological fact that abortion kills the embryo or fetus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and male masturbation "kills" millions of sperm. Your point? This is NOT relevant to the discussion at hand. As usual, you are trolling and making incendiary, uncalled-for statements when they are completely unrelated to the discussion. And, for the record, I have been editing here under multiple IP addresses for years. How you have managed to avoid being blocked indefinitely is beyond me.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is off topic guys, let's try and maintain focus please. GiantSnowman 00:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not completely off-topic, since Orangemarlin's competence is relevant here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

How so? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Because he thinks abortion does not kill the embryo or fetus. He needs to go back and re-take Biology 101, because he obviously missed something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that he appears to have both a left and right "nutsack". That's pretty powerful stuff, but what was that personal attack he made reference to in the second out of curiosity? Not saying that anything could have just have justified that... idk what to even call that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Given that this ANI refers to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, and comments relating to that, I have notified jpgordon (as the report does not indicate that he has been approached recently about the allegations above). Not commenting in any other way at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The arbitration itself was overturned due to procedural flaws, such as secrecy and no opportunity for participation by the defendant. As vacating the decision doesn't reflect any substantive exoneration of Orangemarlin, the evidence is still useable. Chester Markel (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I also understand that arbcom simply overturned the decision, rather than rehearing the matter publicly, with the understanding that problems with Orangemarlin's behavior wouldn't recur. Unfortunately, that obviously isn't the case. Chester Markel (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Orangemarlin's behavior is not just the personal attacks and unceasing profanity, but also the continued assumption that anyone who holds an opinion that differs from his is anti-science or a bigot in some way. This is delibrately (IMO) inflammatory and not productive to the project - to put it mildly. It needs to stop. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodie. I needed some excitement. Popcorn? -Atmoz (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Chester, did you happen to notice that no arbs have complained of OM's posts about FT2? That would be because they accepted what he said (whether unnecessarily forceful or not — that's a matter of taste), and saw the OM case as an embarrassment to arbcom, which defended and protected the dishonest FT2 for far too long. It's weird, to put it mildly, to see you setting up your own views on the Orangemarlin case, and on FT2, as believing yourself better-informed than these arbs. I suggest you read up on these things. You may be less inclined to attack Orangemarlin once you know more about what happened. Risker's post here would be a good place to start. About OM's page: I realise you had to alert him about this thread (though the thread itself seems unnecessary, and primarily a means of keeping the flames burning). But stop prodding him on his page right now, please. You're done there, per his request. [45]Wikipedia is not a battleground. You too, Michael Price: this is not your opportunity to bring the abortion war to ANI. I quote Chester M above: "Users who treat discussions on Wikipedia like flame wars may need to be blocked." That applies to you guys too. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Excuse me, Bishonen, the problems with Orangemarlin go way beyond the "abortion war". This is a pattern of abuse and incivility that has existed for years and across many articles. If you are not aware of that then perhaps you need to do a little research of your own. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' reasons for not sanctioning Orangemarlin for comments related to FT2 are obvious. There would be a perceived conflict of interest if they took action against editors for criticism of purportedly official actions taken by a former arbitrator, even when formulated as blatant personal attacks for which users would normally be blocked. But the community has no such COI. And many of Orangemarlin's most recent personally attacks are directed against editors having no affiliation with arbcom at all. The existence of a flawed arbitration case doesn't excuse severe NPA violations.

My starting this thread isn't "primarily a means of keeping the flames burning". AN/I or arbcom are the only available fora to request involuntary remedies for severe behavioral problems. The prudence of not starting a request for arbitration under these circumstances should be apparent. Chester Markel (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• While I see that some of those diffs are uncivil, I don't see a personal attack in the bunch. Everyone should be reminded that profanity is not, in and of itself, either uncivil or an attack, and, while profane/unflattering characterizations of another editors contributions may be uncivil, they are also not personal attacks. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If you "don't see a personal attack in the bunch", then you need to read WP:NPA more carefully. "You have the moral fiber of an ant"[46] "My left nutsack knows more than you"[47] and similar highly unfavorable characterizations of editors' personal qualities, ad nauseum, are obvious personal attacks. If these sorts of comments are tolerated, WP:NPA would lose meaning. While Orangemarlin's continual swearing certainly isn't helpful, that's not what I'm complaining about. Chester Markel (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Look, I don't really agree with it, but it's been explained to me in the past that an attack is more than just an unflattering characterization of another editor. WP:UNCIVIL calls out a distinction between "personal attacks" and "disrespectful comments." I would characterize the above diffs as more the latter than the former. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_IP. Chester Markel (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is OM being WP:BAITed by a group of editors for making a statement that almost no one would agree with. If you believe that "abortion kills a foetus" you also believe that creating a stem cell line from an aborted embryo saves a life. In other words, what we have is a group of editors like Micheal Price and Bugs who are doing this best to provoke OM for making a statement that only a narrow fringe would disagree with. Either they're attacking him on purely political grounds, or they can't figure out the simple logic of what he said. So he's right, and the people attacking him are not smart enough to grapple with the problem, or this is nothing but an attempt by pro-lifers to censor inconvenient facts. It's always kinder to assume stupidity rather than malice. Guettarda (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. There are over 65,000 Google Scholar results[48] for the phrase "fetal death", and 2,500 Google Scholar results[49] for the exact phrase "death of the fetus" in the context of abortion. I've discussed some of the latter search results on talk:Abortion, and explained how these WP:MEDRS specifically describe fetal death as an outcome of abortion. So Orangemarlin's comments like "Abortion does not cause death. Seriously, how can something not living die?"[50] are totally without merit, your original research notwithstanding. If, as you propose, Orangemarlin should be given a free license to make as many severe personal attacks as he wants if he's right, he isn't, and he shouldn't. Chester Markel (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

All this bellyaching is over abortion topic editing? IMO if you're going to get yourself involved in a topic that nuclear, then you accept a bit of rough play, whether you're pro-or anti-. Toughen up the skin and move on. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should amend WP:NPA, then, to indicate that it's inapplicable to controversial subjects, for which severe personal attacks are par for the course. Or we could recognize that flame warring is especially inappropriate in that context. If you propose to modify the policy in this way, I don't think you'll get much support. Chester Markel (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not propose a change to policy, I proposed that you simply quit bellyaching when editing in a hot-button topic area. Perhaps there's a mild Pokemon article that could use some sprucing up. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you do believe there's a NPA line even on controversial subjects, then what crosses it? Detailed insults about editors' purportedly diminutive genitalia? Legal threats? Anything? Chester Markel (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Orangemarlin's disparagement of FT2 has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, or any other particular article subject. The "nuclear topic" NPA exception won't hold in that respect. The fact that Guettarda introduced the content dispute over the abortion article to this discussion shouldn't sidetrack it, especially as none of my initial diffs were from talk:Abortion. If you want to give editors free reign to make personal attacks on "nuclear" topics, couldn't we at least confine the disruption to directly related article talk pages? Chester Markel (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You honestly don't have the slightest idea the history between FT2 and Orangemarlin, do you? Let me start you off with some reading material on a matter that was about this close from starting a intra-ArbCom/Arbcom-Community miniwar: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. Do take some time to read all of it. NW (Talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it precisely on controversial, highly disputed matters that avoidance of blatant personal attacks is most important? Although acting in good faith, FT2 took extremely injudicious actions that had to be overturned, but nonetheless created a disruption. Does it follow that that "You have the moral fiber of an ant"[51] is an appropriate characterization? While I've been highly critical of some recent arbitration decisions myself, harsh criticism of perceived problematic actions needn't degenerate into gratuitous personal attacks. Chester Markel (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that FT2 has not strenuously objected to Orangemarlin's comment. I hardly think he agrees with it, but he is astute in observing that escalating the matters through the dispute resolution processes (WQA, here, elsewhere) would only stir up bad feelings and drama. If he wants to pursue the matter, he can. Otherwise, the matters relating to OM–FT2 should be dropped. NW (Talk) 03:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If Orangemarlin weren't making additional severe personal attacks on unrelated subjects, his comments regarding FT2 never would have been an issue as a prior offense. I'm quite willing to drop the entire issue, if Orangemarlin adheres to a reasonable standard of conduct in the future. If we hear more comments like "My left nutsack knows more than you"[52], I don't regard that as a satisfactory outcome. Chester Markel (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice that I said nothing at all about that diff, and only referenced the FT2 one. You really don't appear to understand the history there, and so long as the editor who that diff is actually being directed at isn't complaining, bringing it up here is unnecessary. NW (Talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then what's to be done about the other diffs? Simply ignoring the behavior hasn't worked. Taking no action now, and no action in the future if it happens again seems to weaken the NPA policy considerably. Chester Markel (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Chester wrote: "If these sorts of comments are tolerated, WP:NPA would lose meaning." Amen, I couldn't have put it better myself. Since NPA policy clearly applies quite strictly to certain editors, but not at all to certain others who are "favored" by the wiki-elites, what we have here is yet one more incontrovertible proof to the whole world that all "policies" on wikipedia are nothing but an empty, meaningless sham, and that the acceptability of your agenda to the elites is the only thing that really counts here. 74.110.234.15 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite that willing to give up on Wikipedia yet. Chester Markel (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading what precedes the first diff, I think Orangemarlin is venting some anger because the issue he raises is not taken serious. I've been in a similar boat some time ago (a totally unjustified advocacy restriction passed on the basis of a secret trial in which I had no opportunity to present a defense, and an appeal would be a violation of exactly that restriction); I found a way to deal with that differently, by not taking the system itself that caused the problem serious. In this case that means that you just declare that you do not recognize the authority of ArbCom as I've done on my userpage. I was actually blocked for making these statements, but Sandstein overturned that. So, there are ways to get the message accross without using strong words. Count Iblis (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have undone Chester Markel's close because he was involved as the initiator and added inflammatory commentary in the closing statement. Could Chester Markel please stop editing in this disruptive way? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. It seemed quite obvious that no action was going to be taken on the thread. But perhaps I'm wrong: would you like to suggest some useful resolution? Characterizing my comment as "inflammatory" is rather ironic, under the circumstances. Chester Markel (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems we have differing conceptions of disruptive editing. I believe that [53] [54] [55] [56] violates the guideline. Perhaps that's okay, but closing a discussion that has obviously become unproductive, and suggesting a technical measure to resolve a behavioral problem in lieu of administrative action is actually disruptive. Chester Markel (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The thread has run it's course, so either wait for it to be archived or let an uninvolved editor or administrator close it, if they see fit. Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin has been repeatedly admonished, over many years, to clean up his language and stop abusing editors. Yet when folks actually bring specific complaints to AN/I nothing is ever done. What's the point of issuing warnings if no action is ever taken when such warning and admonishments are ignored? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

While it's possible that OM's ongoing behavior is in fact actionable, the particulars of this incident are not really favorable to anyone involved. I don't see anything for an uninvolved admin to do here. If editors want to start a RFC on behavior patterns then please feel free to do so. There's nothing actionable here and the thread is just causing more spite and vinegar. I am going to close the thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2011 (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.

Moderators?

Can somebody with a bit more knowledge elucidate on this post please? I've searched Wikipedia for moderator, and all it brings up is a redirect to Admin. I never knew that there was such a term in employ at Wikipedia, and suspect that if it does then perhaps it's esoteric and not in common use, or understanding. IP will be informed as soon as I've finished posting this. a_man_alone (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IP appears confused. Administrators aren't employed; the Foundation has a limited number of staff who deal with the community, but the description given doesn't match what they do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. You can see all "positions" at WP:UAL, but they're more rights levels than anything. The vast majority of work on Wikipedia is done by volunteers such as ourselves. There are definitely no "moderators" or "regulators" anywhere on Wikipedia. Administrators might fit the closest definition, but even their actions are subject to potential review. I suspect the IP was trying to lie to give a sense of authority. elektrikSHOOS 11:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I figured as much. That's an interesting link - WP:UAL - cheers muchly. a_man_alone (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Djwattsy101

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked, articles all deleted.

• Djwattsy101 (talk · contribs)

I suspect this editor's contributions may be entirely spurious, but wasn't confident enough to report at WP:AIV. If the articles created are all inventions of the editor's vivid imagination, they'll need to be deleted. Skomorokh 13:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm no moderator, but I don't think that this is a valid defence against speedy deletion... a_man_alone (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Formula One Beta is a copy of various other F1 articles. Exxolon (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And Planet Samurai and The Ninja Kids Series are blatant fabrications. Can someone just indef him and delete all his spurious articles please? Exxolon (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Indef blocked, all articles deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Request block for two more editors continued editing of the same point by a previously involved editor without discussion, checking sources, or including mitigating point

μηδείς (talk, who was already involved in the edit warring on this point, has done so again without further discussion at the talk page. I request a block of this editor and some clarity from administrators about the fact that discussion and consensus and accurate presentation of material (if found to be relevant in the first place) is required in general, much less after all of this.

When this was reverted by another editor with the warning that it should be discussed on the talk page before any further edit to that point, another edit by Hashem sfarim restored the material yet again, TWICE, in defiance and denial of the issues here, fully aware of the edit warring and discussion.

(Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) has completely refused to discuss this issue, and now μηδείς (talk has ignored the central two points of the revert of this point out of the article: First, that suggesting this is part of the scandal implies it is improper behavior, and Second, that suggesting it and only printing Weiner's denial of impropriety, without the family's confirmation and the result of the police visit, is extreme POV.

Communications that were not part of the scandal were not part of the scandal. By "part of the scandal", just to be clear, as it seems to escape many editors at that page, I mean itself scandalous or germane to an understanding of the scandal. Aside from the fact that it shouldn't be here at all, placing this detail in the article with only the fact that Weiner "claimed" the Tweets in question were not illicit in an article about a man who initially denied Tweeting the other photo is presenting it in a way that suggests, "Eh, he could be telling the truth this time, but what do you think, reader? It is, after all, considered by Wikipedia an encyclopedic aspect of this scandal. But we'll let you decide." Well it's not up to the reader to decide based on that sort of presentation. Because the cited source for the material these two editors are insisting on putting into the article happened also to say that the girl and her family confirmed the congressman's characterization. They apparently don't want to mention that to the reader, or discuss it with me at that article's talk page, which is what one is supposed to do when one finds one's edit reverted out of the article.

A source I read this morning, but which has since been replaced, when I go back and click on it in my browser history, with an updated article focusing on congresspeople calling for his resignation rather than the exculpatory detail, actually quoted a Delaware police source that their investigation at the girl's home confirmed this. So I thought I would revert the section out of the article, post on the article's talk page my editorial judgement about the violations, and then go in search of a version of the article that confirms the police confirmation—not so that we could put in to our encyclopedia that for about an hour this morning the fact of a police investigation might have led some people to believe Weiner did something inappropriate in those Tweets, but now we have police confirmation that he did not, but to show why this shouldn't be in there at all.

WP:3RR explicitly states that one is exempt when the edits involve:

"Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

So, noting that I was given a 3RR warning on my talk page—for the first time in six years at this project—I did what the section advised and reported this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Implication of newsy wrinkle conflated (in a libelous manner) in a scandal article.

I would like some clarity that, given the persistence to readd the irrelevant and misleading and cherry-picked data, these factors—not to mention (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)'s assertion and the upshot of μηδείς's edit, that they feel they are completely in the right and completely free of any editorial responsibility for taking part in the discussion, observing the 3RR, or properly sourcing and representing the source, have not gleaned anything about their editorial responsibility from any of this. Defending the exclusion of inflammatory material or material presented in an inflammatory or highly POV way pending discussion is not an edit war, they, the people reverting the material back in while ignoring the points I raised or any other editorially responsible action (like reading the cited source or Googling some other), is the edit warring. I don't mean that I was not in violation because I stopped at the third revert, I mean that an objective reading of this in the context I've pointed out means that it is (talk) who was in the wrong, in several respects. Obviously I would not have taken reverts to an extreme, but until I could draw the attention of someone else with editorial responsibility, the irresponsible thing to do in a situation where inflammatory material (or an inflammatory presentation of material) would be to leave it in and beg the other editor to respond to my talk page comment, and that I was in the right to revert it and look for backup. But for μηδείς (talk to go in at this point without discussion, digestion of the facts, and consensus is clearly provocative edit warring. Finally, (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) has not directly responded to anything I have said throughout this issue, on that talk page or at any of these other pages he has gone to avoid that. I would also like for someone to point out to him that such article talk page editorial discussion is supposed to be his first editorial effort to understand and resolve the issue, not one that even after several hours and dozens of posts by him about the issue throughout the project he still feels justified in ignoring.

Thank you, Abrazame (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note, I've notified the three users listed above. - SudoGhost™ 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what the problem is. If these two other editors have genuinely violated WP policy, then I of course do not support that. But for me, I for one, I do NOT violate "3RR", and I already discussed the matter with "SudoGhost" on his talk page also. And it seemed to be a settled matter already, and cool. I had already discussed at length on the talk page prior to that, and I never violated anything. Abrazame wants two people blocked over this, who may have violated 3RR. I'm not sure if he wants me blocked too, though I technically did not over-step WP policy, per se. SudoGhost saw fit to give me a warning yesterday, which I wasn't thrilled with, but I talked to him about it, and it was fine after that. I have my views on this issue with this article, and made it very clear in the talk page prior to my "reverting" that I did, which was no real violation. I make sure not to go beyond two in a 24 hour period, if I ever do it at all. Abrazame has had problems with this whole article and has clamored for its removal since day one. And my name should not even be here, as I was NOT planning on doing anything again with this article, regarding the matter in contention. "Over-reaction" on his part does not even begin to describe this. Again, I left my thoughts on the talk page, at length, and I did not violate 3RR, as was admitted by SudoGhost. If I arguably "edit warred" anyway, not really my intention, but it could be argued that those on the other side of this issue who undid the reverts with no real explanation were also "edit warring". But anyway, I'm done with this. There's no rule or policy in WP that says two reverts in 24 hours is a violation. Plus I discussed it on Talk. Sorry for this trouble, but I thought the edit was necessary. But again, I try hard to keep to WP policy and standards. Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I agree with this, Hashem sfarim's two closely timed reverts was a cause for concern for me, which is why I placed the template on his page (to make him aware of the policy, in case he was not) and discussed it with him. He has been discussing on the talk page, and I personally see no reason for a block. - SudoGhost™ 01:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

IP edit warring to keep BLP violations with abusive edit summaries

User:62.177.225.138 is insistently reverting my removal of unsourced and unreferenced gossip from two BLPs, Chantelle Houghton and Alex Reid (fighter). The claim that the two low-grade "celebrities" are "currently dating" apparently come out of the standard UK tabloids and gossip blogs, which don't qualify as reliable sources even if this sort of rubbish were encyclopedic; and this claim is particularly bad, since the male involved as been identified as partnered to three different women, by the same tabloid, over the last 10 days [57] [58] [59].
And the string of reverts is accompanied by charming edit summaries like "It's all over the papers you lazy twat. Do some fucking work you retard" [60] and "Not only a cunt, but a lazy cunt. Do I have to find a source for you, you indolent prick? Do some fucking work, retard."[61] There's more, but these pretty much show the full range of his vocabulary.
I suspect this guy is an IP sock of indef-blocked User:Magpie1892, who was targeting me even before I filed the complaint that got him blocked (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive587#A_veritable_sock_drawer_at_Articles_for_deletion.2FTim_Ireland) and/or the reincarnation of the disruptive IP "Qatar user" who was harassing users not so long ago (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#User:89.211.65.21). It's a long-term behavior problem. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked, all such edit summaries RevDeleted. –MuZemike 23:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I )

Bullyediting by Olyeller

User:OlYeller21 (http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User:OlYeller21) is, I believe, engaged in bullyediting on the following pages. He has been deleting legitimate comments on a discussion page, and using wikipolicies as an excuse for doing so. He is also trying to have an established page deleted, and moving forward aggressively and using policies like weapons. I also feel he has been impolite and rude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RPGnet&action=history http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:RPGnet http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RPGnet 98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

After looking at Talk:RPGnet and WP:Articles for deletion/RPGnet, I don't see anything that would qualify as bullying by OlYeller21 (talk · contribs) or warrant immediate administrator intervention. If the unregistered user wants to pursue WP:Dispute resolution, (s)he is free to do so. I'd also point out to the unregistered user that a deletion discussion often leads to the uncovering of reliable sources and subsequent keeping of the article. Sending the article to AfD may have been bold, but IMHO, it was done in good faith and not out of malice. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I think he did it because I challenged his deletes on the discussion page. He is being overly aggressive with deletions and edits and weilding policy guidelines (as well as misrepresenting them) as weapons. This is classic bullyediting. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have specific examples of him doing something wrong, feel free to bring them here. Right now though, the best way to end that deletion discussion is to find some reliable sources for the article. Dayewalker (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Specific examples linked above. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not bullying to have a discussion with somebody and cite policy in making one's case. Just because another editor disagrees with you does not mean his conduct is out of line. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding his reasons for the deletion, here's his words: "Finally, you're right, we do have a major issue. The issue is that the subject isn't notable which is why I nominated the article for a deletion discussion." In the course of the deletions he made, he vetted the sources in the article and determined that there weren't enough remaining sources for the article to meet the general notability guidelines. It might have been courteous to give some more warning before nominating the article, but it was not out of line for him to nominate it, nor was it done to spite you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree and believe his attitude has been classic bullyediting posture. Enforcing the strict adherence of wiki guidelines but going against their spirit. Also I urge people to read his deletions of the discussion board history. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you got diffs for the deletions? If you can point to specific edits, that would make it easier to assess. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to show diffs. But if you look at the history of the discussion page of RPG.net, you will see that he removed content twice. However the content he removed was merely content that was part of a discussion on whether to include perceptions of rpg.net's political bias. olyeller just seems like an overzealous editor, who resorts to bullyediting for something that is really a pretty standard discussion page conversaion. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody will be able to help you if you continue to attack others and calling others "overzealous" and "bullies". –MuZemike 00:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Help me

I'd like an administrator to intervene. A user named Abrazame is constantly reverting my edits on the article of Anthony Weiner sexting scandal. Also, a user named Off2riorob is harassing me — and not Abrazame — by "threatening" me by posting a 3RR revert warning on my Talk Page. Furthermore, Off2riorob is deliberately interfering with my "Admin Help" request ... by making unwanted, unwarranted, and unwelcome edits on my Talk Page. I added information into the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal article. Consensus on the Talk Page of that article (see above) approved such. And Abrazame keeps stating his own personal opinion that "this is not part of the scandal". All of the information that I added was true, factual, relevant, NPOV, and fully (reliably) sourced. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

• This User:Joseph A. Spadaro was edit warring on the article diff - diff - diff , here's three and he has more but I warned him for these three, and I gave a hand written warning to him and an exact same warning to the other user on his talkpage and then this user posts this with a broken admin help template , I made this edit to assist the user and correct the template. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) I was not edit warring. (2) My template was not broken ... I typed the word incorrectly on purpose so that the template would not yet appear ... so that I could edit and tweak my post for mis-spellings, etc., before it appeared as a Help Wanted request. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

3 reversions in the space of an hour definitely constitutes edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is indeed an edit war going on, and where Abrazame gets the idea that the latest story is "not part of the scandal" is mystifying. But the edit war needs to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are edit warring, but it seems as though adding that particular piece about the Delaware girl is a BLP violation, since there are no claims of any illicit messages sent from Weiner to that girl. As of yet. So adding it, right now, is definitely inappropriate. Dave Dial (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are claiming that the "messages were illicit" and, therefore, a BLP violation. The section quoted (which I typed below) does not say that at all. Where does the contested material state that the messages were illicit? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Yes, exactly. Consensus on the page indicates that it is indeed a part of the scandal. All my posts were true, factual, relevant, NPOV, and fully (reliably) sourced. Yet, they were all reverted by the User Abrazame. So, again ... please advise. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Despite the fact that I believe your interpretation of "consensus" is wrong (there is obvious contention), I'll ignore that for a second. This still does not excuse you from continuing to revert edits. The warning was consistent with the fact that both of you are warring right now, and both of you were given that warning. There is nothing more to advise. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty more to advise. So, in the meanwhile, while this is sorted out ... why is it that their version (reverts of my original edits) remain in place? As opposed to my version (reverts to their edits) remaining in place? Again, please advise. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Advice: review WP:WRONGVERSION. Thanks! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• A civil 3RR warning note is not harassment, so you need to leave off the accusations -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't see where the complainant here notified the other party, so I have done so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have no idea who is right or wrong here, but I do know from experience that Off2riorob is a user who definitely will push for his cause. Whatever he thinks is right he will defend. This can be both a positive and a negative thing in certain circumstances. I agree, please cease the edit war facet of the situation and let cooler heads prevail. CycloneGU (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but in my experience Off2riorob usually gets it right, especially where BLP is concerned, so we have to be careful. These issues need to be confined to the talk page of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "I have no idea who is right or wrong here, but I do know from experience that Off2riorob is a user who definitely will push for his cause."
  • That's not necessary. Who is right or wrong is unimportant, all that matters is whether somebody's actions are misplaced and if so what to do about them, which aligning for or against people won't help. Agreeing with you in that edit warringshould come to an end.AerobicFox (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 5000) Side note: I replied on the article talk page. What I said is consistent with the above. This "complaint" was placed in 3 distinct locations. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are both this schmuck and Santorum causing so much drama here? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Politics makes people into idiots? -- Avanu (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Flinders Petrie - please comment on the edits, not the editor. GiantSnowman 00:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

GiantSnowman - It doesn't look to me like User:Flinders Petrie was commenting on editors (although he wasn't commenting on edits, either.) Did you mean to direct that at User:Avanu? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My impression was the "schmuck" comment was directed at Weiner, with the Weiner and Santorum articles causing the drama, not the editors, per se. --64.85.214.170 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

He called somebody a "schmuck" - whether that is an editor or a BLP, it is highly innapropriate either way. GiantSnowman 01:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically, "schmuck" and "weiner" can be synonyms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going by the original Yiddish meaning, sure enough. Though I think some guys use it like devil when saying poor devil. You're not actually calling the person evil, just using a random noun. You know how Yiddish is. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is usually best to check the page history [62] (though it was in the last 100 edits rather than 50), I also thought it would have been obvious in the context I was referring to Weiner (as both are congressmen), and usually I'm not dumb enough to make a WP:NPA violation out of the blue on the ANI board. =p It's highly inappropriate to make an off-hand comment calling a congressman who has had such bad luck a schmuck? Never heard of referring to someone as a poor schmuck when they're having terrible luck? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful

The admin's on this page are extremely unhelpful when an I, as an editor, was attempting to resolve an issue. What a waste of my time and effort. Thanks for nothing! Really! Why should I even bother attempting to contribute to this site? And why should I even bother attempting resolution? Just thought you'd like to know my opinion. I am sure you could care less. There are many ways to skin a cat, however. Thanks for not being helpful! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

My apologies to the minority of admins who are actually helpful and demonstrate any scintilla of understanding or compassion. Sincere thanks to you. You are in a very clear minority. And the other 99% of admin's give you all a bad name. They should be ashamed ... seriously. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

With that attitude, can you really blame them? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I am sure that's the issue. Yup. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

One wonders why anyone should want to be an admin, if they don't use the tools in the ways they were meant to be used. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

May I for the record point out, as illustrated in a chain below, that I (a non-admin) am apparently one of the 99% of unhelpful admins. Evidently, I carry myself in such a way that, even though I clearly stated I am not an admin. in the preceding post, this user proceeded to say I was threatening him with a block and what a typical admin. thing to do.

...I can only laugh at some of the things that happen on this Wiki. CycloneGU (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested edit

This is the exact quote (below) of the edit in question. Where does it state that the messages were illicit? In fact, it states the exact opposite! The edit is factual, NPOV, relevant, and sourced. So, why is it not allowed to be added into the article? Please advise. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

• Communications with underage female: During Weiner’s June 6 press conference, a reporter asked him if all of his sexting partners were of age. "I only know what they published on social media," he said. "They’re all adults." A reporter yelled out that he could hardly know this for sure, but in the hubbub of being peppered with questions, Weiner either didn't hear or didn't care to respond. On June 10, however, authorities in Delaware visited the home of a 17-year-old female high school student who had exchanged private Twitter messages with Weiner. [Reference Cited] Weiner subsequently admitted to communicating with the minor, although he claimed that their interactions "were neither explicit nor indecent".

This isn't the place to debate whether the edits should be added to the article. I will mention that the above is taken directly from here, so it would be a violation of copyright anyways to include it. The only matter here that pertains tot he admin board is the edit warring going on which needs to stop. If you are seeking outside opinions there are other avenues for that: WP:RFC, WP:M, WP:CNB, but I would gauge on the talk page whether any of these avenues would change anything before hand, and if not try something else. Either way edit warring is not an acceptable approach(for you or Abrazame), nor is any of this harassment.AerobicFox (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is edit warring? And what "harassment" are you referring to exactly? I am trying to resolve the problem. And I thought that was what this page is all about? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

This place is to notify admins of actions to take. Mediation can be found at WP:M, and other places listed above.

As for who is edit warring it is clear that you are edit warring, along with but to a lesser extent Abrazame here.

And what "harassment" are you referring to exactly?

The harassment you alleged here:

"Also, a user named Off2riorob is harassing me — and not Abrazame — by "threatening" me by posting a 3RR revert warning on my Talk Page. Furthermore, Off2riorob is deliberately interfering with my "Admin Help" request ... by making unwanted, unwarranted, and unwelcome edits on my Talk Page."

I see that you both were warned, posting a 3-rr warning is not harassment.AerobicFox (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph, making numerous reverts in a short period of time is edit warring, which you were doing. Off2riorob's leaving both of you warning messages is not harassment. As such, there is nothing actionable here by any administrator. Your best bet is to go to the talk page of the article in question and seek consensus to add your material. As you wish to add controversial content to a BLP related article, the burden of proof is on you to show that the content belongs. There is nothing we can do for you on ANI. Resolute 23:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the edit warring has stopped. No? Am I incorrect on that issue? I am referring to the events after the so-called "edit war" (i.e., my attempts to get help in resolving this issue now, at this point). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

(ec)Do you need admin actions(blocking, banning, locking, etc) right now at this moment? If not then there's no reason for this to be discussed here. This isn't a dispute resolution board, if you need help beyond an article's talkpage to resolve a dispute see: WP:RFC, WP:M, WP:CNB, etc.AerobicFox (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you admin's (in general, as a whole) are so very unhelpful, it's simply unbelievable. Just thought you should know that. I wish you'd take your jobs more seriously and with more compassion than simply quoting policy, chapter and verse like robots. Not all of you, but -- sadly -- many/most of you. So unhelpful. And, yes, I am entitled to form my opinion and to state my opinion. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

We don't have "jobs" - we're volunteers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "job" is not mutually exclusive of a volunteer position. The word "job" is not limited to paid positions. I am fully aware that Wiki admin's are volunteers. Nonetheless, they are performing work here (i.e., a "job") ... specifically, a job for which they volunteer. What was your point? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

The point is that we have no obligation to do anything for you on demand -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We can only point you in the right direction. We can't force others to accept your viewpoints. I gave you the next step already: discuss your proposal on the article talk page. If a consensus is reached on the talk page that supports adding such material, it will be added. If consensus opposes, it will not. Resolute 00:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We admins, just like you or any other editor, are bound by "policy, chapter and verse". We have a couple more tools to make sure "policy, chapter and verse" (aka WP policies and guidelines) are maintained, but the policies and guidelines are the same. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, so in the meanwhile ... why is it that the "wrong version" is maintained? Simply because that last editor got "one last edit in" before the 3 RR warnings were posted? No one was in any way helpful on that issue. As I attempted to resolve this, while avoiding further edits. All I got was a "humor essay" linked above. Thanks ( ... uh, for nothing ) ... ! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Again, please see WP:WRONGVERSION, and take the point. The issue here isn't the version of the page being maintained, it's the edit warring. Stop that and seek consensus, and the wrong version will be replaced with the right one, soon enough. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring concluded, uhhhh, about 5 hours ago. You are 5 hours "behind" on the conversation. My question was how to resolve it now ... now that the edit warring has stopped. Uh ... thanks(?), I guess. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

You could try using {{editprotected}} on talk, but you should probably seek consensus for the change first. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what article are we talking about? I'd thought from MuZemike's comment, below, that Anthony Weiner sexting scandal was fully protected, but it doesn't look like it actually is? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically, if I was to revert to your preferred version while still under full protection, then the "other side" will then complain (not to mention will look like an admin is taking sides). That is the whole point behind the Wrong Version phenomenon. –MuZemike 01:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be helpful? Seriously? So, then, keep my version and let the other side complain. Or it's simply a random / arbitrary matter of "who got the last edit in"? Great process! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

First off, no, you will not get your version while it's full-protected, no matter how much you whine about it. Secondly, unless you can think of a better way to stop edit wars, short of blocking everybody involved here, there is no other good process to use. The encyclopedia doesn't revolve around you. –MuZemike 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) Nothing is fully protected. (2) I am not "whining". So, get a clue about the status of things before you offer your unhelpful, flippant, and snide remarks. News flash: You are not being helpful. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

(Edit conflict) I am not sure you understand. This board isn't a discussion of which version is right or wrong. This board isn't a place to choose a version to maintain until an agreement is made. Discussions about which version of the article to maintain should be held at the article's talk page, nowhere else. As for why an admin. will not revert to your version until an agreement is made; the other version is the version that was present before the edit warring, and is thus the version to maintain until an agreement is made. I do not foresee you convincing an admin. in his right mind to take your side. CycloneGU (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so in other words ... I cannot make any edits, because I will be called on for a 3RR violation. But, everyone else under the sun can revert all the edits that they want, with no problem. Do I have that straight? Great process you guys have! You must be so proud! Thanks! You are all just soooooooooooo helpful! Really, you are! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

And, to CycloneGU ... how is the "other version" being "maintained"? People are editing it willy-nilly, left and right. And I hardly see consensus on the Talk Page for those edits. So, I am the only one not allowed to edit it? What a joke! Yes, you guys are tremendously helpful. Thank you so much! Really! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Your attitude in this thread leaves something to be desired. Stop and think about what you post before you post it.

Further, the "other version" is being maintained simply by being there. Even if no changes are being made, some version of the page is being maintained. As for who can edit and can't; what is the protection level of the page? If it's under full protection, don't worry, I can't edit it either; only admins. can. If it's under no protection, you can of course edit it; however, continuing the edit war may see you blocked for a period of time. I might suggest taking a break and approaching the article with a clear head in a couple of days, and maybe have a cup of tea while you're at it. CycloneGU (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there you go. Typical admin knee-jerk reaction: threaten a block. To a user who is attempting to resolve an issue and, when warned, refrained from any and all edit warring. Great approach! Repeat the block threat to me once again ... as if I were 4 years old! Please? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Once again you did not think before slamming away on your keyboard. If you were to stop and peruse around, you would see that I am not an admin. and therefore cannot threaten a block. I am merely explaining that it would be a consequence if you continue to edit-war, and an admin. would make that decision. So clearly you are in a rush to get your point across, are on an attempt to force the entire Wiki to agree with you, and will not actually listen to anything we say. CycloneGU (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis, who has already reverted the section back into the article in prior edit, has done so again without further discussion at the talk page. I request a block of this editor and some clarity from administrators about the fact that discussion and consensus is required in general, much less after all of this. [63]

I hesitated to post this here because, although I was notified by another editor that I was mentioned here, I thought my actions were self-explanatory and noted a general desire not to handle this here. For one thing, the contested edit was not actually headed "Communication with underage female" the first few times it was reverted, it was headed:

"Contact with underage female"

For another thing, communications that were not part of the scandal were not part of the scandal. By "part of the scandal", just to be clear, as it seems to escape many editors at that page, I mean itself scandalous or germane to an understanding of the scandal. You see, simply being reported on in a RS is not the threshold for putting something in an article. It has to be WP:RELEVANT to the topic, it has to be not given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and it has to not present a skewed, WP:POV, or cherry-picked version to make it look like it's worse than it is. You have repeated on the article's talk page what you implied in the edit, that Weiner "claimed" the Tweets in question were not illicit. Yet you do so in an article about a man who initially denied Tweeting the photo. So you are presenting it in a way that suggests, "Eh, he could be telling the truth this time, but what do you think, reader? It is, after all, considered by Wikipedia an encyclopedic aspect of this scandal, so much so that it gets its own section head. But we'll let you decide." Well it's not up to the reader to decide based on that sort of presentation. Because the cited source for the material you were insisting on putting into the article happened also to say that the girl and her family confirmed the congressman's characterization. You apparently don't want to mention that to the reader, or discuss it with me at that article's talk page, which is what you're supposed to do when you find your edit reverted out of the article, not this full court press to cry foul all across the project without taking so much as a moment to WP:DISCUSS, much less think or read.

A source I read this morning, but which has since been replaced, when I go back and click on it in my browser history, with an updated article focusing on congresspeople calling for his resignation rather than the exculpatory detail, actually quoted a Delaware police source that their investigation at the girl's home confirmed this. So I thought I would revert the section out of the article, post on the article's talk page my editorial judgement about the violations, and then go in search of a version of the article that confirms the police confirmation—not so that we could put in to our encyclopedia that for about an hour this morning the fact of a police investigation might have led some people to believe Weiner did something inappropriate in those Tweets, but now we have police confirmation that he did not, but to show why this shouldn't be in there at all.

Yet you're uninterested in an editorial discussion on what constitutes POV or a BLP violation, you just want to have that assertion in the article in black and white with its own header and no pesky mitigation like the results of the police investigation, so rather than finding you have responded to a single one of my points, I find you have reported me far and wide as if I were the irresponsible editor here.

Both in my defense and to educate Joseph, WP:3RR explicitly states that one is exempt when the edits involve:

"Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

So, noting that I was given a 3RR warning on my talk page—for the first time in six years at this project—I did what the section advised and reported this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Implication of newsy wrinkle conflated (in a libelous manner) in a scandal article.

I would like some clarity that, given these factors—not to mention (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)'s assertion that he has not gleaned anything useful from any of this—that I was not "edit warring". Defending the exclusion of inflammatory material pending discussion is not an edit war, the people reverting the material back in while ignoring the points I raised or any other editorially responsible action (like reading the cited source or Googling some other) is the edit warring. I don't mean that I was not in violation because I stopped at the third revert, I mean that an objective reading of this in the context I've pointed out means that it is (talk) who was in the wrong, in several respects. Obviously I would not have taken reverts to an extreme, but until I could draw the attention of someone else with editorial responsibility, the irresponsible thing to do in a situation where inflammatory material (or an inflammatory presentation of material) would be to leave it in and beg the other editor to respond to my talk page comment, and that I was in the right to revert it and look for backup. Finally, (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) has not directly responded to anything I have said throughout this issue, on that talk page or at any of these other pages he has gone to avoid that. I would also like for someone to point out to him that such article talk page editorial discussion is supposed to be his first editorial effort to understand and resolve the issue, not one that even after several hours and dozens of posts by him about the issue throughout the project he still feels justified in ignoring.

Thank you, Abrazame (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Recap

Things are getting so heated here and accusations/allegations/ are flying so fast that I'm sure trouts/whales/penguins will no doubt follow. Could Joseph please sum up in a brief bullet pointed list what admin actions he would like to request and why? --Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of User:小籃子 by Gurch

Resolved

 – Old policy no longer applies

While I was considering a name change and was checking the user list, I found that Gurch indefinitely blocked User:小籃子 citing the username. Sorry, but '籃子' means basket, and having a username in a non-Latin script is alone not an excuse to block. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That was done in 2005. Policy at the time, I believe, did not permit non-latin characters in usernames. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah...then we could quickly mark this as resolved then? —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Long-term harassment by Haymaker

User:Haymaker (formerly known as Schrandit, in case this is relevant) has been stalking my edits for months. I've asked him repeatedly to stop, yet he continues.

Diffs of stalking:

(This is a fairly conservative list. There are other pages which the user likely followed me to, but I'll assume on probably unwarranted good faith that he had them watchlisted due to having made even the most insignificant minor edits in the far past, got there via another editor, happened to see the deletion discussion in the list, subject was recently dead, etc. Also omitted are pages where the user likely followed me there and subsequently disputed with me over content, but where the user's first edit was not a revert of one of mine, and pages where the user's edit was anything but a straight revert with absolutely no other changes. You may imagine for yourselves the number of articles that could be added to the list without these caveats, particularly the last couple. It's also more than possible that I've just overlooked some.)

My first encounter with this user was, I believe, at Crisis pregnancy center, which I began to edit 16 November 2010. This is after I made the first edit in the subsequent list, but before Haymaker reverted it.

Times are UTC -5 hours.

Pages which the user had never edited before I edited them, and where there were no intervening edits between mine and his

• CatholicVote.org: I rephrase a sentence 13 November 2010 15:37. Haymaker restores the prior wording 18 November 2010 00:52.
• Political positions of Ron Paul: I rephrase the term "pro-life legislation" 23 November 2010 09:28. Haymaker restores it 23 November 2010 18:48.
• Eclipse of Reason: I add a category 3 December 2011 02:10. Haymaker removes it 3 December 2011 03:56.
• Maafa 21: I add a category 3 December 2011 02:38. Haymaker removes it 3 December 2011 03:56.
• American Freedom and Catholic Power: I remove a statement 5 January 2011 14:30. Haymaker restores it 6 January 2011 07:08.
• Catholicism and abortion: I rephrase a sentence 20 January 2011 01:54. Haymaker restores the prior wording 20 January 2011 5:51.
• The Reader: I remove some paragraphs 20 January 2011 20:54. Haymaker restores them 20 January 2011 23:43.
• Ensoulment: I rephrase a sentence 21 January 2011 03:10. Haymaker restores the prior wording 21 January 2011 04:04.
• Priscilla K. Coleman: I make some changes 3 February 2011 11:37. Haymaker undoes them 3 February 2011 12:26.
• Joseph O'Rourke: I change a word 5 February 2011 02:36. Haymaker restores prior wording 5 February 2011 04:03.
• Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?: I remove a tag 23 February 2011 17:27. Haymaker restores it 23 February 2011 18:34.
• Natural family planning: I rephrase a sentence 3 March 2011 03:16. Haymaker restores the prior wording 6 March 2011 01:08.
• Albert Mohler: I restore the phrase "what he calls" 4 March 13:34. Haymaker removes it 6 March 2011 01:13.
• Abortifacient: I restore the word "erroneously" 13 March 2011 14:38. Haymaker removes it 13 March 2011 15:54.
• Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute: I rephrase a sentence 25 March 2011 16:45. Haymaker restores the prior wording 25 March 2011 17:44.
• Abortion in Chile: I remove a few sentences 2 April 2011 23:17. Haymaker restores them 4 April 2011 02:44.
• Political positions of George W. Bush: I rephrase the term "pro-life legislation" 27 April 2011 10:50. Haymaker restores it 27 April 2011 11:57.
• Pro-life feminism: I remove the phrase "Laury Oaks states" 4 May 2011 17:05. Haymaker restores it 5 May 2011 13:15.
• REAL Women of Canada: I remove several phrases 26 May 2011 01:48. Haymaker restores them 26 May 2011 06:03.
• Category:Anti-pornography activists: I remove the category Women's rights activists 5 June 2011 00:47. Haymaker restores it 9 June 2011 00:44 (today).
• Maurice Duplessis: I rephrase the term "pro-family" 6 June 2011 14:36. Haymaker restores it 9 June 2011 00:44 (today).

Pages which the user had never edited before I edited them, but where there were intervening edits between mine and his

• List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church: I restore a phrase about medical necessity 2 March 2011 19:00. Haymaker removes it 6 March 2011 01:06. Couple of intervening edits; one was related, but did not remove or substantially alter the disputed phrase.
• Jane Russell: I remove the category American pro-life activists 4 March 2011 02:24. Haymaker restores it 6 March 2011 1:12. A number of intervening edits, none related to her position on abortion.

I'd like to state, though it should be obvious, that the correctness of the edits is not at issue here. Many of the older edits of mine are ones I wouldn't make today. The reason this is at ANI rather than somewhere for handling content disputes is because in each of these cases, and in others, I was stalked there by Haymaker.

Diffs of warnings: [64] [65] [66]

Additionally, if you look at the user's contributions for the past couple of months, a rather indecent proportion of them are content disputes with me; many, again, on pages to which he followed me.

In conclusion, this hounding of my contributions has been going on for over six months now and continues to this day, and it's really starting to bother me.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Haymaker made good faith edits, left edit sums and engaged in discussion on Talk pages where appropriate. You mentioned that presently he is engaging you in content disputes. Well, I think that that is par for the course particularly when editing controversial articles. My reading of WP:HOUND is that the following you around must be accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior". Do you have diffs for any of this behavior (the "important component")?

A number of the edits in question are instances where you changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" or similar. Does this seem unnecessary to you? Lionel (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explicitly said in my report, in order to stave off unhelpful comments just like this one, the substance of the edits is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Haymaker is and has been following me around in order to inhibit my edits since November. You could also read WP:HOUND again, which certainly does not require personal attacks, though if you want tendentiousness! oh, it's there. Take a look. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Yes, I glance at your contributions, kinda like how you appear to follow at the contributions of everyone you have ever had a dispute with. Do you want me to run up a list of pages you had never edited before you say me or a half-dozen other editors you seem to dislike edit them? It would be wikistalking if I followed all your edits with the aim of causing you irritation or distress. Don't flatter yourself. The above edits were not contributed with any thought as to how they would make you feel, they were contributed to make the encyclopedia better. - Haymaker (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what, the fourth time you're trying to get me blocked on those same diffs? If no one found any wrongdoing the other times, why would you think it would work this time? Don't think you can distract everyone's attention away from your harassing behavior. It is wrong to stalk other editors regardless of whether you personally think it's okay. Your personal belief that you are right does not exempt you from the rules. And these desperate repeated attempts to get me blocked, with no new evidence, don't really do much for the impression that you're not trying to have me out of your way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you always refute arguments that I have not made? Do you take some joy in it? You have followed me (not to mention other editors) to more articles, you and I are cut from the same cloth on this issue and that link proves it. - Haymaker (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if the link "proved" that I had stalked in the past, which it clearly doesn't since you've tried more than once to get me blocked with those diffs and no one has found any wrongdoing, the diffs in my list are from today. You are still stalking. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In my reading of WP:Hound my attention was drawn to the phrases "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work", and "...disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." This is presumably what Roscelese is referring to, since these complained of actions clearly both inhibit Rosclese's editing and diminish the enjoyment of same. As Roscelese has requested that Haymaker stop stalking them (and in issues like this, it is the perception that is important and not the intent - so the argument that they are not stalking does not suffice) and the behaviour has continued, I consider that takes this into the issue of harassment. In any form, it is disruptive. Like civil pov pushing, following another editors contributions and reversing them - regardless whether they are properly argued or given valid rationales - is counter to the collegiate and respectful editing environment advocated here. I would suggest that, if consensus is found, that Haymaker is warned that further wikihounding of Rosclese's edits will result in an interaction ban.

Further, since comment has been made, it is necessary to change the emotive "pro-life" phrase to the neutral (medically and legally, as well as linguistically) "anti-abortion" unless a source is being directly referenced. I wonder if this difference in viewpoint on this subject has to do with the issue complained of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the substance of the edits is not the issue. Haymaker would be wrong to harass me even if, content-wise, he were in the right. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this is stalking, per Roscelese and LessHeard vanU. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So when I improve an article, if you have edited it in the past, my improvements constitutes harassment? - Haymaker (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If "the past" is one hour ago and the "improvement" (ha) is part of a persistent pattern of following my edits in order to revert them, as documented above? That's textbook hounding. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't duck the question, you said "the substance of the edits is not the issue." So what is the issue? Am I never supposed to edit articles you have also edited? - Haymaker (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - the substance of the edits is not the issue. The issue is that you have very obviously followed me to the articles after disputing with me on other articles. Don't make silly comments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Woa. I had forgotten that I am one of Roscelese's wikistalking victims. Ironic. I speculate that the experience was so painful I suppressed it. Haymaker's diff uncovered the suppressed memories. Horrible. Just horrible.

LessHeard, I detect a contradiction in your reasoning. You do cite the policy, in part, "for no overriding reason." But then you state, "regardless whether they are properly argued or given valid rationales." You're referring to Haymaker's edit sums and content discussions on Talk pages. Well, a "valid argument" i.e Haymaker's explanations and discussion is an overriding reason. The policy is worded with a bit of foresight to remove the subjectiveness of these types of reports. It provides a test:

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.

Haymaker's conduct fails this test. Apparently so did Roscelese's conduct as evidenced by Haymaker's diff. I'm generally opposed to double standards. How about you? Lionel (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can we get some more admin eyes in here before it becomes the Haymaker and Lionelt's Amazing Double Act echo chamber? We've been through this at ANI before. Even if wrongdoing had been found then, or the other times they tried to pull out the same diffs, that wouldn't be grounds to prosecute based on evidence that was over four months stale. This shouldn't be difficult: neither Haymaker or Lionelt is denying that Haymaker has been stalking me since he met me. They just think he should be exempt from the rules for God knows what reason. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, understand that I very much deny that I am wikihounding you. What I am pointing out is that your editing patterns are nearly the same as mine. If anything, your relationship with editors like Mamalujo, Geremia and Cloonmore is far more objecitonable than our present one is. If you consider my editing wikihounding, then you are in the same boat. - Haymaker (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, this is just factually wrong. Your near-pathological need to make false claims about me at ANI and other noticeboards reflects poorly on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sampled your diff list at the top, Roscelese, and I don't see that many examples of "stalking". There's a reason "User contributions" are listed on userpages; it's a feature intended to be used. Also, if you take a complaint against another user to ANI, I'm afraid you'll have to expect your own edits to be scrutinised, too. It's not for you to say what is and isn't relevant at this board, and your comment "As I explicitly said in my report, in order to stave off unhelpful comments just like this one, the substance of the edits is irrelevant" and similar, suggests to me that you have trouble understanding what ANI is for, and what harassment is. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

(edit conflict)So it's now considered acceptable user conduct to use one's account largely for the purpose of reverting one other editor? To follow them to completely unrelated articles solely in order to revert them, because they've disagreed with you in the past? To maintain this behavior for seven months? This is neither in the letter nor the spirit of WP:HOUND. As for my own conduct, I open it to scrutiny. Indeed, I have done so, and no wrong was found, so Haymaker's and Lionelt's repeated invocation of the same charge, which is now four months stale, smack rather of another form of harassment than a background check. Would you like to inspect my recent edits, given that the conduct I'm reporting is also recent? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So you accept that you have done EXACTLY what you are accusing me of and your only defense is that you think you haven't done it as recently? - Haymaker (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I've rejected that false accusation every time you've tried to pin it on me, as should be obvious from my responses. Don't think that you can make people believe I am saying something by falsely asserting that I'm saying it. But you respond to diffs of your harassment of yesterday with "Look, I accused her of harassment four months ago" - not "she was found to have harassed," not "here is evidence from yesterday of her own stalking," but an unproven accusation from four months ago that you've been bringing up in every forum you can - that's not going to let you off. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You really must learn to stop putting things in quotes that are not quotes. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that it's not a quote of something you've said. Have more faith in the intelligence of the readers. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You say there are not "that many examples". How many is enough? There are some real doozies in the list, good enough by themselves. Inane ones such as the Joseph O'Rourke series, in which there is no apparent thought given by Haymaker. Misguided ones such as the Abortion in Chile bit where the removed-and-then-restored Koch study gives a very flawed explanation of its statistical findings. In all of the diffs, Haymaker was absent from the article until Roscelese edited it. The substance of the edits is that Roscelese makes a change to an article and Haymaker sees the activity on her edit history, follows her there and throws a block in her path. That's hounding. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you call; AFD 1, AFD 2, AFD 3, women on the web, silent scream, SSM in the US, Schenck v. P-CNWNY, pro-life alliance, planned parenthood, Josh Brolin, homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, don't ask don' tell, emily's list, Christianity and abortion and circuit party, to mention some of the swath of articles that roscelese never edited before she followed me to them. If you think my edits constitute hounding, then without question hers do as well. - Haymaker (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bink - the Rourke example isn't a particularly good one. The edit I made was incorrect (the article at the time didn't source that claim, but it was later added). The issue there wasn't that Haymaker was wrong, but that he stalked me there. The Reader would be a better example - totally outside the content areas he normally edits, no attempt to discuss, no further attempt to edit article after reverting me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(Resp to Lionelt) I think you are mistaken in all matters; firstly in understanding of the term "overriding" - which infers a specific reason for taking such actions, such as concern over continuing violation of policy or guideline on the part of the other editor, rather than rationalising each individual action as editorial decisions. Secondly, in that the quote notes that if such behaviours are accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" it says that "it may become a very serious matter" (my underlining) so without such instances (and I have suggested that it might be considered disruptive, anyway) it is still a serious matter. On the third issue of double standards, my non participation in the earlier complaint by Haymaker upon Roscelese cannot infer my opinion in that matter - but the fact that you were the only party other than the principals to comment then, and to condemn the actions of Roscelese then when you seek to defend Haymakers similar actions now suggests to me that it is not only the memory of your own previous interactions with Roscelese you seem to have been able to suppress.

If it is decided that there should be an interaction ban on the part of Haymaker in respect of articles recently edited by Roscelese, I see no issue in also considering whether there should be a quid pro quo interaction ban on the same basis of Roscelese regarding Haymakers recent editing - any history of such infractions would certainly help determine such a case. In my experience (and I do have some) interaction bans are very nearly always mutual, to ensure that future disruption by having one party more advantaged than the other in any content dispute is not possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed article page interaction ban between Haymaker and Roscelese and others

Since it is apparent that there are legitimate claims of wikihounding on the part of both accounts (and I am taking the position again that it is the perception that is important rather than the intent) in respect of the other, I propose that there be an indefinite ban on either party editing any article page which directly affects an edit by the other, regardless of whether there are intervening edits elsewhere by other contributors. I would also expand this ban to any editor who is apparently previously involved in these issues, since I feel there is a risk of a continuance of this dispute by "proxy" if not addressed. If there is consensus, I or someone can determine a wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support because the poisonous interactions need to stop. Quigley (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Wholeheartedly support pending discussion of niceties. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per clear issues between editors. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 08:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the ban:

• Neither party is allowed to edit, in any fashion, any article created by the other party.
• An administrator or group of administrators will moderate the ban. A party who has concerns about an edit by the other party and cannot revert it should take these concerns to the administrator or administrators. (I take it for granted that questions about user conduct will also go to these admins.)

----Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Those concerns were to be incorporated into any agreed interaction ban, and I don't think them contentious (but I may prefer more diplomatic wording). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding proposed interaction ban

This concept intrigues me, I have some questions and some concerns and figure it'd be best to air them out.

A - I figure administrative pages would be exempt from this?

B - How about talk pages?

C - I've edited a lot of articles over the years, 3,947 to be exact, which of those couldn't Roscelese edit?

D - How do we nominate other parties to this ban?

E - Would there be a time cap?

-Haymaker (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As proposed, only article pages. As for the rest, I would opine; Changing other peoples edits to talk pages is generally frowned upon, but discussions (civil, etc.) is to be encouraged unless it is apparent it is recruiting others to change the other editors contributions (i.e. the proxying question). Roscelese can edit any of those articles edited by you, but they cannot change any one of your edits (unless really old, possibly, after talkpage discussion?) and vice versa. You would make a request to ANI to review the edits of any party which appears to be conducting similar wikihounding and that editors relationship to both parties will be examined, and if there is consensus (and they are not blocked indefinitely) they could be added as parties - again Roscelese can bring the same complaint on any editor. No time cap, initially. If all named parties can work out an agreement then a suspension or lifting of the ban may be made, but I would think that if agreed such a ban would need to be in place for a minimum of three months before being suspended (if only to make apparent to both parties it is in their interests not to risk further sanction). I would also add that if both parties now agree to such a ban, and the wording of same, then there is no need for outside consensus. I would be happy to admin such a ban, and perhaps parties to the ban could nominate one sysop each to make the ban better transparent and fair. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Further, if you both agree to an interaction ban with it being reviewed by 3 admins then any issue about extending the ban to other parties would be addressed by the admins initially, only referring to ANI if there is not unanimous agreement between the sysops (in all other cases, only two admins need agree), LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ros has followed me to many AfDs and other administrative discussions to oppose my suggestions. Could she be barred from doing this in the future? - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that AfDs are listed publicly and also sorted by topic, and especially given that one of the AfDs you claim I followed you to was an AfD of an article I edited, I doubt you're going to be able to present enough evidence to justify this restriction. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you don't want this but for the purposes of an effective interaction ban it is needed. I'd also like an initial term of 3 months. - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I want it; you can't just demand it and expect to have it granted without any evidence justifying its imposition. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't need you following me to every AfD and RfC I take interest in. I have weighed in on fewer of them in the past months because of you. If we want this to be productive I don't want to have to deal with you on that front as well. - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're that afraid of people disagreeing with you, you shouldn't be seeking out contentious topic areas. If you're going to ask that an editor who just happens to oppose your POV-pushing be forbidden to vote in these discussions, you'd better have some behavioral evidence backing that request up. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

All evidence presented to you so far has been dismissed. I see no reason in hunting for more. Ros has followed me to several administrative discussion and I have abstained from more to keep her out of them, I would like to be relieved of this burden under the terms of a interaction agreement. - Haymaker (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed out to you that if an AfD is listed on the AfD page, which (as is obvious from my edit history, which we all know you stalk) I read regularly, the claim that I followed you there is at best, silly, and at worst, an attempt to get me punished by spreading lies about me. I also pointed out that among your supposed pieces of evidence was an AfD for an article I edited - and indeed, now that I look, where I cast the same vote as you. Because apparently if an article I edit is nominated for deletion, I am to refrain from commenting out of respect for your fragile feelings, even if we agree. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Query. I'd love it if Haymaker were forbidden to stalk and harass me, but I would make one suggestion for this interaction ban, without which I'd be slightly less eager to support it. Particularly because we edit in often-contentious topic areas, there should be a mechanism by which we can get a quick, uninvolved, and authoritative perspective on edits that we ourselves are forbidden to revert. So, for example, when Haymaker makes this edit filled with POV and synth, or I make this mistaken edit based on the absence of a citation for the fact in the article, Haymaker and I should both be able to come to an admin (you, LessHeard??) who will moderate the ban and decide if the edit should or should not stand. (Rather than a noticeboard or RfC for every little thing, which would be the other alternative - I rule out 3O because of the strong likelihood that the third opinion would be provided by a partisan of one party or another.) An interaction ban would be super but there would need to be something in place to make sure that articles aren't damaged as a side-effect. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if articles created by one or the other of us might just be made off-limits. If Haymaker adds a frivolous tag to an article I created, the current terms of the interaction ban would stop me removing it, but it's also an attempt to wipe my eye by making my article look bad. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Queries regarding other parties actions should be directed at one of the supervising admins in the first instance, who may then intercede directly or refer it to the others for consensus - or to the article talkpage where there is the possibility of getting uninvolved third party opinion. Any edit to an article that was created by the other party, other than typo correction or reverting vandalism, would be considered as directly changing a previous edit and is not permissible - however, creating pov forks that the other editor could not challenge would also be considered as hostile to the interaction ban (indeed, any edit made anywhere in article space which could be considered as being inflammatory to the other party would not be allowed). However, it would be hoped that the supervision of the ban would not become a shopping list of complaints - the chances of getting admins to ride such a merryground would be severely compromised. Should a voluntary topic ban be placed, the terms would be open to variation and addition (or reduction!) as circumstances dictate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - I don't anticipate that either of us will have to resort to this means often, since I don't go about making edits specifically to annoy Haymaker and hopefully he will behave the same (ie. I don't go about changing "X is pro-life" to "X is anti-abortion," since I know he likes the encyclopedia to reflect the former wording, and I hope that he won't take advantage of the interaction ban to continue pushing the term "pro-family"). But I did feel there should be some established way to deal with problematic edits that we can't revert, particularly on low-visibility articles where they are unlikely to be reverted by another editor. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ros, you do go about changing things from "X is pro-life" to "X is anti-abortion" and you have been on a crusade to strike the term "pro-family" from this website. At present the vast majority of WP articles, templates and categories describe persons and organization that oppose abortion as "pro-life". Ros has attempted to change many of them to "anti-abortion". I want to make sure that I am not entering into a compact that would allow her to make all of these revisions while myself and others likely to monitor these article are locked out of opposing her. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not true, and you should be ashamed of yourself for adding one more false claim to the laundry list of false accusations you regularly level at me. Would you like to prove it with a diff? One would suffice. It wouldn't even have to be recent. I doubt you'll find it, since I've always maintained that people and organizations are to be described as "pro-life." I also doubt that any user who isn't here to push a POV will object to the removal of "pro-family," which is a meaningless propaganda term, though Haymaker's comment and past behavior do indeed seem to reflect a desire to push it which could become problematic. Thoughts, LessHeard? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to try to deny that you have tried to switch those terms scores of times? - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorically. Find one article where a person or organization was described as "pro-life" and I changed it to "anti-abortion." That's what you said I do, so you should be able to name an article where I did it. Otherwise, don't make accusations for which you have no evidence. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Karin Spaink, along with the scores (possibly hundreds) of other times you have tried to switch these terms across the encyclopedia. I'd love to have ros off my back but I'm not going to enter into something which lends her an undue hand in her terminology crusade. - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And is that a person or organization? No? I didn't think so. Since you couldn't produce even one diff as an example, how can you expect anyone to believe your ridiculous claim that I have made "scores (possibly hundreds)" of such changes? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're not going to accept evidence than there is nothing I can do about that. You have changed the term "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" across scores, possibly hundreds of articles and lunched on other similar crusades of terminology. As greatful as I would be to find myself unburdened by ros I would hate to do so at the cost of giving her a free hand to pursue this narrow agenda. - Haymaker (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You make an accusation against me that directly challenges a comment I made. I ask you for a single diff that proves this accusation. You refuse. I ask you again. You provide a diff that doesn't prove the accusation, while claiming that you could, if you chose, produce hundreds of diffs that prove the accusation. What about this seems well-thought-out to you? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have presented my concerns and suggested ways forward. You have offered nothing but criticism and derision. I see no point in continuing this discussion. - Haymaker (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good. Now that you're dropping your long-shot requests, I presume the original terms LessHeard set out will be the final ones, then? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We were discussing the terms of a possible voluntary interaction ban. As you seem uniquely incapable of collegiate discussion we have since arrived at no terms and have no expectation that we will. You have demonstrated a impressive disinterest in laying out workable terms and I have no reason to believe you would follow any that were agreed to. - Haymaker (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad you feel that way, because that's likely to lead to an imposed interaction ban in which you can't discuss terms, rather than the state of affairs in which you can blithely go on stalking me which you may be hoping for. I suggest you make the best of the situation. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering your attitude, I have. I have moved through this discussion with good faith, I have been cordial, I have offered suggestions and for it I have been spit upon. After 3 days I have seen no indication on your part that you interested in coming to a workable agreement or that you would follow it after. - Haymaker (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to include Binksternet and PhGustaf as third parties to this proposal. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "third parties". Referees? I do not want to be a referee. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, Hay, when you bring up other editors here, it's required to notify them. You didn't and I notified Bink.

Second, you and I have had little or no interaction to ban — we have undone some of each others' edits, but that happens. Most of this undoing had involved what I (and the community, from the results) perceive as you habit of replacing sourced neutral terms with politically weighted ones, as in your current attempt to call a politician "pro-family" when he died more than twenty years before the term assumed any of its current meanings.

You are trying to use this proposed ban as a means of silencing everyone who has recently disagreed with you. That is not good faith. PhGustaf (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. Most of our interactions have been collegial, even those that have not were not particularly troublesome. What has been troublesome have been the interactions between you, me and ros. If there is to be an IBAN third parties are going to be mentioned. - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Presently, as I understand it, we are discussing setting up a voluntary interaction ban so to avoid the strictures of a standard imposed IBan as linked by TreasuryTag below. This would not be something where we can "volunteer" other people into; if others wish to be included that is fine, and it might be possible to get community consensus to include other parties to a voluntary ban if agreed by the existing parties - the alternative being that they are banned under the standard terms noted. It may be that if a voluntary ban provides involved parties with the opportunity to edit without the previous inconveniences distracting them, that other parties may wish to sign up (there is a first time for everything, I guess). However, I think we should proceed with putting in place a working agreement between Roscelese and Haymaker first. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Not everything needs to be established right now, and it's more than possible that with the interaction ban established between me and Haymaker, issues with other editors will go away. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to pass a bill so that I can read it later. If this is just me and ros, cool. If there are going to be third parties it is only fair to them to mention it now. - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Any additions of parties will be with the consent of all parties concerned. If other interaction bans involving the parties here now are enforced by community consensus, even under the same terms, then those are dealt with separately. I know that this varies what I said before a bit, but I am hoping that we are getting close to agreeing something and I don't want to jeopodise the chance of getting people back to editing at this point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the clarification. - Haymaker (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We can at least agree on 3 months then? - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What will be different in 3 months time? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Many things, hopefully there will be a collective cooling. I like the concept of sunset periods, if an agreement is productive but still required it can be renewed. - Haymaker (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although I would be wary that there may be a sudden release of 3 months pent up "corrections" to the other editors contributions... However, per AGF I would be happy to include such a time limit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The standard terms of an interaction ban are set out at WP:IBAN. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 08:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have never seen that, and I have helped set up and admin a couple of interaction bans. As it is apparently standard for imposed interaction bans, I think having an agreed less strict ban between parties is possibly more enticing for the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued POV editing contrary to consensus by User:I.Casaubon

I.Casaubon (talk · contribs) created a slurry of articles likening discriminatory practices in various Middle Eastern countries to apartheid, in part intended as a "corrective" to the article Israel and the apartheid analogy. After I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Bahrain as "delete" in particular, he recreated it unilaterally within a couple weeks. I deleted it again per CSD#G4, and warned him not to recreate it. The deletion was subsequently endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27.

Within little more than a month, he reposted it again, at Bahrain and the apartheid analogy. I speedy deleted it and SALTed it (accidentally used the wrong rationale in the summary; sorrynow fixed), and left this comment on his talk page. I don't have time right now to deal with this any further (the real world calls), but I think a block is probably in order, and the rest of his recent edits need to be reviewed for his POV soapboxing on this topic. postdlf (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO it is an extreme sign of bad-faith and deception to try to slip in the same article via a different name, presumably to get past those who have the old title still on a watch list. This should go to WP:AE for a lengthy, if not indef, topic ban. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Was this the subject of an arbitration? (that's the only thing WP:AE can enforce.) Outside of the AFDs, I don't know anything about the topic's WP history (or this user) at all.

As to why he posted it at a different title, I had SALTed the original title after he recreated it there. See also this discussion, in which the one commenter told I.Casaubon that he thought an "apartheid" section was inappropriate at Human rights in Bahrain, which I.Casaubon inexplicably takes as support for recreating a separate article notwithstanding the prior deletion discussions.

For other related AFDs on similar articles by the same user, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid (the first I closed, and the only one in which I posted a deletion rationale), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Saudi Arabia. The Bahrain one is the only one that was taken to DRV, more about my speedy deletion of its recreation that I.Casaubon claimed was supported by new sources; deletion was nevertheless endorsed at DRV. It's clear that I.Casaubon knew that there was an established consensus against these articles, and that absent a DRV go-ahead, he couldn't recreate any of them.

So I propose a block for one week. I think it might be appropriate to discuss a topic ban as well. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an AE matter, I think, because the only applicable case would be WP:ARBPIA, and this issue does not involve Israel. On the merits, I agree that persistent circumvention of the outcome of a deletion discussion, by repeatedly republishing the deleted content without addressing the reasons for the deletion, is disruptive editing. Consequently, I suggest that I.Casaubon is topic-banned from the concept of apartheid as applied to other matters than the historical system of apartheid in South Africa. Any short block would be merely punitive.  Sandstein  15:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that a review of the recent I.Casaubon SPI report may help ? It seemed like a pretty compelling case to me. It was declined. I've asked for an explanation here and I assume the declining admin will provide one at some point. I think I.Casaubon is a sockpuppet of a topic banned user. I also think it would be better if they were allowed to continue editing outside of the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, King of Hearts did not actually decline the CU, he just archived the investigation. HelloAnnyong declined it with the rationale: "Historicist and all of their socks are stale, so there's nothing to run a CU against." Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand that rationale. We were once blocking legions of Grundle-socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600, but there's been none since last year. If another suspect pops up today, we can't use the old Grundle2600 evidence/information? Tarc (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A  Clerk declined at SPI means simply that a checkuser is not useful in the particular circumstances. It does not imply any conclusion as to the behavioral evidence. T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. The CU was declined by HelloAnnyong. That's fine. There was no conclusion as to the behaviorial evidence which includes a direct link between accounts via an IP. The entire case was simply declined without explanation. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban as Sandstein described is probably the best way of dealing with this, regardless of any sockpuppet issues (let's not bog down this thread right now with that issue).

Though regarding Sandstein's view of a block, a topic ban can only be enforced by the threat of a block, and so why would it not be appropriate in response to a repeat violation of deletion policy and consensus? Unless you somehow get advance warning that someone is about to recreate something, no one could ever be preventively blocked for recreations because you would always be catching it after the fact. I think a block now should be viewed as a deterrent to further misconduct, though ultimately not as important as a topic ban. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the creation of a lengthy "apartheid" series of articles, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid, a case from 2007. The case closed without a decision (I believe because the arbitrators were unable to agree on an outcome, though I wasn't on the committee at the time), but much of the workshop discussion seems strangely relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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.

---

24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This anon is repeatedly and frivolously accusing editors of vandalism, stalking, personal attacks, etc. I've just reverted the anon's disruption in his userspace [67]; the anon was already explicitly told not to engage in this type of behavior [68]. He also strangely makes this posting yet sees fit to act as if he is uninvolved here. The last warning appears to have produced no useful results. Looking at the anon's contributions (24.177.123.74 9 Jan - 30 Jan, 24.177.120.74 30 Jan- 18 Feb and 24.177.120.138 19 Feb Till now - which does not substantiate the anon's claim that he has made 12,000 contributions to the wiki), block log, and the rich history of other warnings on his user talk page, long term resolution would be useful. Requesting for an admin to step in and deal with the disruption being caused by this IP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anon has continued being disruptive since my reversion and being notified of this ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you've been asked by an administrator to leave my user page alone, yet you continue to blank large sections of it. Please stop. 24.177.120.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

The admin said "Unless any content violates a policy"; as this is NOT permitted in your user space ("Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing"), and another user has repeated this concern. However, you have continued with this disruptive editing and it needs to stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

While removing the self-awarded barnstars, the dishonest userboxes, and the other phony distinctions the IP confers on itself was probably inappropriate, the IP's use of its userpage to create a "hall of shame" for users it's involved with disputes with is clearly misbehavior, much like this case [69]. In the context of its extensive block track history and track record of uncivil provocation of other editors, the page is just another excuse for disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you follow the link User:Ncmvocalist offered, you'll find that my log is, in fact, acceptable if I'm compiling factual material for purposes such as preparing for WP:DR. Please ask me if I am. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

2 Questions: 1 for IP, 1 for Admins (from Avanu)

First question for the IP is, why is it so difficult to simply drop the strange attitude and seek a compromise with these other editors? In other words, acknowledge the community as a partner instead of 'acting out'.

Second question for the Admins is, despite having a problem with some of the IP's behaviors, the IP has made several valid points about the form of this 'trial'. Conduct should be above reproach on both sides, and if not, then why do we bother imposing a penalty on those who fall short?

Proposed: 24.177.120.138 temporarily banned

Resolved

 – 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is banned for one month for disruption. Suspected evasions by the use of other IPs or accounts should be posted here. I'm also deleting and SALTing the user page. Enough time has been wasted on this. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is community banned for a period of one month.

Note I've altered the section header and the proposal above, to note that this is a proposal, and not an action that's been taken. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support, per the above described persistently disruptive behavior. Shorter blocks have been tried[70], and haven't worked. Chester Markel (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMO, this isn't the appropriate forum for such a proposal; it should be taken to WP:RfC/U. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - pure disruption defines this person contributions, net loss. Off2riorob (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Off2riorob. Requiring anymore volunteer time/effort to be wasted on this is NOT ok; Wikipedia is NOT therapy. The anon is clearly here to play games and the only thing this exercise is accomplishing is exposing the vulnerability of the project. It's truly sad that we need to go through this hoop to accomplish what any administrator could and should have done by now. All appeals are to go to BASC, and the content that the anon has put in his userspace will be blanked (much like all of the warnings and block notices that were blanked from his user talk page). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. History of blocks and very uncivil behavior, hounding of at least one user, and continued uncivil behavior here. This editor seems more interested in WP:DRAMA than building the encyclopedia. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support This IP contributes little to nothing and causes considerable disruption, apparently deliberately. They also have an account, but will not say what it is, just that they are "not currently blocked." Per Off2riorob, a net negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Yet another drama-producing editor who can't/won't edit under their actual identity. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support The blatantly false info on their userspace is offensive to those who try to edit here constructively. I can only agree with the "net negative" sentiments stated above. Obviously talk page privileges should also be removed for the duration of the block. MarnetteD | Talk 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Purely disruptive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note - The user has reportedly had at least 3 different IP's just since January, so things could get a little complicated. Regardless, the "enemies list" has to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Disruptive edits, edit warring blatantly false information onto their user page, refusal to reveal prior identities, and admission that their own edits are "25% trolling and 25% wikilawyering." [71] Dayewalker (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I reviewed their contributions and see a preponderance of constructive edits. Their conduct has not been perfect, but the same could be said of most of those voting "Support" above, as well as myself. I say this despite being in a current dispute with the IP (see "Wikipedia versus the Real World" subthread currently at ANI). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral at the moment, but hardly satisfied that this isn't a user that's already blocked. Anyone who comes out and admits that one quarter of their contributions consist of "trolling" should raise a red flag. I simply don't believe that the IP doesn't "remember" crossing paths with me, and this makes me suspicious. But how do you actually ban a user that switches IPs and has yet to be positively identified? The user should in no way be allowed to maintain a list like they've been attempting to create, and it would be nice if they would disclose another IP or two that they've used (though they're not technically obligated to and most likely will not do that). I'm pretty unsure that this is at a ban stage yet, but abusing the open-editing thing by avoiding scrutiny is something I've seen all too often. As is so common with blocked and banned users, there seems to be an issue of WP:COMPETENCE in understanding how to deal with those they disagree with. Isn't it odd how that happens? I think that essay should become at least a guideline when the pitiful one-sentence IAR policy is so often misconstrued, BTW. Doc talk 04:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It seems quite odd to have decided that a consensus had formed barely 2 hours after the original suggestion was posted. Mathsci (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If the guy's been editing for ten years but only using that IP since February, I doubt a li'l ol' one-month ban is going to stop him. He'll just use another IP or named account. Maybe he won't be as disruptive with the new ones and it won't be so blatantly obvious what the outcome would have been had it sat here for 22 more technical hours. Doc talk 05:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedian consensus is rarely so quick and decisive. But this case is rather obvious. If the editor creates a new account, but doesn't cause further disruption, we don't care. If he does, we can block/ban him again. Chester Markel (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: Involved editors should identify and recuse themselves from the above discussion

Quoth Wikipedia:Community ban: "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." (emphasis mine) As far as I can tell, at least half of the participants in the above discussion are involved in the underlying dispute. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This would mean something if the dispute was about article content. As far as I can see the involved are fed up with the blatant falsehoods in your userspace and general disruption on various noticeboards. They have every right to be part of the above process. MarnetteD | Talk 03:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I left out blatant socking. MarnetteD | Talk 03:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Prove it or strike. I'm not socking. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You said you've been here for 10 years, and your current IP certainly hasn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not socking. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Explain this.[72] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, copyediting? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If the IP user has no registered account, then editing from an IP is not "socking". Many people edit Wikipedia without an account. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It can be, if they admit to bad-faith activity, as the IP does in that link I indicated above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. That diff is an internal edit to my own comment on my own talk page. It in no way is an admission of bad-faith activity. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the diff shows both versions of the comment, and they are both bad-faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. They betray a delight in deception. Deception is bad-faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. It was a humorous response to an editor welcoming me to Wikipedia, yesterday. Your attempt to characterize it as "betray[ing] a delight in deception" is, itself, bad-faith. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You wrote the words yourself, so don't blame others for reading them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I blame you for mischaracterizing them, and attempting to mislead other editors. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been told otherwise... by good faith users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here, you know what? If the only point of contention is my collection of diffs of registered users blanking my user page, I'll remove it from there to here. These editors are clearly involved, and should not be participating above:

1. Ncmvocalist (blanking)
2. Ncmvocalist (more blanking)
3. Delicious carbuncle (added {{DynamicIP}} above page contents)
4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (removed entries 3 and 4 from this log)
5. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (removed link to User_talk:Off2Riorob)
6. Ncmvocalist (removed entries 3-7, link to User_talk:Off2Riorob)
7. Ncmvocalist (...again)

24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

An unimportant and probably moot point, but I removed nothing from the page, merely added a dynamic IP template, which the IP user moved to their talk page. I cannot condone their behaviour here, but I supported their right to edit as an IP in a discussion above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (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.

Related question about userpages

IP users generally do not have userpages (perhaps largely because they are unable to create them for themselves). This user, who is not on a static IP, has both a userpage and now a subpage. I previously nominated another of their subpages for deletion because the IP is dynamic and likely to change, in which case it will no longer be the subpage of this user, but of whoever gets assigned the IP, which seems unnecessarily problematic. If the IP user does not want to have an account, that is certainly their choice to make, but they seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too, by having all the benefits that registered users have. I don't believe it was ever intended for IP users on dynamic IPs to have user pages or subpages, but before I propose a change to WP:UP, I would like to get a sense of what the community thinks. Thoughts? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally, IP users won't have user pages because they don't have the authority to create a page... except their own talk page. In the case of this IP, the user Ocaasi created the IP's user page for him, for goddess knows what reason, and then the IP was able to edit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is precedent for IP user pages. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, you're abusing it. I've asked Ocaasi to come here and review the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, as it would be very confusing to the new owner of the IP address. This current situation involves an editor who freely admits [73] they're been editing for ten years under a variety of identities, and I would assume IPs as well. I agree with DC that this appears to be a "have their cake and eat it" situation. As of right now, the editor is edit warring to keep a perceived enemies list on the page, when their IP resets, it will be certainly confusing for the new owner, and make it hard to assume good faith for editors working with that new owner. Dayewalker (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That's why I've asked for semi-protection, which will keep the IP's mitts off it and will allow it to be cleared of that junk. Ocaasi needs to come here and explain how the IP sweet-talked him (probably via e-mail) into creating his page for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I "sweet-talked" him with a {{helpme}} request on my talk page. WTF, yo, can you not assume good faith on the part of anyone? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Has that been your standard procedure with every one of your various IP's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not here to be cross-examined by you. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey! It's Mark McGwire and the non-denial denial! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterizing my reversion of unwarranted blanking on my user-page as "edit warring" is... somewhere between hilarious and bad-faith. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here since I created the user page. I don't recall this situation and will have to check the diffs. But generally, I don't consider ip editors second class citizens and don't begrudge them use of their user pages. I assume good faith until given reason to do otherwise. If the ip is editing outside of community standards and being disruptive, block as normal. Frankly, I don't see what the userpage has to do with it. Plenty of registered editors have userpages and don't use them, or use them and are just as abusive until they are blocked. That's my thought on it off-hand. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Registered users don't float. Or at least the honest ones don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You created it on May 27th,[74] including a heading for Barnstars. What's up with that? Are you doing this kind of thing routinely? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Bugs, kindly back off a step. I was asked in the help channel (#wikipedia-en-help) to aid an ip in displaying barnstars on his/her userpage. I did so. I'd do it again. I assume good faith. Now faith has been broken. Now sanction if necessary. If you want to make this an issue, bring an RfC at WP:IP or WP:USERPAGE. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • You had no business granting that IP's request, for reasons stated by other users above. IP's float. They don't need user pages. If you ever again grant an IP's request for a user page, I may well take you to an RfC/U. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Show me the consensus against ips having userpages or I'm not really interested in this conversation. IPs sometimes float. I've had many for several months or longer. I don't accept declarations and threats, so do what you want, but if you want me involved, consider changing your approach. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
          • IP's often float. The IP in this case has had 3 just since January. You need to investigate an IP's behavior and duration before just blindly granting such a request. I've granted such requests myself - with IP's that had been around for awhile and appeared to be trustworthy. This one (who is now banned, FYI) was neither. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't see that request as a big deal. I'm not doing sock/checkuser investigations before dealing with ips who have no clear problems on that account and who ask in good faith for help. The userpage became a problem and now it is gone, but the user was the problem, not the userpage. I assume you don't object to ips having talk pages? And IPs can put editor hit-lists on their talk page just as easily. So what is the difference? The userpage is a red herring here, it wasn't the problem; the editor was. Fulfilling the help request was all in due course, as was this block. I think i'm done for this one. I will continue to help ips if they need it. And we'll continue to block them if they abuse it. I don't promise anything more than that right now. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My question is not about this particular IP editor, but about user pages and subpages for dynamic IPs in general. There may be a argument to be made that users editing from a static IP should have user pages, but allowing users editing from a dynamic IP to have them seems likely to cause issues when that user changes IPs (either by happenstance or deliberately). The Wikipedia software appears to be set up with the assumption that IPs do not have user pages: if I click on a username in their signature, I am taken to that user's userpage but if I click on an IP I am taken to their contribution list even if a user page exists; IPs cannot create their own user pages or subpages. This is not to suggest that IP editors are any less valuable than registered users, just a recognition that they have different permissions. Based on the result of the discussions here (deletion and salting of the IP's user page) I will suggest changes at WP:UP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason a dynamic IP should have a userpage. I can understand allowing a fixed IP to have one, but dynamic IPs should never have userpages, as they won't have that IP later. It's just impractical to try and keep up with a dynamic IP to move such pages around. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Israeli border demonstrations

Things are fairly lively over there especially on the talk page. Talk:2011_Israeli_border_demonstrations#Where_exactly_were_events_involving_Syrian-based_demonstrators? has the worst stuff but there is other material elseweher in the talk. I think there is someone using a series of throwaway accounts. Anyone want to watch the page?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've also had my attention drawn to the hatted section.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say that other than one exchange, the heat actually seems pretty low given the topic area. Hobit (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:TAR2C & User:GenoRocks

TAR2C (talk · contribs) GenoRocks (talk · contribs)

(Not sure which other noticeboard to take this to, so I brought it here. Feel free to refer me somewhere else if necessary...) After creating a number of articles that were speedy deleted, and making a number of article edits that were subsequently reverted, TAR2C began using their userpage to write a fake article (I assumed it was either a play on the username or was being used for experimenting). Nothing really unusual...

However, the GenoRocks user account was created today and pretty much begins exclusively editing TAR2C's userpage and linking it to GenoRocks's userpage. That seemed odd, so I left a message on GenoRocks's talk page to ask what their relationship was with TAR2C: [75]. GenoRocks has not responded to my enquiry, but has continued to edit TAR2C's userpage.

I'm not sure if this is sockpuppetry, so I haven't gone to SPI yet. While it's possible they are multiple accounts of the same person, it is equally possible that GenoRocks stumbled upon TAR2C's userpage and just began editing it with or without permission. I say that because one of GenoRocks's very frist edits to the userpage was to replace all of the content: [76]. Also, the style of editing isn't quite the same. If GenoRocks had responded to my question I wouldn't be bringing this here, but at this point I believe some type of administrative attention is required. Singularity42 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At first glance they look like two separate people, possibly classmates or the like. I don't hear much quacking from either account. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this one didn't strike me as being an obvious case of sockpuppetry, and not yet something I would ever take to SPI. My concern that brought me here was that if it isn't sockpuppetry, it's one user using another user's userpage as their personal sandbox, with no indication of permission, etc., which I would think is contrary to WP:USERPAGE. If GenoRocks would just respond instead of just continuing teh behaviour without explanation I don't think I would have raised it as an issue. Singularity42 (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

They're the same person, but I have no idea what they're doing. I've deleted their userpages since we're not a webhost. TNXMan 11:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

user 213.89.48.81

Sports isn't my field, but 213.89.48.81 (talk · contribs) seems to be combining number vandalism, blanking, and some ethnic stuff ignoring Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted confirmation I checked a few of the stats he's editing on sports players and it is vandalism plain and simple, of an extremely misleading kind. Reichsfürst (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has bothered to block this IP. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice he's made a large number of edits in a very short time frame, I checked three random edits and they were incorrect, number vandalism, basically. So I went ahead and reverted all of the edits. If this was incorrect to do, please let me know and I'll change them back, but judging from this discussion, the very short timeframe in which the large number of edits were made, and the edits I checked for verification, it seems that all of the edits are simply to mess up the stats. - SudoGhost™ 11:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

However, the IP still has not been blocked. - SudoGhost™ 11:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A large number of the IP's edits are still the latest (top) edits on a variety of pages. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for 3 days, to match the length of this latest spate of vandalism. Hopefully that will be long enough to convince them to give this up. -- Atama頭 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

an anonymous editor I have a dispute with keeps making edits that are copyright violations

See this diff (the copyrighted source is also cited). I cannot block the user (User:218.186.16.226, among others) and I cannot revert the user because of a current content dispute with this user. It is not merely this sentence, but many others, I have reverted over the past few months (from several IPs). On that same article I deleted two revisions for copyright violations; 279 revisions were moved to Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions and then deleted for copyright violations. In short, the editor seeks to reintroduce copyrighted material over and over again, and this is a cause of especially large headaches. The editor seems to think that copying from government websites is OK, perhaps because of possible suspected employment by the government (see discussion above on Teo Ser Luck). This is not a new issue -- other government-linked editors will often copy entire paragraphs from government sites, using their exact language, onto Wikipedia pages and then format them accordingly. On the grounds of avoiding edit warring I do not want to revert this user any further, so I am asking for some immediate intervention. Thanks. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also in the past, the same user (or related users from the same party), also uploaded a large copyrighted image of Vivian Balakrishnan onto Commons and then would replace the completely free image we had of him with the copyrighted one, even when the copyrighted one was deleted, simply because the copyrighted one was an official government photo. I would like some immediate input into the matter. Thank you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

the recent 3 edits you made were from "he contributed" to 'his men contributed". What a great writeup...Apparently you couldn't rephrase in a better manner. More than one voice has voiced out about how the article in Teo Ser Luck isn't appropriate but you reverted it even when the page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because this modified it from a revision that was too similar in language and style to a government source. Why did you feel the need to resurrect revisions that had been deleted for copyright violations, or re-copy from official sources, and why not elaborate with better prose? As you surely must notice, this page and other pages on government ministers routinely suffer from copyright violation issues. In the last hour or so I deleted two revisions (it was a non-controversial deletion) for copying from the website.

I will go ahead and delete the copyrighted revisions by the above user, if no one else opposes. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some of the edits the user has made they do seem to violate copywright and then he seeks to defend them by vociferously accusing others of violating wikipedia policy. Reichsfürst (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately for the IP, WP:COPYVIO is a Wikipedia policy. "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't going to cut the mustard here. The question, then, becomes whether it would be a more effective administrative effort to block a IP editor or simply semi-protect the article(s) in question for a finite period. I don't think this is something that can be ignored; copyright violation is one of the more egregious violations of policy, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am amused that you think I am behind a billion edits that you are trying to find blame for.

I am amused how you go around maligning people doing edits to be working for government.

I am amused how everytime you lose an argument, you blame government.

I am amused how everytime you lose an argument, you accuse me of violating wiki policy, knowing that I'm new here.

I am amused how you abuse your admin rights to revert even though time and again, I've seen someone issue you a warning that page is protected.

With regards to the copyrights materials, if that is true, I apologise. But your edits are twisting words not making them look less "copyrighted". If you are so capable, rephrase the whole paragraph, not twist a few words (from "he" to "his men" ) thinking that it makes the passage a brand new original one.

I have only reverted the last 3 edits. Not the 279 edits or the copyright photos you have been accusing me of doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm I'm not blaming anyone. The government has a lot of people and most civil servants would be too disgusted (and being too incorruptible) to do that sort of thing anyway. However, as can readily presented (no big secret among Singaporeans), astroturfing by a particular group, probably linked to the Young PAP, has been going around on internet websites, posting trolling messages, derailing conversations on purpose on opposition facebook pages -- distributed DOS attacks were conducted against The Online Citizen and Temasek Review at election times; during election time, unexplained anonymous removal of content was quite rampant. The suspicion remains that edits from government-linked IPs fit your editing pattern -- is this complete coincidence for you? And for the record, you have never replied to my sourcing questions. Wikipedia is not winning arguments. Wikipedia is about discussion and consensus, which you have, to great exasperation, not participated in. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1. You don't understand Starhub uses dynamic IP which does changes.

2. You don't undertstand that even if IP changes, I am still on the same gateway.. So how is someone using 160.x.x.x going to be me? 3. Flaming people to be working for government all the time. 4. Why don't you own up your mistake that you continued reverted even when page is protected? Speaks volume about your attitude. You are just out to win. I don't even know why you claim yourself to be an editor for Teo Ser Luck's page when you didn't even update anything factual about him. You just want a random blog article which made a short mention of him to be listed on his page. I am not the only one disapproving your edit. http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Teo_Ser_Luck 5. I think you work for Temasek Review and you have serious anti-government issues. 6. If Vivian Balakrishan's page have serious copyrights issue, you shouldn't even be editing. it. You kept reverting the word "question" to "accusation", I don't see how that is an edit. 7. You shouldn't even be admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. –MuZemike 18:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Although this problem seems to be solved for the moment, let me make an important point that the OP seems not to be aware of. You cannot fix a copyvio by tweaking the wording to make it less similar. No matter how much you tweak the wording, the expression in the result will still derive from the specific expression in the original, making it still a copyvio; and the evidence for that will be present in the history. The only way to fix a copyvio is to delete the material and rewrite in one's own words. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, do you have a citation for that? If sufficiently changed, there is not copyright violation, expecially for expressions of basic facts, of which there is a limited number of possible permutations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he may be referring to WP:Copyright violations where it says Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure. If sufficiently changed, then yes, it does not become a copyright violation, but I think he may be saying that if there is a copyvio on a page, changing a few words so that it isn't a verbatim doesn't make it legit. - SudoGhost™ 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Even so it's no way to write an article, copying a text in and re-writing it. One must edit from the soul! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that's what Looie496 was saying. - SudoGhost™ 12:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I recognize you are using a metaphor, but it's a dangerous one: the soul in most traditions is not considered as being either rational or objective, but more closely related to imagination and emotion. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Share ramping / misleading information - Beowulf Mining

Beowulf Mining is the subject of ramping on various bulletin boards at the moment and this has carried through to the Wikipedia article, most notably with the companies official announcements of resource estimates (some preliminary) being reported as actual confirmed amounts. This misinformation/ramping is illegal in the UK where the company is listed, and I presume also in the US. I've placed all the details on the talk page - Talk:Beowulf_Mining. Trying to stop this has already taken up too much of my time, and my corrections just get reverted. Please can you stop Wikipedia being used for ramping/misinformation. I've been editing under the 213.246.*.* IPs 213.246.87.225 (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the RNS statement does appear to have been reported in a misleading manner - I've given the editor a warning and will watch the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that pretty much the whole thing seems to be sourced to press releases from the company, I've nominated it for deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added Kallak Iron Deposit and Ruoutevare Iron Deposit to the AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I point out that this deletion request, apparently instigated by an anonymous editor admitting to using a range of ip addresses, can be as much negative promotion as the article was positive. This discussion might be playing into the hands of speculators in whatever direction, and quiet editing would have been much more appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, this might force the article creator(s) into bringing the article up to standards. It's mildly surprising how many articles get "saves" because of a flurry of editing once the AfD listing pops up. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin for speedy close of AfD

Resolved

 – Closed pending outcome of other processes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (neologism) (4th nomination) was opened by an editor who I happen to agree with on the substance of their arguments, but there is already an RfC ongoing *as well as* an ArbCom case. This editor previously blanked the Santorum (neologism) on BLP grounds, which again I agree with the rationale, but not the method here.

Would an admin please speedy close this current AfD? I feel it only clouds the issue and hurts the case for those of us who are trying to change it. -- Avanu (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee and WP:ITN/C

This is over a discussion on WP:ITN/C, specifically Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Start of the 24 Hours of Le Mans (15:00 CEST). User:MickMacNee had a suggestion about a news item on the 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans being added to ITN, and there was some discussion. Most of the discussion I have no problem with, it's obviously a matter of opinions and interpretation of ITN policy, but as the discussion has continued the civility has begun to be thrown out the window. And I can understand some of that as well as the discussion has been heated. However things have begun to take a turn for the worse, and the latest edit has taken things to a level that I think need attention. Specifically, the final part of MickMacNee's edit, which states that his plan is to "...the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine."

Despite reassurances that there have been no attemps to WP:OWN the article on my part and that several other editors have made major contributions to the article, MickMacNee seems to think he's going to be vengeful in his edits. Although updating an article properly is certainly helpful, I'm not quite so sure it is something that can be taken idly when someone claims to do it as a hateful act. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF? You're reporting me to ANI for thought crime? Excellent. That's certainly a new one on me. Your damn right, the only way I will bother to update that article now, to the letter of the ITN requirements, is to get it onto the Main Page, and thus have a flood of editors arriving there to make piss poor edits to it and waste your time having to revert them. Hopefully your exposure of the article at ANI will do this for me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while the debate got a little heated, it certainly didn't raise to the level of needed admin intervention. The discussion was a disappointing one for a lot of reasons but none of them need AN/I space. If I get time I'm going to write something up at ITN talk and get some reactions about how this debate has exposed some ITN problems. But there's no admin intervention needed here. RxS (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The359, welcome to the gang f&#k world that is MMN. Bjmullan (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

RxS, my problem is not with the ITN discussion, its simply the attitude conveyed in the final statement made by MMN that this was something he was taking personal and that he was going to seek out "revenge". That is something that I feel deserves some sort of attention, at the very least some sort of cooling down. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @RxS: The AN/I report obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever problems ITN may or may not have, it's about whether a Wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL, is going to be enforced or not. Clearly an editor who tells another editor "...the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine" has egregiously violated that policy, so an admin needs to act on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone is improving an article, why do we care what their motives are? He can do it for revenge, fun, or to give himself an erection for all I care. If the edits are good, who gives a stuff? As for civility, get over it. Running here is more disruptive than Mick's rather boring potty mouth.--Scott Mac 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes The359 get over it. Didn't you know that there is one rule of civility for us and one for the f*&k fest that is MMN. You are wasting your time here as EVERYONE is frightened of him and will do nothing other than offering up excuses for his behaviour. Bjmullan (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with Scott; the motives might not be the most noble, but unless the edits are unconstructive there is no case. Unless Mick has intimated editors into not contributing to the project. or intentionally attacked editors with the hope of silencing them, I see no justifiable call for admin action. Ed Fitzgerald invokes WP:CIV in seeking punitive action; this to me, signifies the failure of that doctrine more than anything else. Skomorokh 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Motivation will always be a concern when the editor involved raises the issue. We AGF that edits are without unwarranted motivations, until they show themselves to be otherwise or the editor declares that they are editing with a POV, for instance. Once that happens, their contributions are naturally and justifiably put under closer scutiny. Nothing wrong with that, and everything right with it -- it's how we identify SPAs and many sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So Scott, even though you are an admin charged by the community with enforcing Wikipedia policy, you are never going to enforce the civility policy because you, personally, don't agree with it? Could we please have a definitive statement on your user page of what policies you agree with will enforce and which ones you don't and will not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins are not charged with anything, although many of them ought to be. Janitors don't "enforce" anything, other than perhaps clean floors and toilets. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I deal with reality, and not theory, and in reality admins are cops and janitors. (It's rare that janitors are allowed to lock people out of the building selectively: the existance of the power to block makes admins enforcers). But, ok, I'll adopt your metaphor for the moment: the community has given Scott the tools to clean the floors and mop the toilets, but it appears that Scott refuses to clean the toilets on the fifth floor because he doesn't like the tiling in there. What other toilets and floors will Scott not clean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Like every other admin, I only clean the floors I choose to clean. I'm a volunteer. It is that simple.--Scott Mac 23:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but, although you may not see the distinction, there's a difference between just not doing X, and carrying a stance against X to the point that you tell other editors to "Get over it". WP:CIVIL remains policy and one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS, not an essay, a guideline or someone's crackpot idea, and it's unseemly for admins to go around telling editors that they shouldn't be concerned when it is breached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee was in January, and included civility issues. Rd232 ^talk 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Far beyond just what was said to the OP, Mick's behaviour at the (now closed) section in general has been far from perfect, especially since everyone else has expressed their opinions in a civil manner (it has to be said the OP was becoming less calm as the argument discussion went on). This comment on the talk page of an uninvolved admin who reverted his reversion of the discussion's close takes the cake. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be time for you to take your own advice here and let this one go. For the record while I agree with the closing of the ITN/C debate, I think that you should not been the one to do it, it just added heat to an already inflamed situation. I ask an uninvolved editor now to close this. Mtking (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why close it. Not only has he made his plans known in ITN, he repeated them here as well! It's not that his plan bothers me or that it will "work", it's just that someone who says their intent is to cause problems for another user simply because they had a disagreement and "ruined their weekend". It is pretty harassing in its nature and I can see how someone could easily be discouraged from editing because of such statements, and certainly from someone making bold claims of WP:OWN against myself. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Because only threats have been made so far and by continuing this topic only adds fuel to the fire, close it now, if there is a problem later it can be re-opened. Mtking (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Threats are not a serious matter and should simply be ignored until actions are actually taken? That's pretty backwards IMHO. I could think of several other ways to avoid adding fuel to the fire. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you get over yourself already. My only 'threat' here was to update an article sufficiently to get it posted to the Main Page. What a fucking crime eh. The fact you feel that this would have caused problems for you, only underlines your ownership issues. As it happens, you got your way and your novel idea of what constitutes an ITN article on something like this, basically a GA, has somehow prevailed. I no longer want anything to do with the whole mess, not even to do the actual minumum udpate as required by the actual ITN rules, which is most certainly not to get it looking like a GA. The article has barely been read or editted, good or bad, and no readers or editors ever got to find out the race was even happening while it was happening. Two of the 3 main purposes of ITN have been completely ignored, in favour of shutting down a clusterfuck of a debate featuring your wrong ideas of what ITN is, alongside other objections on complete BURO grounds, alongside people who clearly didn't even do the basic thing and read the nomination request, as a 'no conensus', with all support opinions from several ITN regulars, completely and utterly nullified. And you're still claiming to be the victim in this whole thing. Unbelievable. And it's over 2 hours since it actually finished and it's not looking like anyone even cares about even posting the final result, even though it's an ITN/R and that's what is supposed to happen for ITN/R items. That's why that list exists. The most prestigeous endurance race in the world has one of its best races yet, and ITN just continues its daily drudge of the 'not news news', namely death and elections, while we wait for some mythical policy discussion to be started to figure out the supposed 'Great Matter' of policy that the nomination raised as to whether a current event is really current when its current or just after it was current, or whether the way we try and get ITN to not be 'the news' is to simply be the worst news service in the world, posting only when the minimal update has been made, well after the event, when no reader or editor who actually knows the sport would be remotely interested, and no editor or reader who didn't, was going to get any benefit at all. So, that's strike 3 on the whole 'purpose of ITN'. At least nobody tried to use it as a live race report eh, as that's of course the most important thing in the world. Ha. Fat chance. For that to happen, people have to know the article even exists. We can't be doing that, not Wikipedia! And yet again I wonder why the fuck I even bother with it, when what I could have been doing was just watching and enjoying the race in its entirety. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying you only said you going to update the article for ITN criteria is pure delusion and backpedaling. You even responded to this ANI about your intent with the edits - "...thus have a flood of editors arriving there to make piss poor edits to it and waste your time having to revert them. Hopefully your exposure of the article at ANI will do this for me." Is this what Wikipedia is about? Using editing as a means to one-up someone, to bring someone down because they have disagreed with you? And how this is somehow swept under the rug by others is beyond belief - it is pure and utter harassment, even if it does not ever come to fruition. It meets the very definition of discouraging editors, and is further advanced by your discouraging belief that I needed experience on ITN in order to have my opinions about an ITN discussion.

All of the discussion about the ITN discussion is moot as the ANI is about your behaviour, not the topic of the ITN. Your opinion of what ITN is and how ITN discussions should be kept to the "regulars" does not condone your vengeful attitude, let alone that you should take any of this as personal. Your weekend was ruined? I don't give a damn, and why the hell would I? Who the hell has their weekend ruined because of an ITN/C discussion?

You seem to have this great paranoia and this great imagination for things I supposed have said or what I have meant when I said some things. Let me be perfectly clear - every single isntance of "no you really mean this" or "you're trying to do this" that you've said in the past 24+ hours has been completely and utterly wrong. So this vendetta has been utterly and completely useless, because not only was it unwarrented, but it also has not in the slightest produced the results that you think it would have. The only thing I've been pissed about from the last 24+ hours is that I missed more of the race due to work than I had hoped.

Your opinions of ITN and ITN discussions are irrelevant to this discussion as we are discussing you, not ITN. Your feelings on ITN can be discussed where produent. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody acted on your claims of 'harassment' because it's categorically not harassment, much less a meanignfull or even logical threat at all, unless of course, the article being on the Main Page will infact have a direct effect on you. And as you have continually asserted, it wouldn't. It's catch-22 for you. Either you did actually feel threatened because the situation is not as you've described, or you didn't, but you thought you could achieve something here by cliaming you had been, in which case it's hard to see this report as anything but 'vengeful' from my perspective I'm afraid. And no, I never said you could not participate at ITN, I said that as a non-regular you were wrong in your stated ideas about what the rules are, and once that's been pointed out to you by a regular, then no, you do not have any 'right' to continue to claim your opinion is valid. Doing so is the 'very definition' of incivility, and 'discourages' everybody, regardless of their status as regulars or occasional visitors. Yes, this ANI was about my behaviour, and not one person in any authority gave much credence to your complaint, let alone acted on it (until RD232 commenced his attack). It even garnered a lower than usual response from the people who hate my guts and take any opportunity to pile on a report where I've actually done something wrong, in the hope of getting some kind of action. Why you cannot accept that, is beyond me. If you want, you can take some succour in the fact that this ridiculous report did at least get hijacked by RD232, who as an involved admin used it to make multiple attacks on me, to the point where someone I've never had any interactions with feels the need to file an arbitration case on me as 'enough is enough' (wtf?, enough of what? enough of me being used as a target by a rogue admin?). Paranoia? Sure. I feel ever so 'encouraged' to continue participating in Wikipedia now. MickMacNee (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not knowingly had any communication with MickMacNee before. I made one post in that ITN thread, and got a very rude, sarcastic response from him. It was not a pleasant experience. I am now another editor totally unimpressed with MickMacNee's attitude and behaviour. It does not help build a better encyclopaedia. And it certainly discouraged me from trying to add anything more there. Wikipedia should be able to do something about such incivility. People with Admin status who join these conversations but won't do anything about it should resign their Adminship. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. What we are seeing is that WP:CIVIL is enforced in a totally selective way. Some people get away with prolonged disruptive, abusive behaviour (cf [[77]]) whilst others get threatened with blocks for merely reporting such abuse. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48 made an 'ironic' post to ITN/C comparing two completely different events, simply to make a 'request' he knew would not be fulfilled. The only motivation behind that was to mock the nomination being discussed. The fact he even stated "I am simply highlighting the silliness of demands to post the car race before it starts", even though no such demand had even been made, shows just what he was up to. If he wants to call that sort of nonsense his way of building a better encyclopoedia, more power to him. If he wants to call that civility, he's got a lot to learn about what civility actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For someone who before 16 hours ago knew absolutely nothing about me, and has seen only one post from me, which happened to disagree with his view, that post is full of mind reading arrogance. It shows that so far in this discussion he seems to have learnt absolutely nothing about good faith. Any Admin looking at this thread MUST realise that asking him nicely is unlikely to change this behaviour, which obviously discourages others whose primary goal is making this a better encyclopaedia. I don't want to pretend to be a mind reader, but that doesn't seem to be MickMacNee's goal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The post is right there in black and white. No mind reading necessary. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: following this exchange of mine with Mick I'm hardly in any position to sanction him (WP:INVOLVED). Also enforcing civility is notoriously difficult. We could try putting Mick on a "civility probation" edit restriction, which would make it more likely that future breaches would result in sanctions. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally informed everyone as to what your interest is in me. Given the way you completely undermined the community civility sanction placed on Delta with your unilateral block reduction which backfired spectacularly, and shut down of an actual ANI discussion where there were plenty of actualy uninvolved people wanting to see action on an actual incivil editor with an actual proven record of failed intervention far beyond a measly voluntary User Rfc, whose community sanction came as the condition of return from a year long ban with not 1 but 2 abrcom cases with incivility as a central component behind them, then I can only see this proposal, in this place, from your position of involvement, as a complete and utter irony. All we need now is an admin to unilaterally close the whole thing and it would the the ironic cherry on the irony cake. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

MickMacNee's responses here move me to formally propose an edit restriction:

MickMacNee shall remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Breaches shall be met with escalating blocks.

This achieves nothing in itself, but makes it more likely that future obnoxiousness be actually sanctioned, instead of merely upsetting people. It may also finally motivate Mick to try harder to express himself less stridently, which may get his points across better when he is in the right. [PS: in case it wasn't already abundantly clear from this thread, I'm not a neutral party here. Rd232 ^talk 18:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)] Rd232 ^talk 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC) struck to allow reformulation below, since no relevant comment received yet. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What are your recall conditions RD232. I intend to either start the recall process on you based on the complete hypocrisy towards upholding community expectations of civility that you are showing towards me compared to Delta, or if that fails, open an arbitration case to have your fitness to be an admin examined, as I think you are far below even the minimum expected. As ever, as regards this specific proposal, there is nothing stopping any admin actually sanctioning an editor should they think that they have been incivil. I have been subject to blocks, even escalating ones, in the past, for actual incivility. Christ, I've even had one admin try and unilaterally ban me before, believing another block was not going far enough. In that particular case he exceeded his authority far beyond his position, and I dealt with him, just as I'm going go deal with you RD232. When none of your peers have even described this incident as a 'breach', then this proposal from your self-admitted position of involvement is nothing short of a disgrace. This 'sanction' is meaningless, a pathetic attempt by RD232 to take revenge on me for rightly criticising his failures as an admin here and elsewhere. It's just another classic case of somone confusing being embarassed or criticised, with having been the victim of incivility, and in admin's case, confusing their role as someone to give uninvolved opinions/action, with someone who is in a position to settle scores with editors they do not much like using the extra gravitas of their position. I'm not scared of you RD232, and I'm not going to roll over and take this lying down. MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that kinda speaks for itself. At this point, your serial obnoxiousness makes me more likely to support a siteban, were one proposed, than to withdraw my (non-admin - where does my admin hat come into this?) proposal. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

MMN is a bit of a jerk but he's correct in this specific case. You don't get to pretend you're a) noninvolved and b) making a 'non-admin' proposal. You're an admin and thus any action you take re:bans/blocks is going to be viewed in that way. I Jtrainor (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(a) I already stated I'm involved. (b) it's an action any editor can take, and I've already stated I'm involved; ergo it is not an admin action. Rd232 ^talk 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. I want you to. I want to be able to add that further disgrace to my case that you are not fit to be an admin, to show that in my case with our history and off the back of this report, you think proposing a site ban is completely normal and justifiable, and then compare and contrast that to exactly what you did in Delta's case. Both apparently in the name of respect for the upholding of civility. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My remark was carefully worded. At this point I would oppose a site ban proposal if it didn't make a very good case. A mere "let's get rid of him" wouldn't be enough. I must say, however, that my experience of interactions with you would mean my disappointment at such a proposal succeeding would be somewhat limited. As to an arbcom case - go nuts. Mind the boomerang. PS I do find your obsession with the Delta incident vaguely perturbing; as if reducing a block from 48 hrs to 24, as a compromise reflecting a divided discussion between overturning and lengthening it, is somehow responsible for much of the world's ills.Rd232 ^talk 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The time for rehashing your excuses over your handling of Delta will be at your recall or an arbcom case, where people will have the whole history to hand, and can see the full impact of your total naivety and complete lack of due diligence or even basic respect for admin colleagues and the community in that regard. They can also compare and contrast it with this report as to how you do and don't pay attention to what other people say in ANI sections, and whether your penchant for not doing any due diligence is a common trait in every case you interfere with. I don't want to hear anything from you except your recall conditions. A civil admin would have already taken note of that request and responded accordingly by now. Your intentional deafness however is no surprise, as I've seen it before as you've pissed me around with this act of yours. Maybe you should assuage my concerns and put yourself up for a nice little Editor Review? Seems to be working for Treasury Tag, the other ANI case you interfered with without any due diligance or care for others admins views, to no real actual effect. Again. MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I addressed your "recall" over-reaction by noting its irrelevance here, since I'm not acting as an admin here. But since you insist, I'll point out what an editor of your experience should have been able to check: I'm not listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. I won't waste my breath explaining to you why I think voluntary recall is pointless and compulsory dangerous; you wouldn't listen anyway. Suffice to say that Arbcom can handle desysopping as required. As to Editor Review? No, I've had enough feedback about those ANI incidents, the balance strongly positive. Rd232 ^talk 20:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What you class as an admin like response to that request is duly noted. Glad to see that there are some situations that you will actually recognise my status as an experienced editor, even if it still doesn't lead you to a place where you will act civily yourself though. And for future reference, on the ANI board please don't claim people say things without providing any diffs, if you want your claims to be taken seriously. I should not have to repeat by now that in these 'supporters', you probably wouldn't even know the difference between an independent party or not in the Delta case, given the innacuracy of many of your past comments on it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"probably wouldn't even know the difference between an independent party or not in the Delta case" - experience shows it's pointless debating with you, but for the benefit of passersby, the feedback I mentioned didn't come from those who agree with Delta, who would have overturned the block altogether. But this is unbelievably academic anyway; a subsequent discussion at AN about Delta was lengthy and somewhat more productive, and led to an RFC which might possibly help a little about the core issue. But for some reason Mick wants Delta hanged for a single incivility, and by proxy me for interfering with that, despite the fact that Mick sprays obnoxiousness, incivility and bad faith at a rate that makes Delta look like a choirboy. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded below. It's too much work to keep track of all the insults you are throwing at me tonight. MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Original proposal, refactored to remove commentary

MickMacNee's responses here move me to formally propose an edit restriction:

MickMacNee shall remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Breaches shall be met with escalating blocks.

This achieves nothing in itself, but makes it more likely that future obnoxiousness be actually sanctioned, instead of merely upsetting people. It may also finally motivate Mick to try harder to express himself less stridently, which may get his points across better when he is in the right. I should note, in case it wasn't already abundantly clear from this thread, I'm not a neutral party here. Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would add that Mick's attempt to hijack the original proposal by attacking me is another illustration of why something must be done, and I've yet to see a better suggestion. Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for responding to your disgracefull hypocritical approach to administration, and your own baseless attempt at hijacking this ANI thread with a self-serving proposal of your own. Something you took a dim view of elsewhere. Horses for courses I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks, and my opinion of you sinks ever lower. I tell you what: I'll do a reconfirmation RFA if you put yourself up for a site ban. Wikipedia would be better off without you; your behaviour demoralises more editors than your contributions can possibly make up for. Rd232 ^talk 21:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha. At least we're getting to the heart of the matter. You know fuck all about me frankly, and your accusations are as groundless as ever. On the ANI board no less. Are you still claiming immunity here as acting as a non-admin? I'm getting confused now. And as with the Delta case, you aren't likely to do your research on me either before chucking out this nonsense, it's beyond clear that you go by what you experience personally, which is of course going to be affected by your own actions. That's why Delta is absolutely convinced that everybody else is the problem and he's the sole protector of NFCC policy. Go find one goddam person who will ever say I have EVER tried to use my contributions or activities here as any kind of defence against any attempted sanction of any kind. Delta was well established as an industrial scale mass demoralizer of editors before I even registered on this site. He had a different name back then. I wonder how long it took you to even realise that tbh, seeing as you didn't even know he'd even operated an NFCC bot before until well after you'd started interfering with the sanctions placed on him chiefly due to his behaviour in that era. And that was a hell of a long time ago now. You'll find it all in the 2 prior arbitration cases, the year long ban appeal, and the many many many draft sanctions discussions. The fact you think your discussion on AN did anything that hadn't been covered a hundred times before by many admins in the past, is fucking hilarious. It was GroundHog Day in full stereo, only with the added amusement of your rather novel ideas about a content policy you don't seem too familiar with at all. With his actual documented record here, the fact you think I'm worse than Delta is an insult of the highest order, some might even call it a personal attack. It's certainly something that doesn't stand up to any kind of independent scrutiny whatsoever. The fact you seem to think you're blazing a trail on NFC enforcement, similarly so. MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And while it's taken as read that you probably class my own response to the proposal as "no relevant comment", I'm not entirely clear what you saw in Jtrainor's comment on it above to similarly class it so, in this attempt at refactoring it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a comment on the merits of the proposal. Rd232 ^talk 21:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion. Did it even cross your mind you're not really in any position to making those kinds of calls here? Did you even think to ask his permission? MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know I needed to ask others' permission to strike my own comments. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're wikilawyering? You rebooted the exact same proposal minus someone else's comment, based on your judgement that it wasn't relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not forgetting of course that the striking was your second attempt at refactoring this in a proper manner. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I give up. No-one else seems interested in stopping the fountain of aggression and self-righteousness that is MickMacNee. So I'm going to count myself among the editors MickMacNee has sufficiently demoralised to wish to leave Wikipedia, at least temporarily. I will enforce this with a self-block, which Mick is welcome to consider sanction for the many sins he imagines I have committed. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope that this little tantrum is being done in your 'I'm not here as an admin' persona. If you think that this is the way an admin is supposed to go about dealing with an editor he has described in the various terms you've used above, then I don't see that you're going to retain this ability to block yourself for too much longer. You're demoralized? I'm the person who's had to respond to this all night, as you fuck me around very publicly on the ANI board. You very generous offer that I can consider this as a sanction, is your parting shame tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

This is now at arbcom. Chester Markel (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, having never heard of you or interacted with you, and not seeing anybody trying to continue this ANI above except the original filer and the involved admin, I am to say the least puzzled by what supposedly has been 'enough' here for you to file this case. And given that you did this while I was asleep and several people have already commented now, I guess I have no choice now but to go along with it. P.S. If you want to refactor ANI discussions to insert headers, please use accurate and neutral headings. There were never 2 proposals in here, and your assertion that 'enough is enough' was needlessly inflammatory to say the least. I've changed them accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I strongly object to the archiving of this thread as if it was somehow an active dispute that has simply passed on to arbitration after not finding any resolution from ordinary admins. That is a total smear frankly, and couldn't be further from the truth. As said above, I have no idea why this one editor chose this route of escalation, but his filing of a case is no reason to then force anyone who still had something to say on this specific issue, to have to go and wade through that, wasting their time figuring out the arbitration page procedures. I certainly do not expect to be prevented from responding to further points made while I've been away, painting me in a bad light if left unanswered, not least when the archiver has been accused of doing exactly that in the arbitration case! If this thread couldn't have been archived by the time it was clear that it was only being used by RD232 as a way to attack me before he chose to bizarrly block himself, then I don't see why it should have been actively archived now due to one editors incomprehensible decision to file an arbitration case as his one and only contribution to it, instead of being left to be archived as normal and in the state the discussion had naturally ended, if and when other people had stopped commenting. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain what all the commotion is about concerning ITN/C stuff. Heck, you & I have no trouble working out our differances on the 'pedia. We certaintly don't take each other to ANI or Arbcom. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll unarchive it then. No skin off my nose. I thought it'd be better for everyone for the discussion to be in one place, and to your benefit too MickMacNee so that you don't have to respond at multiple places. But if you object then I'll remove the templates, sorry about the fuss. -- Atama頭 00:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange new users with same profile.

As I am doing new user patrol I have noticed strange new users created with same profile in last several days.[78] Can any admin look at this matter?--Shrike (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My first thought was students in a class, but not with the identical profile these folks have. Maybe you need to open an SPI. LadyofShalott 20:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the default wording on the userpage step for the new signup process. I don't remember where it was announced...can't find it atm on any of the noticeboards I usually watch. I'm guessing it was archived with little discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm back to my first thought with evidence now: User:MTHarden/SU11-Assignment. They signed up through the account creation improvement process. LadyofShalott 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's just some of them. I think Onorem has the real answer. I'm going to shut up now. LadyofShalott 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed because not everyone like biology or snakes--Shrike (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At least some of them actually say "replace the example text below with information about yourself" (or something close to that). So there is nothing malicious here... we just discovered a flaw in the ACIP current testing. LadyofShalott 20:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, but then I saw this: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hannibal/draft/2, which is the boilerplate default for userpage creation when nobody changes anything in that text box. As a result, we now have several hundred, if not thousand users who apparently speak both English and French, are interested in biology and in particular snakes, and who listen to a lot of music in their off-time. It is a little irksome in that regard alone, not to mention making it harder to detect disruptive accounts. Unfortunately, until a better alternative can be set up, we need to AGF on each of the accounts until Wikimedia Outreach's Account Creation Program can be better refined. –MuZemike 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not really the ACP's fault—people just don't understand what "replace this text" means. Perhaps changing the relevant javascript used for that pre-loaded stuff can block the default text, but maybe not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Outreach or not, I'd like to see this disabled. Redlinked userpages are a valuable clue when scanning recent changes for trouble, and I don't really want to have to click all the unfamiliar editor names to see if they are herpetologists.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Let editors create their own userpages. At least a red link is better than a default user page with inaccurate information. -- Atama頭 22:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me a little while to figure out why we had a sudden influx of bilingual herpetologists joining. It makes it harder to monitor accounts that look like they could be role accounts, because they sometimes add their spam on the second edit now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yotemordis and AfD

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.

---

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

User:Yotemordis is a newly created account whose first action was to nominate an article for deletion. Since then this user has been nominating articles for deletion at a rate of about one per six minutes; in any case faster than I can keep up to see if the nominations are justified. Needless to say, in many cases they are not. I don't know what this means, but I don't have a good feeling about it, and the phrase block evasion comes to mind. Perhaps someone recognizes the pattern?  --Lambiam 01:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I did it wrong but If I think it should be deleted shouldn't it?Yotemordis (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think over half of the pages Yotemordis has proposed should not be deleted (possibly all, I haven't checked). I think they should stop proposing pages for deletion until they understand the criteria better, and spend much more time on trying to improve pages before deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as the same user:

• Thisbites (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yotemordis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Whydyougoanddothat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All accounts have been indefinitely blocked, including the sockmaster Thisbites, who has already had an extensive block log and numerous blocks for vandalism and disruption.  IP blocked. –MuZemike 01:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that at least this AfD nomination has some merit and should not be shut down only because it was started by that sock. De728631 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And I've just punched every one of his noms except that one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. De728631 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Randy in Boise problem on the ISS page

Resolved

 – Content dispute combined with severe misunderstanding, all sides apparently professing themselves satisfied. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to edit the ISS page today, correcting misleading statements on the brighness and adding some extra clarifications, but I ended up in an edit war. Despite explaining things on the talk page, I didn't make much progress, because someone thinks that the website of some planetarium is a reliable source. Because I can't get people to actually think, instead of mindlessly regurgitating what some source says, I'll stop editing there. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Diff explaining my point in more detail. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have revoked RadioFan's Twinkle access because of edit summaries like this. NW (Talk) 02:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both Count Iblis [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] and RadioFan [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] disregarded the 3RR rule in that article. The concurrent discussion on the article's talk page appeared to be progressing, but does not justify Count Iblis' revert warring with edit summaries of "per talk". Both editors should have known better. Thus, to correct the behavior, I suggest at least a 24-hour block for each. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also, for Count Iblis to call RadioFan a "Randy in Boise" could be considered a personal attack, and it appears that he did not notify RadioFan of this thread after he opened it. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "personal attack", even if Count Iblis had explicitly named the target of his "Randy in Boise" insinuation, which he did not in fact do. Nevertheless, I can't see how insinuating that he is an expert while his opponents in the discussion are "uninformed but relentless" ignoramuses—even if it's true—is likely to do anything other than further inflame the dispute.

It's not clear to me what further administrator intervention is called for, but I have now notified RadioFan and Penyulap of this discussion anyway.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a newbie editor, I've been working very hard to update the ISS page, and I understand what both these men have been going through, poor examples have been set on that page in the recent past. I'd asked for arbitration to deal with a problem person not involved with this incident, someone who was refusing to discuss anything, making life impossible, both the edit page and the summary have been setting a bad example as a result. In this small dispute, certainly there have been textbook issues on both sides, but this incident is water under the bridge in 5 minutes because both of these guys are mature and articulate enough to work together, here to edit, and their help is desperately required !! At the moment, both these editors are most of the workforce, and I look forward to working with both of them in the future. They don't come to Wiki to lose time in arguing, they both come here to contribute to making the articles better. Seriously, tomorrow we'll all be back at it working better together, and I really look forward to it. Penyulap _talk 07:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone involved here forgot to assume good faith, myself included. This got way out of hand really quickly and I know I was wrong in labeling this issue as vandalism. There are 2 issues here though, the edit war and the subsequent involvement by NW and John directed at me.

It got really ugly when I attempted, in good faith, to discuss the reverts and my labeling them as vandalism with NW and John. Neither seems to have seen that as a good faith discussion as both took increasingly more drastic steps in removing privileges from my account. First twinkle then rollbacker then reviewer then a couple more that I saw stream by last night. Each of those was removed not because of further abuse of any of those tools or interaction with Count Iblis or anyone else involved in the ISS article, but happend as I asked a question of John or NW about their interpretation of the situation and wikipedia guidelines on vandalism. John stopped short of a ban and left a note on my talk page explaining that this was an edit war, and doesn't fit the definition of vandalism and that good faith must be assumed for an established editor, and he's absolutely right. It's hard not to see the stripping of tools as punitive not for the edit war and resulting 3RR violation but instead for questioning these admins. Say you are sorry and this all goes away is empty and meaningless and isn't a good way to handle this in my opinion, understand where you went wrong and then say you are sorry is far more productive. John and NW didn't see it that way and forgot to assume good faith themselves along the way. I also get the Randy in Boise reference and can see it as a personal attack, but it's obviously retaliatory for being wrongly called a vandal so let's call it even and move it.

As for the article and the content in question. Count Iblis was trying to improve the article but forgot WP:V in the process. Well referenced material from 2 well respected sources (see the talk page for details) was removed by Count Iblis because the information was "obviously wrong" in his words. Attempts to come to better understand Iblis's issue with the material were met with more vague pronouncements of it being "wrong". Overnight Iblis left this this note on my talk page explaining that he can only show that material in question is "wrong" by"giving a thermodynamics course ". This "because I'm right and you are wrong" approach doesn't fit very well here, especially when challenging edits which are clearly within WP:V. Iblis has a history of tangling with other editors over technical topics and even makes the pronouncement that his failed proposal on editing technical topics is considered policy by him. Hard not to see this as anything but entering into editing and interaction with other editors in bad faith.

I was wrong in my treatment of this as vandalism, it's an edit war that got out of control, pure and simple. Count Iblis is an experienced editor who is obviously knowledgable in physics topics but his agressive approach to editing, insistence that he may set policy and apparent frequent involvement in arbitrations (judging from his talk page) as well as topic bans is an issue that needs to be addressed here as well.--RadioFan (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful in relating the content of other editors' comments. Count Iblis did not say in the note to your talk page which you cited that he could 'only show that material in question is "wrong" by giving a thermodynamics course.' That statement was very clearly referring to material in a completely unrelated dispute about entropy which Count Iblis says he was engaged in two years ago.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No but Count Iblis did call the material "wrong" multiple times on the talk page. Didn't think I needed to provide specific diffs there since it's the subject of this AIN and is readily available.--RadioFan (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see my twinkle and rollback privileges are back this morning. Not sure which editor did this but I appreciate the gesture and will do my best to use these tools and privileges more wisely in the future--RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, I don't think you needed to provide any other diffs, but I also can't see that there's anything in what I wrote to suggest that you did, so I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you thought it necessary to make that observation.

The "material" which Count Iblis appears to me to have been claiming to be "wrong" is the assertion that the International Space Station has an "apparent magnitude of -6", which originally appeared in the article. Since you later corrected this to read "a maximum apparent magnitude of -5.9" the rightness or wrongness of the original assertion should no longer be an issue. I can't find any statement by Count Iblis in which he characterises the latter corrected version of this assertion as "wrong", but he clearly believes it is misleading, and seems to me to have given very cogent and convincing reasons for that opinion, none of which you appear to have made any attempt to address.

Count Iblis has indicated that mentioning the figure of -6 for the estimated maximum brightness of the Space Station would be acceptable to him, provided his concerns were to be allayed by the addition of some further clarifying explanation. I therefore can't see that there's any insurmountable obstacle to your working out a mutually acceptable wording for the disputed text on the talk page. What you cannot reasonably do is continue to insist that your preferred version of the article is fine as it is without at least providing a convincing rebuttal to the points Count Iblis has raised on the talk page.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:V should not be used to defend obviously mistaken statements simply because some "reliable sources" make that statement. Arguments why there is an issue on the talk page cannot be dismissed just because you claim that the sources are high quality sources, without seriously engaging in the argument. This is exactly a "Randy in Boise" situation which makes editing the article on that point to correct the error, impossible.

RadioFan, like the two other editors in previous cases (on Entropy and Special Relativity some years ago) is i.m.o. too much attached to a particular phrase in a particular source (ISS being magnitude -6 makes it the brightest object after the Sun and Moon). The issue with this is that in reality the ISS is approximately -4 when it is overhead, and there is huge difference between it being -6 or -4. In the later case its possible, but quite difficult to spot it during broad daylight conditions, while in the former case, it would be so bright that you could easily see it at Noon. And sources will point out that spotting the ISS during Noon is indeed a tour de force.

There are many sources that give the ISS passes with the magnitude and they list the brightness when it is near the Zenith as approximately -4 and not -6 (different sources give different values, some say its -3.8, others give -4.5 for the brighness, so simply saying that its approximately -4 is the right thing to do). Then we can also find out where the -6 figure comes from, its the theoretical brightness computed in some way under assumptions that in practice never arise (and that can be found in sources too).

But all this information form the sources can all be dismissed when arguing on the basis of Wiki policies only (they are all websites, so they are unreliable sources) and then you can still stick to the -6, because the Hayden Planetarium says so, and that is a reliable source, period :) . Count Iblis (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've still got to point back to the first sentence of WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "obviously wrong" is not verifiable. This may be frustrating at times, but it's how we prevent chaos like this. The material in question is specific to maximum brightness but Count Iblis is talking specifical about observed brightness, which are very different things. I think it's pretty clear in the article that the -5.9 figure is a maximum for comparison purposes. I agree that this can be clarified so that readers can make sense of it in relation to what they see on various websites as the predicted brightness for their area. Removing this maximum figure doesn't make sense to me as the purpose of the section is to talk about how big and bright this object is and not compare it to other objects. If there are issues with the accuracy of the -5.9 maximum, a reliable source refuting this would help here. Sources that mention other numbers dont cut it because they aren't specifically talking about a maximum for this object, they are talking about the observed magnitude for that particular pass at that particular location.--RadioFan (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, the discussion seems to have transitioned into a content dispute, which would be better suited to the article Discussion page, or if it can't be settled by consensus there, through dispute resolution. Given the fairly amiable and constructive tones of the participants, this non-admin doesn't see a need for any admin to take action (that hasn't already been taken, anyway). May I humbly suggest moving this off ANI and back to the Discussion page? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'd like to point out that my bad memory needs to take a lot of the responsibility for this. When I originally wrote the piece with -6 in it, I had done exhaustive research first. But my efforts to update the first paragraph have been frustrated, whereas anything further down the page is met with acceptance (in depth readers seem to accept changes because of their in depth knowledge while cursory readers make cursory changes to the first paragraph limit of their reading ? I'm unsure. Btw Neither of these editors are anything but in depth researchers.) My original additions to the First paragraph have been trampled underfoot and lost, I don't have a clue where half the stuff is, and things missing there need adding to other sections now, anyhow. My point is, when I went looking for 'why -6' I could not recall, and began looking for it all over again, posting up parts of the trail that led to the final conclusion which i could not find. Count, you were too fast editing the main page. I know you did give me time to find the references, and I have to apologize to you for being unable to do so because of my bad memory, I am sorry for that and the immense trouble it has caused. Eventually I did as I had originally done, stumbled in on the Magnitude page, and that ended all further research. Sometimes, if I want to quote a wikipage as a source, I put 'see also Magnitude' at he end of the statement, which lasts about 6.35 minutes on average before the next editor moves, deletes or otherwise vanishes it away, I'm hopelessly green here. My efforts to describe what I am doing in the talkpage have resulted in pages upon pages of talking to myself, with no comments or consensus reached. Even the major contributor to the page, i think an administrator, won't talk to me. He'll just leave a lot of my work alone, re-arrange other parts in a manner that defies my analysis, and leaves without a word. I'm lucky to get an edit summary from him.

I really wish I could get help going through section by section of the cleanup I was doing, get feedback, editing and then consensus, and a shred of protection against un-discussed changes. If Count Iblis leaves, I'm back to square one. If RadioFan and Count Iblis leaves, I'm out the door, because what is the point ? all the hard work in the world is pointless when my recent problems (I won't mention and therefore have to draw that person here) highlight that a non-cooperative effort at editing isn't going to work and will end in frustration and despair. Only 3 editors have half a chance to fix this page, against the onslaught of cursory editing that occurs. See the international space station#Media section I added, and you'll see what a problem editors armed with legitimate referenced sources can do to the page, I put that section up there temporarily just to abbreviate my explanation to each of the expected taxi rank of next editors. Anyhow, I type too much and waste everyone's time waffling on, but I had no choice except to apologize for my poor memory to those involved. Penyulap _talk 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Alan, sorry. (wondering if I didn't see your message because it took 3 hours to type all that, probably not) Penyulap _talk 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Motaros

So this user has a history of jumping between accounts. The user was blocked while using User:M4pnt, but was then unblocked with the promise of only using one account. After a while the user moved on to User:Mtlv0 anyway, saying that he forgot the password to the old account. Fair enough. The user was blocked, then explained this and subsequently unblocked. During the time this account was blocked, however, the user made a new one: User:C0un+5.

So this user not only moved to a new account yet again, but also did it while the old account was still blocked. What is going on is not only account jumping despite being told not to several accounts back, but also socking.

The history of old accounts can be found here. Nymf _hideliho! 07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As the user who started the second SPI regarding this user, I feel I should comment. This is becoming a problem. This user generally ignores Wikipedia policy, or takes a very long time to accept it. They refuse to take the time to read policies linked to them, requiring another user (lately, me) to quote, paraphrase, and so on. Even then they will start editing properly on some articles, while continuing their non-policy-based edits on other articles. Although they claim that they won't keep creating new accounts and moving on, they do so anyway (especially in this case, where they were blocked for a couple days, and immediately went on to create a new account). I think both Nymf and I have put in more than a reasonable effort in trying to help this editor improve their editing, but it's come to a point where the effort isn't yielding the necessary results.

I hate to say it, but this user just isn't interested in becoming a better editor, and is becoming more and more of a disruption. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whip out the hammer, whack the mother****** and deposit him directly into /dev/null! No Miranda warning, enough of the three-strikes-you're-out shit; first offense, BAM, into /dev/null you go! —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bumped as it just got archived. Any administrator around willing to deal with this user? Nymf _hideliho! 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The quick suggestion would be to run an SPI on Motaros (sockmaster) and Mtlv0 and C0un+5 noting that Mtlv0 was confirmed as a sock of a sock (M4pnt) and request a CU. If that supports the above (likely) the blocking admin should tag all of them so an unblock review has all the info. - J Greb (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mtlv0 and M4pnt are both confirmed socks. C0un+5 is a WP:DUCK, but I'll go ahead and report that one as well. Nymf _hideliho! 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's up. Nymf _hideliho! 06:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues with The New Angel

The New Angel (talk · contribs) has been uploading a series of non-free character images and generally doing nothing else with them. The same editor has also been creating a series of articles on non-notable characters from a single series, reverting all attempts to merge the individual characters and fictional groups into a singular character list under different IP address, all originating from Argentina.[89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96] Because of this, the articles end up going to AfD as a result. The editor seems to have no interest in following Wikipedia's guidelines and even attempted to revert the outcome of one particular AfD, resulting in the redirect being protected.[97][98] The editor has also restored trivia and excessive amounts of non-free images that he/she adds to articles.[99][100][101][102] —Farix (t | c) 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A few things...

• Have you compared notes with Fractyl (talk · contribs)? They had commented on the users talk page that some of the articles were copy-n-pastes from an unnamed Wikia. If so all the articles need to be reviewed to see what are copyvios and what aren't.
• Reverts of bold redirects kick the issue to discussion, not ANI. Check for copyvio, tag notability/plot/OR/etc, and possibly PROD (though IMO a reverted redirect would preclude PRODing as essentially a de-PROD) or AfD. Let those run their course.
• Has anyone bothered to point out or explain WP:NFCC and WP:NFC to the editor? That should be an immediat step if there are upload issues and NFC use problems. Not jumping to ANI.
• Images that are uploaded without a source for the file and the original image can, and should, be tagged with {{di-no source}}. And if there are a slew of them, try not to drown a new editor with reams of notification templates. Give them the basic problem and list the relevant files.
• Articles under an AfD can still be edited. Ideally this is to correct the issues that generated the AfD but it can go the other way. If the article is getting worse, it's short term and part of the process.
• If they are restoring redirects by AfD or removing maintenance tags, provide the warnings to them. Persisting in that would be something to bring to ANI.

Missed anything?

- J Greb (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Randy in Boise problem on the ISS page

Resolved

 – Content dispute combined with severe misunderstanding, all sides apparently professing themselves satisfied. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to edit the ISS page today, correcting misleading statements on the brighness and adding some extra clarifications, but I ended up in an edit war. Despite explaining things on the talk page, I didn't make much progress, because someone thinks that the website of some planetarium is a reliable source. Because I can't get people to actually think, instead of mindlessly regurgitating what some source says, I'll stop editing there. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Diff explaining my point in more detail. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have revoked RadioFan's Twinkle access because of edit summaries like this. NW (Talk) 02:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both Count Iblis [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] and RadioFan [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] disregarded the 3RR rule in that article. The concurrent discussion on the article's talk page appeared to be progressing, but does not justify Count Iblis' revert warring with edit summaries of "per talk". Both editors should have known better. Thus, to correct the behavior, I suggest at least a 24-hour block for each. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also, for Count Iblis to call RadioFan a "Randy in Boise" could be considered a personal attack, and it appears that he did not notify RadioFan of this thread after he opened it. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "personal attack", even if Count Iblis had explicitly named the target of his "Randy in Boise" insinuation, which he did not in fact do. Nevertheless, I can't see how insinuating that he is an expert while his opponents in the discussion are "uninformed but relentless" ignoramuses—even if it's true—is likely to do anything other than further inflame the dispute.

It's not clear to me what further administrator intervention is called for, but I have now notified RadioFan and Penyulap of this discussion anyway.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a newbie editor, I've been working very hard to update the ISS page, and I understand what both these men have been going through, poor examples have been set on that page in the recent past. I'd asked for arbitration to deal with a problem person not involved with this incident, someone who was refusing to discuss anything, making life impossible, both the edit page and the summary have been setting a bad example as a result. In this small dispute, certainly there have been textbook issues on both sides, but this incident is water under the bridge in 5 minutes because both of these guys are mature and articulate enough to work together, here to edit, and their help is desperately required !! At the moment, both these editors are most of the workforce, and I look forward to working with both of them in the future. They don't come to Wiki to lose time in arguing, they both come here to contribute to making the articles better. Seriously, tomorrow we'll all be back at it working better together, and I really look forward to it. Penyulap _talk 07:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone involved here forgot to assume good faith, myself included. This got way out of hand really quickly and I know I was wrong in labeling this issue as vandalism. There are 2 issues here though, the edit war and the subsequent involvement by NW and John directed at me.

It got really ugly when I attempted, in good faith, to discuss the reverts and my labeling them as vandalism with NW and John. Neither seems to have seen that as a good faith discussion as both took increasingly more drastic steps in removing privileges from my account. First twinkle then rollbacker then reviewer then a couple more that I saw stream by last night. Each of those was removed not because of further abuse of any of those tools or interaction with Count Iblis or anyone else involved in the ISS article, but happend as I asked a question of John or NW about their interpretation of the situation and wikipedia guidelines on vandalism. John stopped short of a ban and left a note on my talk page explaining that this was an edit war, and doesn't fit the definition of vandalism and that good faith must be assumed for an established editor, and he's absolutely right. It's hard not to see the stripping of tools as punitive not for the edit war and resulting 3RR violation but instead for questioning these admins. Say you are sorry and this all goes away is empty and meaningless and isn't a good way to handle this in my opinion, understand where you went wrong and then say you are sorry is far more productive. John and NW didn't see it that way and forgot to assume good faith themselves along the way. I also get the Randy in Boise reference and can see it as a personal attack, but it's obviously retaliatory for being wrongly called a vandal so let's call it even and move it.

As for the article and the content in question. Count Iblis was trying to improve the article but forgot WP:V in the process. Well referenced material from 2 well respected sources (see the talk page for details) was removed by Count Iblis because the information was "obviously wrong" in his words. Attempts to come to better understand Iblis's issue with the material were met with more vague pronouncements of it being "wrong". Overnight Iblis left this this note on my talk page explaining that he can only show that material in question is "wrong" by"giving a thermodynamics course ". This "because I'm right and you are wrong" approach doesn't fit very well here, especially when challenging edits which are clearly within WP:V. Iblis has a history of tangling with other editors over technical topics and even makes the pronouncement that his failed proposal on editing technical topics is considered policy by him. Hard not to see this as anything but entering into editing and interaction with other editors in bad faith.

I was wrong in my treatment of this as vandalism, it's an edit war that got out of control, pure and simple. Count Iblis is an experienced editor who is obviously knowledgable in physics topics but his agressive approach to editing, insistence that he may set policy and apparent frequent involvement in arbitrations (judging from his talk page) as well as topic bans is an issue that needs to be addressed here as well.--RadioFan (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful in relating the content of other editors' comments. Count Iblis did not say in the note to your talk page which you cited that he could 'only show that material in question is "wrong" by giving a thermodynamics course.' That statement was very clearly referring to material in a completely unrelated dispute about entropy which Count Iblis says he was engaged in two years ago.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No but Count Iblis did call the material "wrong" multiple times on the talk page. Didn't think I needed to provide specific diffs there since it's the subject of this AIN and is readily available.--RadioFan (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see my twinkle and rollback privileges are back this morning. Not sure which editor did this but I appreciate the gesture and will do my best to use these tools and privileges more wisely in the future--RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, I don't think you needed to provide any other diffs, but I also can't see that there's anything in what I wrote to suggest that you did, so I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you thought it necessary to make that observation.

The "material" which Count Iblis appears to me to have been claiming to be "wrong" is the assertion that the International Space Station has an "apparent magnitude of -6", which originally appeared in the article. Since you later corrected this to read "a maximum apparent magnitude of -5.9" the rightness or wrongness of the original assertion should no longer be an issue. I can't find any statement by Count Iblis in which he characterises the latter corrected version of this assertion as "wrong", but he clearly believes it is misleading, and seems to me to have given very cogent and convincing reasons for that opinion, none of which you appear to have made any attempt to address.

Count Iblis has indicated that mentioning the figure of -6 for the estimated maximum brightness of the Space Station would be acceptable to him, provided his concerns were to be allayed by the addition of some further clarifying explanation. I therefore can't see that there's any insurmountable obstacle to your working out a mutually acceptable wording for the disputed text on the talk page. What you cannot reasonably do is continue to insist that your preferred version of the article is fine as it is without at least providing a convincing rebuttal to the points Count Iblis has raised on the talk page.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:V should not be used to defend obviously mistaken statements simply because some "reliable sources" make that statement. Arguments why there is an issue on the talk page cannot be dismissed just because you claim that the sources are high quality sources, without seriously engaging in the argument. This is exactly a "Randy in Boise" situation which makes editing the article on that point to correct the error, impossible.

RadioFan, like the two other editors in previous cases (on Entropy and Special Relativity some years ago) is i.m.o. too much attached to a particular phrase in a particular source (ISS being magnitude -6 makes it the brightest object after the Sun and Moon). The issue with this is that in reality the ISS is approximately -4 when it is overhead, and there is huge difference between it being -6 or -4. In the later case its possible, but quite difficult to spot it during broad daylight conditions, while in the former case, it would be so bright that you could easily see it at Noon. And sources will point out that spotting the ISS during Noon is indeed a tour de force.

There are many sources that give the ISS passes with the magnitude and they list the brightness when it is near the Zenith as approximately -4 and not -6 (different sources give different values, some say its -3.8, others give -4.5 for the brighness, so simply saying that its approximately -4 is the right thing to do). Then we can also find out where the -6 figure comes from, its the theoretical brightness computed in some way under assumptions that in practice never arise (and that can be found in sources too).

But all this information form the sources can all be dismissed when arguing on the basis of Wiki policies only (they are all websites, so they are unreliable sources) and then you can still stick to the -6, because the Hayden Planetarium says so, and that is a reliable source, period :) . Count Iblis (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've still got to point back to the first sentence of WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "obviously wrong" is not verifiable. This may be frustrating at times, but it's how we prevent chaos like this. The material in question is specific to maximum brightness but Count Iblis is talking specifical about observed brightness, which are very different things. I think it's pretty clear in the article that the -5.9 figure is a maximum for comparison purposes. I agree that this can be clarified so that readers can make sense of it in relation to what they see on various websites as the predicted brightness for their area. Removing this maximum figure doesn't make sense to me as the purpose of the section is to talk about how big and bright this object is and not compare it to other objects. If there are issues with the accuracy of the -5.9 maximum, a reliable source refuting this would help here. Sources that mention other numbers dont cut it because they aren't specifically talking about a maximum for this object, they are talking about the observed magnitude for that particular pass at that particular location.--RadioFan (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, the discussion seems to have transitioned into a content dispute, which would be better suited to the article Discussion page, or if it can't be settled by consensus there, through dispute resolution. Given the fairly amiable and constructive tones of the participants, this non-admin doesn't see a need for any admin to take action (that hasn't already been taken, anyway). May I humbly suggest moving this off ANI and back to the Discussion page? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'd like to point out that my bad memory needs to take a lot of the responsibility for this. When I originally wrote the piece with -6 in it, I had done exhaustive research first. But my efforts to update the first paragraph have been frustrated, whereas anything further down the page is met with acceptance (in depth readers seem to accept changes because of their in depth knowledge while cursory readers make cursory changes to the first paragraph limit of their reading ? I'm unsure. Btw Neither of these editors are anything but in depth researchers.) My original additions to the First paragraph have been trampled underfoot and lost, I don't have a clue where half the stuff is, and things missing there need adding to other sections now, anyhow. My point is, when I went looking for 'why -6' I could not recall, and began looking for it all over again, posting up parts of the trail that led to the final conclusion which i could not find. Count, you were too fast editing the main page. I know you did give me time to find the references, and I have to apologize to you for being unable to do so because of my bad memory, I am sorry for that and the immense trouble it has caused. Eventually I did as I had originally done, stumbled in on the Magnitude page, and that ended all further research. Sometimes, if I want to quote a wikipage as a source, I put 'see also Magnitude' at he end of the statement, which lasts about 6.35 minutes on average before the next editor moves, deletes or otherwise vanishes it away, I'm hopelessly green here. My efforts to describe what I am doing in the talkpage have resulted in pages upon pages of talking to myself, with no comments or consensus reached. Even the major contributor to the page, i think an administrator, won't talk to me. He'll just leave a lot of my work alone, re-arrange other parts in a manner that defies my analysis, and leaves without a word. I'm lucky to get an edit summary from him.

I really wish I could get help going through section by section of the cleanup I was doing, get feedback, editing and then consensus, and a shred of protection against un-discussed changes. If Count Iblis leaves, I'm back to square one. If RadioFan and Count Iblis leaves, I'm out the door, because what is the point ? all the hard work in the world is pointless when my recent problems (I won't mention and therefore have to draw that person here) highlight that a non-cooperative effort at editing isn't going to work and will end in frustration and despair. Only 3 editors have half a chance to fix this page, against the onslaught of cursory editing that occurs. See the international space station#Media section I added, and you'll see what a problem editors armed with legitimate referenced sources can do to the page, I put that section up there temporarily just to abbreviate my explanation to each of the expected taxi rank of next editors. Anyhow, I type too much and waste everyone's time waffling on, but I had no choice except to apologize for my poor memory to those involved. Penyulap _talk 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Alan, sorry. (wondering if I didn't see your message because it took 3 hours to type all that, probably not) Penyulap _talk 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Motaros

So this user has a history of jumping between accounts. The user was blocked while using User:M4pnt, but was then unblocked with the promise of only using one account. After a while the user moved on to User:Mtlv0 anyway, saying that he forgot the password to the old account. Fair enough. The user was blocked, then explained this and subsequently unblocked. During the time this account was blocked, however, the user made a new one: User:C0un+5.

So this user not only moved to a new account yet again, but also did it while the old account was still blocked. What is going on is not only account jumping despite being told not to several accounts back, but also socking.

The history of old accounts can be found here. Nymf _hideliho! 07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As the user who started the second SPI regarding this user, I feel I should comment. This is becoming a problem. This user generally ignores Wikipedia policy, or takes a very long time to accept it. They refuse to take the time to read policies linked to them, requiring another user (lately, me) to quote, paraphrase, and so on. Even then they will start editing properly on some articles, while continuing their non-policy-based edits on other articles. Although they claim that they won't keep creating new accounts and moving on, they do so anyway (especially in this case, where they were blocked for a couple days, and immediately went on to create a new account). I think both Nymf and I have put in more than a reasonable effort in trying to help this editor improve their editing, but it's come to a point where the effort isn't yielding the necessary results.

I hate to say it, but this user just isn't interested in becoming a better editor, and is becoming more and more of a disruption. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whip out the hammer, whack the mother****** and deposit him directly into /dev/null! No Miranda warning, enough of the three-strikes-you're-out shit; first offense, BAM, into /dev/null you go! —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bumped as it just got archived. Any administrator around willing to deal with this user? Nymf _hideliho! 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The quick suggestion would be to run an SPI on Motaros (sockmaster) and Mtlv0 and C0un+5 noting that Mtlv0 was confirmed as a sock of a sock (M4pnt) and request a CU. If that supports the above (likely) the blocking admin should tag all of them so an unblock review has all the info. - J Greb (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mtlv0 and M4pnt are both confirmed socks. C0un+5 is a WP:DUCK, but I'll go ahead and report that one as well. Nymf _hideliho! 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's up. Nymf _hideliho! 06:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues with The New Angel

The New Angel (talk · contribs) has been uploading a series of non-free character images and generally doing nothing else with them. The same editor has also been creating a series of articles on non-notable characters from a single series, reverting all attempts to merge the individual characters and fictional groups into a singular character list under different IP address, all originating from Argentina.[113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120] Because of this, the articles end up going to AfD as a result. The editor seems to have no interest in following Wikipedia's guidelines and even attempted to revert the outcome of one particular AfD, resulting in the redirect being protected.[121][122] The editor has also restored trivia and excessive amounts of non-free images that he/she adds to articles.[123][124][125][126] —Farix (t | c) 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A few things...

• Have you compared notes with Fractyl (talk · contribs)? They had commented on the users talk page that some of the articles were copy-n-pastes from an unnamed Wikia. If so all the articles need to be reviewed to see what are copyvios and what aren't.
• Reverts of bold redirects kick the issue to discussion, not ANI. Check for copyvio, tag notability/plot/OR/etc, and possibly PROD (though IMO a reverted redirect would preclude PRODing as essentially a de-PROD) or AfD. Let those run their course.
• Has anyone bothered to point out or explain WP:NFCC and WP:NFC to the editor? That should be an immediat step if there are upload issues and NFC use problems. Not jumping to ANI.
• Images that are uploaded without a source for the file and the original image can, and should, be tagged with {{di-no source}}. And if there are a slew of them, try not to drown a new editor with reams of notification templates. Give them the basic problem and list the relevant files.
• Articles under an AfD can still be edited. Ideally this is to correct the issues that generated the AfD but it can go the other way. If the article is getting worse, it's short term and part of the process.
• If they are restoring redirects by AfD or removing maintenance tags, provide the warnings to them. Persisting in that would be something to bring to ANI.

Missed anything?

- J Greb (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Making ED.ch pages on user after article dispute

I was advised by User:Amatulic to make this section in order to ask a question in regards to an incident between myself and User:H644444. On June 4th, he and I got into a dispute on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article over the addition of this information, which was not included in the source used. About 15 minutes after this dispute occurred, a user called H64 made an article about me on EncyclopediaDramatica.ch, which can be found here. I think the connection is fairly obvious between the two of them.

After a bit of further investigation, I found that H64 is a part of the ten members of the "ED Government" on the site, a part of the "military branch" specifically. I asked Amatulic if anything can or should be done on-wiki in regards to this after I noticed that H64 has continued to edit the article on me in question. So, Amatulic advised I ask here about what should be done.

So, I guess the question is, we generally don't consider off-wiki activities in regards to evidence presented about users, but does this case, where a user creates a derogatory article on an ED related site about a user they are in a dispute with on-wiki, deserve some sort of on-wiki action? If so, what sort of action would be appropriate? Silverseren^C 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, fuck; you have an ED article? I gotta step up my game and get noticed more, I guess. Srsly though, take it in stride, as a mark of pride or whatever Tarc (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I do. Believe me, I do. I think it's pretty funny, actually, especially how the article isn't insulting at all, it's just hilariously bad. But, regardless, my question was more on what this should mean toward the user's on-wiki activity. Not to mention that this action and their apparent status shows that there is very likely meatpuppetry going on with the article and the talk page and brings into question the poll on the talk page and the fairly large number of new users voting in it. Also, I don't think this action is something that we should outright ignore when it happens, because H64 is essentially responding to the dispute by making a huge personal attack. It's just that the attack is off-wiki. Silverseren^C 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest and say I'm not sure what should be done here. I'm leaning in favor of blocking H64, but given certain WR precedents, I'm not sure if the blocking policy would allow it. Going on a tangent for a moment: a minor dispute leads H64 to create no less than 14 ED articles on Silver seren (that was only eight of them)? Seriously? That's entirely pathetic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

He essentially just went and took any story I have ever written (those are from Deviantart, by the way) and copied and pasted them into their own pages. I don't know exactly what the purpose of that was. I assume it was to allow other people on ED to make fun of my writings, I guess? But if I cared that much about what people thought about them, I would have never uploaded them onto the internet in the first place. Silverseren^C 03:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I just have a mention in an old ED article under a diff name. You can't really do much if you get an ED (mirror in this case) article, and it's poorly written articles, among other things, that doomed ED to its fate (for examples see the Uwe Boll article, good God). As for it being an off-wiki attack, you feel it is an attack, and it is meant as an attack, so do it by the rules. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know NPA had a section on Off-wiki attacks. I guess that is pretty straightforward then. I am presenting this attack article made by previously stated user as evidence of a large personal attack against me and I am asking for the proper administrator action to be taken. Silverseren^C 03:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot for a moment to inform H64 about this discussion. Informed now. Silverseren^C 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are wikipedia administrators who are also administrators on Encyclopedia Dramatica, e.g. Alison. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing ED.ch, but I suppose in this discussion, the distinction doesn't matter. Just being an administrator alone wouldn't mean anything, clearly, but editing the ED article in order to include a link to the ED.ch site without a reference and then creating an attack article on me off-wiki when I reverted him is another matter entirely. Being an admin on the site just shows that there is likely to be an organized meatpuppetry event going on. (Though that has little to do with the attack page that I made this discussion about, I just wanted to mention it for context). Silverseren^C 05:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have been personally attacked on wikipedia, I can't see that you have anything to complain about on this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on the meta blacklist to add ed.ch. (FWIW, I don't think Alison has her bit anywhere but Oh Internet; ed.ch is a fork of the original ED created in response to it becoming OI.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't read the Off-wiki attacks section of NPA that Flinders Petrie linked up above. The creation of the attack page off-wiki constitutes both a personal attack and a violation of an editor's privacy and "can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process". That means that an editor can be blocked for off-wiki attacks against an editor, especially if the attack includes a violation of privacy. Silverseren^C 05:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite recently I've seen off-wiki attacks from wikimedia commons, FurAffinity and Stormfront (website). In this particular case, if there were concerns about privacy, was it wise to use the same fairly unique pseudonym all over the web? Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the people supporting the inclusion of the link are long time Wikipedia editors, and there are involved parties arguing for both sides in that discussion. We could focus on abuses from either side to argue for a reinterpretation of the straw poll. As regards H64, I think his actions are a clear off wiki attack and should be dealt with as such. Using an uncommon pseudonym should be no justification for allowing these kinds of attacks. Polyquest (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue about the poll or the involvement of users in it. I was just explaining that for context and it's really not important for what this discussion is about. I do agree that there are a number of long time editors also supporting. But that is a discussion that can be had elsewhere another time. Thank you for your support though, in regards to the H64 issue. Silverseren^C 06:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, that stuff is public and I don't mind. The uploading of my stories is a little weird, but whatever. The real issue of privacy is the linking to and subsequent uploading of emails between myself and other users on Fur Affinity that were obtained when the site was hacked a little while back. Linking to it is one thing, but then copying all of the emails into their own ED.ch page is another thing entirely and definitely violates my privacy. Silverseren^C 06:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And the clowns on Pawsru wonder why I refuse to get a FurAffinity account. (Most Wikipedians know why I prefer to keep my online pawprint as small as possible.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record - I resigned as sysop on ed.com last December, well before "OH I" emerged. I don't have ops on any of those wikis now; old, new or otherwise. Too busy IRL these days - Alison ^❤ 07:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

you almost didnt get an article until i saw the cockroach megawolf thing, which made me lol. your fanfics have been copied for archival purposes. please see the relevant discussion on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. i dont advocate vandalism on wikipedia. if you would like the article removed you are welcome to come to our irc and discuss it there H644444 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not stupid enough to do that. Though I am interested, what exactly made you lol about the cockroach megawolf thing? Silverseren^C 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the final sentence of the article's second paragraph. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, i've seen the sentence, it's based on the hacked FA emails that I had with Dragoneer. I'm just interested on whether the last line in the article was made just randomly based on that regardless or whether he just didn't understand what the emails were talking about. Considering they were only half the conversation, where I was talking about another person's fursonas, which are a cockroach and a 50ft wolf. Silverseren^C 05:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Hmm? I know this discussion isn't about the ED article talk page, but still, meatpuppetry. At least User:Equivamp can be added to the list. Silverseren^C 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The smoldering remnants of that once great site have really hit rock-bottom. So, errr... is any action supposed to really be taken or is this just a black mark against H64 in future ANI threads like the guideline said or what? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in this case, so I dunno. Silverseren^C 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how taking any action against h64 would be useful. Blocking him here won't change anything at EncyclopediaDramatica.ch, and stirring things up and drawing attention to it may make things worse. I also don't want Wikipedia users to feel as if they can't discuss or scrutinize Wikipedia and its users off-site. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that this sort of thing isn't allowed in the future, since making ED.ch pages on editors is essentially harassment. Silverseren^C 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Making such ED.ch pages on editors is essentially harassment, but we have to make decisions on the margin. The next time this happens we'll only know about it when new attack/gossip pages appear on ed.ch (or elsewhere), by which time it will be too late to do much about the offending editor. Unless it's the same editor as this time, in which case any actions taken against them here could just provoke more mischief elsewhere. bobrayner (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Followup on earlier thread

At the end of May, TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) pledged to undergo an WP:Editor review, which is now open at Wikipedia:Editor review/TreasuryTag.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that it would be vaguely polite for someone to notify me that my editor-review was being subjected to unusual publicity at ANI, but perhaps that's just me... ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 11:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A, that's not "unusual publicity", considering that it was on ANI that you made the commitment to open it, and B, make up your mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that notifying editors who are the subject of an ANI thread was obligatory. Although it is possible I made a mistake. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I please encourage people to participate in this ER, but before doing so, please read the thread on TT's talk page? Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)