Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin.' D.M.N. (talk)

Thread has been dead for two days. Adding timestamp here to let the bot archive this section. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Unresolved

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil.' D.M.N. (talk)

MartinPhi restricted

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi.' D.M.N. (talk)

Tim Russert Page, is full protection necessary?

On the last paragraph under Tim's death, please change following to followed (footnote 29). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.99.239 (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone put "liberal piece of Crap finally died" on the information about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.112.15 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

They should have called him a (attack removed) Cbsite (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

removed an attack that doesn't belong here. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert passed away approximately 2 hours ago. His page is undergoing frequent vandalism. I wonder if you might soft-lock it for a day or so? 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm not the only one... the above was posted while I wrote this entry. 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Protection requested for this article. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote "ding dong the witch is dead" under the Early Life section. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.187.244 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by Brian0918. Page Semi-Protected. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yah he died. protect that topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.209.57 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think fully protecting this page is really necessary, and it seems to contradict what we normally we do with "breaking news" articles. I think this article could use a lot of improvement, and its likely to see most of it while this is still a big story. Can it be put back down to semi-protected, please? Avruch^T * ^ER 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• FWIW, I don't think full protection is necessary either. I don't really see evidence of all-out edit warring in the history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and AndonicO just downgraded to semi as I was about to leave him a message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Semi protection should be sufficient. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some remarkably hate-filled people out there tonight. Sad. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Immature and looking for laughs is more like it. The sad thing is they are the only ones to find it funny. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since MTP is one of the better Sunday current event shows. This really sucks... :-( --Dragon695 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I knew this was going to happen. Good to keep the semi-protect up, might be enough for this scenario for the next week. Problem being, half of these vandals are procuring the stereotypes that contemporary conservatism apparently represents. They're looking for excuses to be immature. Sad, really. (Not that the left is any less guilty of it, but still) Brokenwit (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For review: indefinite block of User:Jagz

I'd like to submit one of my blocks for review. Jagz (talk · contribs) is, in my opinion, a long-term tendentious editor on the topic of race and intelligence. In a recent AN/I thread, I proposed a topic ban, with the goal of refocusing Jagz on constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. After quite a bit of discussion, the thread ended with Jagz agreeing not to edit the pages in question, and there was talk of placing him on probation for disruptiveness and incivility. Since then, he's continued to pursue the same grudges in different venues. Most recently, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's opponents, announced his retirement. Jagz chose this juncture to taunt Mathsci by vandalizing his userpage.

I view this as the final straw for this editor: the topic ban has had no effect; he continues to pursue his same old disruptive agenda in new venues; and he's stooped to vandalizing opposing editors' userspace to gloat about their departure from the project. I haven't seen anything positive originate from Jagz's account in a long time, and there's no reason to think things are getting any better - quite the reverse. I've blocked the account indefinitely for a long-term pattern of tendentious, disruptive editing capped off by personal attacks and vandalism of an opposing editor's userpage.

Jagz himself has not requested an unblock thus far, but Elonka (talk · contribs) raised the concern that this block was overly harsh. I agreed to disagree, but felt I should bring it here for further review and discussion. If there's a significant feeling in the community that Jagz should be unblocked, then any admin can feel free to do so. I would ask that if he is unblocked, he commit to contribute positively, and that a plan be in place to provide both clear behavioral guidelines and restrictions and/or mentoring/monitoring. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently came across this editor at User talk:Cailil. My review of Jagz's recent contributions indicate a pattern of disruptiveness and polite trolling. I think the block was a good decision. I was unaware of how long this pattern had been going on, or else I might have done more than just blank Jagz's taunts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that the previous discussion concluded with agreeing to a topic ban, a party that appears not to have joined the consensus was Jagz - who was violating said ban before the last edit was posted in the discussion. I fully support the indef block now, as not only does the editor seem unwilling to withdraw from the disputed area but also seems more than willing to argue his "case" by the same questionable methods (personal attacks, attempts to sanction "opponents", etc) as in the past. Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this chap a while back for 3RR. I wasn't impressed then, and have grown steadily less so as time has gone on. This is definitely one we're well quit of. Race and intelligence is quite contentious enough a topic without letting tendentious, edit-warring, and harassing SPAs such as Jagz go unrestrained. AGF has its limits: those he exceeded a long time ago. I also put the other single-purpose accounts operating in this area on notice to clean up their act, or else I shall personally ensure they follow in Jagz's footsteps, and that swiftly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with indef. A warning or a brief block may have been appropriate, but an indefinite block was overkill. Now, I do agree that Jagz has been disruptive in the past, but I felt that he had been making steady improvement. I am also concerned that he may have been the victim of some "tag team" harassment. In the past, he did seem to have some constructive contributions, but ran into what he felt was a "team" organized against him, when editing some race-related articles. He was blocked for 3RR in March, and another 24-block for personal attacks in May. A week or so ago, Jagz voluntarily agreed to avoid editing the Race and intelligence article for the rest of the year.[1] I have been working with him since then, as he is identifying areas where he feels that there is "team" editing. I have not yet completed my investigation, but it is obvious to me that Jagz was not the sole problem at some of these articles, as there was disruptive behavior from multiple editors. Since his voluntary ban, Jagz has honored his word and avoided the R&I article. He has left a couple messages on talkpages of related users, some of which were unfortunate, such as placing a "cheshire cat" image on the userpage of a retired user, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's earlier opponents. His edit was reverted by another of his opponents as "vandalism",[2] but I think that this was overstating the situation. In fact, Mathsci had first placed a "cheshire cat" image in a previous conversation with Jagz,[3] so Jagz's response was to place the cheshire cat image on Mathsci's page[4] (granted, he should have put it on the talkpage, not the userpage). It may have been an ill-considered attempt at humor, but it wasn't vandalism. Jagz also indicated his opposition to one of his opponents, Cailil, who is considering running for admin. When Jagz posted this message at Cailil's takpage,[5] it was deleted by administrator Jehochman with an excessive edit summary.[6] When Jagz restored his message,[7] Jehochman again deleted it, this time accusing Jagz of "trolling".[8] MastCell followed this up with an indef block of Jagz. I'm in agreement that Jagz's behavior could have been better, but I think an indef block was excessive, and indeed has an appearance of being an attempt to silence a potential opponent before an RfA. --Elonka 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• COMMENT I think that Elonka has not taken the time to review this editor's behaviour. In the previous disussion here and subsequently she has somewhat villified his critics (alun (Wobble), Ramdrake, Slrubenstein), suggesting that it is they that should have a topic ban. Even above she has placed remarks from over a month ago out of context. When Jagz announced his retirement from editing Race and intelligence with postings in several new sections on the talk page, proclaiming that the article was in a finished state, he placed other editors in a state of confusion. This type of editing seems to be what is usually called trolling. Elonka seems to condone the vandalism of my user page and talk page in her remarks above: although she might dislike me, such vandalism is upsetting and against WP policy. Since she is the interventionist administrator that has put an end to my contributions to WP, with mathematical articles stopped in midstream, I am not surprised that she seems to be giving the thumbs up to Jagz's act of vandalism. (Her recent slowness to recognize User:Koalorka's history of anti-Turkish POV-pushing, perhaps because she had not made this observation herself, showed a similar attempt to deny a consistently disruptive pattern of behaviour carefully documented by me User:Mathsci/subpage.) Does anybody else understand why she is acting in this way? Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Indef block sounds fine to me. Maybe review Jagz's situation again after an appropriate period of time (6 months, a year?) but not now. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• When Jagz was topic-banned not long ago, among the conditions of his ban were a civility and NPA parole. Since then, the sum total of his contributions outside his own user and talk pages has been limited to:

• 1)Putting up at ANI the picture of a baby to show his discontent with a comment about him about which he disagreed;
• 2) Commenting on the user talk page of an editor considering accepting a nomination for adminship that the editor in question wouldn't be ready "for a few years", talking about an otherwise established and very respected editor and edit-warring to put his comment back after it was removed as inappropriate;
• 3)putting first on the user page of a retired user and then on his talk page the same derogatory image (in context) and revert warring to keep it there;
• 4) having a long conversation with another admin about his woes that other editors wouldn't let him further his POV at the R&I article
• 5)and then questioning the authority of an editor who removed one of his unpleasant comments from a user's page.

All in all, I don't see that he has made any improvement at all since his topic ban, as his contribution to main article or article talk page space has been zero, although he has made several derogatory contributions to user pages and user talk pages, in addition to trying to get a previously uninvolved admin to help him settle old scores. I say indef was the right decision.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The ANI thread[9] was still active as of June 8. After it closed, Jagz (talk · contribs) kept to his word and was avoiding the disputed articles. He stuck to user talkpages, though admittedly he was "grumbling" at a couple of them. Then he posted the picture of a cat at Mathsci's page (a picture which Mathsci had already used himself, in a similar context), and Jagz suddenly gets labeled as a "vandal" and is blocked indefinitely. I'm just not seeing his behavior as that disruptive, that Wikipedia was "protected" by indefinitely blocking him. I also see no communication from MastCell on Jagz's talkpage. Instead, MastCell started the ANI thread on June 3, requesting a full topic ban (which Jagz agreed to voluntarily comply with). Then MastCell's next communication with Jagz was the indefinite block, without further warning. Better would have been if MastCell could have posted a reminder on Jagz's talkpage to move on to editing articles. But simply blocking him without any other communication was inappropriate. Jagz has been an editor here since 2005, he deserved better. --Elonka 13:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it seems that there is a strong consensus in support of the block. If you would like to mentor this editor, and feel confident that you can steer them away from trouble, I might support that. Otherwise, I do not see any chance of an unblock at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would question the wisdom of declaring "consensus" in less than 24 hours, especially because some of the participants here were involved in the dispute. However, I am happy to mentor this editor, if he even chooses to return. He and I were having a reasonable conversation on my talkpage before he was suddenly blocked. And to be honest, the more I investigate, the more it looks like he has been targeted in an unfair manner. Looking at some of the previous evidence against him, if he so much as said, "Please do not make provocative statements", he was accused of incivility, trolling, and vandalism. Seriously, look at the accusations,[10] and then check the diffs for yourself. Specifically, don't read what's said about him, read what he's actually said. I would ask those who are reviewing the case to try and do so with fresh eyes. Instead of starting with a preconceived notion of, "Jagz is a troll, and we just need to find proof of that", try to start from an assumption of good faith, as in, "Jagz is a good faith individual who is being ganged up on, and has lost patience, and his temper, with the system." And again, to be clear, I am not saying that Jagz's behavior is squeaky clean in all this. There are definitely a few statements which were clearly uncivil, a few actions which were unquestionably unhelpful. But it does seem that there were multiple disruptive editors, who were pushing for Jagz to be ejected, while other editors with equally bad behavior were not censured or even, as near as I can tell, cautioned. Yet Jagz received an indefinite block without warning. I have respect for MastCell in many things, but this particular block was not well done. --Elonka 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like Elonka to supply diffs to support her accusations that "there were multiple disruptive editors, who were pushing for Jagz to be ejected, while other editors with equally bad behavior were not censured or even, as near as I can tell, cautioned" rather than the simple, plain fact that Jagz was either unwilling or unable to accept talk page consensus (as evidenced by several RfCs, inquiries at the NPOV and Fringe theories noticeboards) and persistently pushed his own POV (to the extent of creating POV fork articles such as Dysgenics (people) and Human Intelligence Controversies which were promptly identified as such and deleted) in defiance of wide consensus against it, thereby exhausting the patience of the community.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the people Elonka is refering to as uncivil, unhelpful, and disruptive. Anyone reviewing this case needs to take two things into consideration: first, what makes someone a troll is not necessarily behavior that is platantly offensive to some - not all trolls go around saying "@#!* you, I will kill you and your children!" What made Jagz a troll was a pattern of behavior that had a fundamentally disruptive effect on attempts to improve an article on a complicated and controversial topic. The ultimate effect of his trollish behavior was to drive away countless other editors who have over the past couple of years tried to improve the article. The behaviors that had this trollish effect seldom took the form of personal attacks or vandalism, but so what? There are other ways to disrupt progress on an article and thus the overall project of writing an encyclopedia. There were three things that made Jagz a troll. First, he never made any substantive contribution to the article. When he made claims I and others considered unfounded, if we asked him either to explain what he meant or to provide evidence he always changed the subject. This by itself is not proof he is a troll, but it does call into question his motives - why would the overwhelming bulk of his edits over the past couple of years be to the talk page for an article on a topic on which he has done no research and knows nothing? I have an answer, it is the third reason ...

The second thing that made him a troll was that any time other people were making progress towards improving the article - reaching consensus on a controversial edit, the structure and scope of the article, and so on, he would make an inane comment, or create a new section and start a new thread of talk that had nothing to do with the subject at hand and was not constructive. The line Elonka quotes above is a perfect example - "Please do not make provocative statements" when taken out of context appear to be harmless. But when the edit is made in response to a statement that was not provocative, and when Jagz couldn't explain why the statement was provocative, and the effect was to disrupt a discussion among other editors who were drawing on research to improve the article, then it turns out that "Please do not make provocative statements" is itself a provocative statement; any attempt to respond to it derails work on the article. And I want to emphasize one critical matter: we are not talking about one or a few statement like this, we are talking about a pattern of inance disruptive comments like this over more than a year's time. It is the pattern of edits and their effect that make Jagz a troll, not just one edit.

The third thing that made Jagz a troll is that this pattern of disruptive comments on the talk page is connected to the POV that Jagz was pushing at the Race and intelligence article. And there is no way anyone can correctly assess my trating Jagz as a troll without looking at the actual POV he was pushing. First, one point all editors working on the article agree on: the average IQ score of self-identified whites in the US is higher than the average IQ score of self-identified blacks. I know of know one working on the article who ever disputed this. The question is, why? And this is the POV Jagz wants to keep in the article and as a prominent and notable view: that the reasons are genetic. Please think about this: Jagz is saying that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. That is the point of view he is pushing. And please keep in mind the increasing prominence of Wikipedia as an educational resource in the US and around the world

We have policies to guide us in such matters - obviously if this is a notable POV it has to be included in the article. The argument, which has gone on for over two years on the talk page of the article, the discussion that Jagz derails whnever possible, is whether this is a fringe POV or not. Anytime Jagz was asked for evidence that anyone studying human heredity - physical anthropologists, population geneticists, molecular geneticists (and yes, these are established scientific communities that produce a huge amount of literature on human genetics each year) - supports this view ... an inane comment, like "don't be provocative." Any time that I or another editor - Ramdrake and Alun are far more knowledgable than I in the life sciences - tried to explain why this is a fringe view, and what mainstream scientists actually do say ... an inane comment, like "don't be provocative." There are other editors working on the article who, drawing on research in psychology (not genetics), believe that this view must be represented in the article. Any time Ramdrake and Alun, and other well-informed editors with opposing views, started approaching a compromise or consensus ... some inane comment from Jagz like "don't be provocative." And any time an editor tried to engage Jagz in a serious discussion - asking him for the evidence that his POV is not fringe, or providing evidence that it is fringe, Jagz would simply repeat his claim. He never displayed any respect for the research of other editors, nor any willingness to compromise, and he explicitly rejected invitations to begin mediation. Several times when we were approaching consensus, he placed an NPOV violation tag on the article! When someone removed it, in at least two instances, he issued RFCs, which overwhelmingly supported the consensus and not him. Did this put an end to his trollish disruptions, the fact that the response to his own RFC's went against him? No, of course not, he just disregarded the comments that he himself called for, and went on disrupting the page. It was this kind of hypocritical disregard for collaborative processes and the views of others, and the realization that he by using the RFC in bad faith (since the results were inconsequential to him) the very use of the RFC was an act of trolling. Yes, an act of a troll - because what makes him a troll is not simply uncivil comments, it is an overall pattern of disruptive behavior. An RFC that makes us all suspend work on the article for a while, for no purpose at all since the person issuing the RFC ignores the results, is turned against itself to be just another disruptive act. So disruptive acts can come in many forms, folks. If he ever made a thoughtful contribution to the article, or a constructive contribution to the discussion, I would have reached a different conclusion. there are other editors on the page I clearly disagree with, and have argued with - and I have never called any of them trolls because in my view they are not; we disagree but they are well-informed editors acting in good faith. Jagz is so far from falling into this category, if he tried to jump into it gravity would reverse itself and he would float up in the air.

It is this pattern of disruptive behavior in order to push the racist point of view that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites that led me, after several months of attempts to reach some compromise with Jagz, to label him a troll. I did not do it overnight. Elonka misrepresents the situation if she thinks one day Jagz wrote "do not make provocative statements" and from that I concluded he was a troll. No, no, my friends, this happened after more than a year of the pattern of behavior I described. I never went to ArbCom because Jagz never attacked me personally, until the very end a month or two ago when he called me an asshole on the talk page[11][12](note: I did not originally put in these edit differences becauase I do not care about Jagz personal attacks. I do care about his disruptive effect on the article, and his pushing a racist fringe POV that should be offensive to everyone - it is not about me it is about the article). But why didn't Jagz ever go to ArbCom, for the over a year period in which I responded to his disruptive edits with a simple WP:DNFTT? I have a simple answer: any investigation would have produced the evidence that led other editors to block him. It took long enough, but I am not surprised it eventually happened anyway. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the mark when discussing his disregard for others' opinions. Its hard to reach consensus with someone who just does not care for others' work. Brusegadi (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely something amiss with this user/account. Jagz used to be a good editor--I myself even gave him a Scouting Barnstar for FA writing once. I wonder if the account is compromised, so I support the indef til more evidence comes forward. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He could also be more passionate about Race topics. Brusegadi (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that even today Jagz is using his talk page as a soapbox to make personal attacks [13][14] which personnally I find most grievous. I'd like to request an uninvolved pair of eyes to take a look at this and take any appropriate measures, if they feel any are warranted.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz is already indef blocked. Since there are some good faith questions as to whether this account is still being used by the same person, I think it would be more helpful to leave the talk page unprotected for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but can somebody keep an eye on it so it doesn't get out of hand? The accusations he made are very serious.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am watching the page, but I am not seeing the same attacks as you are, though I understand that since it's not directed at me, it's easier for me to be ambivalent about it. However, turn it around and look at it from a different perspective. How would you feel if you tried to edit an article, and a team of editors jumped on your edits, accused you (unjustly in your mind) of trolling and vandalism, and then complained so persuasively to administrators, that you were blocked for it? Then if you tried to speak up about it at your talkpage, and name the members of the team, they then further escalated, accused you of making personal attacks, and demanded that your talkpage be protected so you couldn't even speak up in your own defense?

My feeling is that if one editor feels that they were blocked by an organized tag team (as Jagz does), then he has the right to speak up about it. If someone doesn't like what he's saying on his talkpage, well, take the page off your watchlist. It's not like he's spewing profanity or disrupting article space. --Elonka 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. In this case, I would like to ask that Jagz be invited to either substantiate his accusations by providing diffs, or if these accusations are unsubstantiated to withdraw them. I believe that's fair. What he's doing still amounts to a personal attack, unless he can prove it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that he be indef banned. But as a condition of him not being indef-banned, if he agrees, that the user be assigned to a wiki-project where they will do memos and research for senior editors, and also perform 30 edits for the editors of the project each month. For six months. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you wrote, "How would you feel if you tried to edit an article, and a team of editors jumped on your edits, accused you (unjustly in your mind) of trolling and vandalism, and then complained so persuasively to administrators, that you were blocked for it?" Implicitly you are saying that Jagz made an edit to the article that was compliant with Wikipedia policy and that provoked this unjustified response. I ask you to provide evidence. Please provide one example in which Jagz made a substantive edit to the article, or any edit to the article that was Wikipedia policy compliant, and which was then jumped on by a "team" of editors who accused him of trolling or vandalism. Note: your evidence would serve your case only if the edit Jagz made to the article were not an example of trolling. Anyway, your claim requires that three conditions be filled: (1) Jagz made an edit to the article itself (2) the edit was not trolling and (3) a team of others accused Jagz of trolling because of this particular edit to the article. Can you provide just one example? you need to back up your accusations with evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, I must support the indefinite block. As Rlevse points out, Jagz was a good contributor, but his very poor behavior over the past weeks and months makes one suspect that his account has been compromised. I asked Jagz to stop making comments to further escalate and inflame the situation with the other R/I editors, a suggestion he totally ignored, even after being blocked. As noted above, if he cannot resist continuing to attack other editors even while he’s indefinitely blocked, there’s a problem.

I’m also not comfortable with his responses to Elonka’s proposal that he stay away from the other’s talk pages and leave them alone, as well as his total lack of response to her offer of mentorship, his somewhat vague response instead only says that “I will distance myself further from that situation”. Not a very compelling answer. Perhaps what is also needed is a temporary topic ban in addition to the mentorship Elonka has kindly offered, to see how he performs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Dreadstar † 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that he has already agreed to voluntarily restrict himself from editing race-related articles for the rest of the year, and that that ban would still be in effect. --Elonka 04:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very good thing indeed. Did that self-imposed restriction include the article's talk pages as well, and has Jagz confirmed this since his indef block and your proposal to him for being unblocked? (I didn't see it on his current talk page, so just making sure) Dreadstar † 04:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that yes, his restriction would apply to all race-related articles, their talkpages, and the user talkpages of those editors with whom he was disputing at the race-related articles. I would also be keeping a close eye on him.[15] Certain exceptions that I would allow, would be that he could bring up concerns about the articles or editors at my talkpage (within reason), and in certain other venues. For example, one of the related editors, Cailil, is getting ready to run for RfA, so I think it would be reasonable for Jagz to offer his opinion there if he wanted, as long as he kept his comments civil. --Elonka 22:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what Elonka is writing. Slrubenstein, a prolific editor on a wide range of articles, is somehow being taken to task for standing up to the trollish behavior of Jagz? And we're spending this much discussion space for Jagz? I really don't get it. By the way, Slr and I have been discussing Jagz for months. He has contributed nothing to this project. Why are we wasting time? Elonka, if you want to mentor an editor, why don't you find one that might be uncivil or annoying, but at least contributes to the growth of this project. Again, why are we wasting our time? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm amazed at Elonka's portrayal of this situation as if Jagz is some sort of innocent lamb who has bee "jumped on" by some nasty wolves. I mean where's the evidence? On his talk page Jagz claims that there are "sinister motives" and claims that Slr and Ramdrake have been out to get him, and Elonka has fallen for this conspiracy theory nonsense hook line and sinker. Indeed the behaviours Jagz attributes to other editors in this comment "Slrubenstein's motive with all his incivilty, name calling, and adding the link "DNFTT" was to goad and provoke me so as to precipitate an event such as this. Mathsci constantly taunted me and went out of his way to disrupt my good faith efforts probably for the same reason but also to keep me from making any progress out of spite. Ramdrake is best described by WP:BAIT" apply to Jagz's behaviour on talk pages to a far greater extent than they do to the editors he vilifies.[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Jagz does not attribute any motive to these claims except "spite", which begs the question, why does he think these editors are "out to get him", what have they got to be spiteful about?. And why does Elonka believe so passionately that these editors are "out to get" Jagz? Anyone who has followed the discussions of the R&I talk page over the last few months could not possibly, in any seriousness, paint Jagz as a "victim" and Ramdrake, Slr and myself as aggressive monsters out to hound the innocent lamb. That analysis must be borne out of ignorance of the history of the talk page, I can't see any other way to explain it. Furthermore Jagz is complaining that he's the victim of a "kangaroo court" [35] and seems to believe that he was blocked because of his recent comments and actions [36] rather than his ongoing and continual disruptive contributions to talk pages as I list above. Likewise he's complaining that the diffs are all from talk pages and that no evidence is provided of disruption on article mainspace,[37] whereas I could provide ample evidence of such behaviour from Jagz, currently we are specifically discussing his talk page contributions which have been a major concern to editors of these articles for some time. Alun (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI here I explain to Jagz what my real motives were in using the WP:DNFTT tag. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because there are multiple editors here saying "Jagz is a troll" and accusing him of "trollish behavior" does not make it true, especially because many of the voices here are editors who were involved in the dispute. Jagz has been an editor on this project since 2005, he has an FA to his name, and before this current indef block, only two 24-hour blocks in his history as an editor. I am not saying that all of his recent behavior was appropriate. There was clearly a dispute, there was clearly harsh language on the part of multiple editors, there was high emotion, and there were attacks leveled from both sides. But I am simply not seeing Jagz as the "menace to Wikipedia" that some of his opponents are trying to claim. Indeed, anytime someone repeats the overused term "trollish behavior" or says "Jagz has contributed nothing to this project", it is increasingly obvious that they are overstating the case. I recommend that everyone review the actual definition of WP:TROLLing. I define it as deliberate attempts to harm the project, and/or to incite other editors to react in a negative manner. I have looked at the diffs provided, I have looked at the contrib histories involved, and I am not seeing a troll. I am seeing embarrassingly uncivil behavior on the part of multiple other editors who should know better than to level the kind of attacks that they have been doing in this thread. A general rule of thumb is, that the more strident the attacks, the less credibility that they probably have. So I would like if everyone here could ratchet things back a bit, and try to get away from this "lynch mob" mentality. Jagz has agreed to move on to other topic areas, he has agreed to mentorship. He has a history of good contributions except for this dispute. I think we should allow him to get back to editing. --Elonka 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it is disingenuous of you to write "Just because there are multiple editors here saying "Jagz is a troll" and accusing him of "trollish behavior" does not make it true" when I posted a lengthy explanation of why I consider Jagz a troll, and Alun provided a long list of edit diff. You are acting in bad faith to imply that we are simply labelling jagz a troll without providing reasons, when just inches above your insinuation, we provide our reasons. No one here is claiming that Jagz is a troll "because we say he is." You are welcome to defend Jagz, and you are welcome to question our reasons, but you should appologize for this disingenuous insuation that we either have no reasons or refuse to provide them when we have many times. 10:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) [38]

I haven't claimed that Jagz has contributed nothing to the project, neither have I repeatedly stated that he's a troll, but his behaviour is extremely disruptive and his talk page comments are often irrelevant and personal. Your claim that "I am seeing embarrassingly uncivil behavior on the part of multiple other editors who should know better than to level the kind of attacks that they have been doing in this thread." seems to be saying that Jagz's behaviour is somehow superior, that only the "multiple other editors" are displaying "embarrassing behaviour". Indeed I can't see any "attacks" on this thread at all. I just don't get it. Your whole argument seems to be that everyone else on this thread is wrong and victimising this poor little innocent, and that only you know the "real" Jagz who is noble and above the pettyness of the rest of us mere mortals. Look again at the diffs I provide and explain the brilliance of these contributions because I can't see it. You want to defend Jagz, fine, do it with evidence, rather than making complaints about other editors who at least do provide evidence of his disruption, as I have done. Also You could provide some diffs to show that your claims that other editors (me, Slr, Ramdrake, Mathsci, Dreadstar, Brusegadi etc.) are worse that this "honourable" person Jagz, and that we have been "hounding" him because you provide no evidence of this persecution you claim is ongoing. Alun (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please could Elonka provide diffs to back her analysis? Looking for example at my reasonable and extremely civil question [39] about a sentence inserted by Jagz on biomedicine, his response was evasive and unhelpful. Apart from the opinion piece cited from the Guardian which did not mention biomedicine, Jagz was unable to support his claims. In the subsequent interchange he labelled Slrubenstein an "asshole". In normal circumstances, and this is certainly true of almost all my own edits to mainspace articles, accurate and relevant citations have to be supplied when adding content to main space articles, particularly when it is repeatedly disputed. Are the rules different for Jagz? [40]Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Above (22:03, 14 June 2008) I asked Elonka to provide us with evidence of just one instance where Jagz made a policy-compliant edit to the the article and as a consequence of that was then jumped on by other editors who accused him of being a troll and vandal. Although she has edited this thread since then, she has not responsed to my request. I am assuming she missed it - otherwise, why would an editor acting in good faith make an accusation against me or others and not provide evidence when asked? - so since she missed my request I am asking again, please provide evidence of one instance. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to reiterate my question to Elonka: this is the third time (first here and second here) that I have asked for someone to supply diffs to substantiate Jagz' accusations, or that they be dropped as unsubstantiated. Many other editors have asked the same and have provided diffs to show that the charges were unfounded (that it was in fact Jagz who was being disruptive), but User:Elonka keeps bringing up the same issues over and over again without substantiating them. I would like to ask, for the last time, that she either substantiate her charges or drop them as unfounded. It is time this wiki-drama ended. As an admin, she should know better than to do this.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If Mastcell doesn't object and Elonka agrees to mentor/watch Jagz, I don't object to his being unblocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I promise to keep an eye on him. --Elonka 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support unblocking since Elonka has agreed to mentor Jagz--Cailil ^talk 23:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Counting the contributions here, there seems to be no consensus, in fact probably the reverse. It might therefore be best to await MastCell's return. In the meantime, can Elonka please tell us which articles she thinks Jagz might work on that are unrelated to the non-scouting edits of 2008? Jagz's contributions to scouting articles on the WP seem to have been excellent, considering that some of the articles to which he made significant contributions became featured articles. In that period the non-scouting articles that he edited were Race and intelligence, Eugenics, Dysgenics, Fringe science, Intelligence quotient, The Bell curve, Snyderman and Rothman (study),‎ Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Neuroscience and intelligence, Craniometry, IQ and Global Inequality, Achievement gap in the United States, Race differences in intelligence, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Environment and intelligence,‎‎ Arthur Jensen‎, William James Sidis and J. Philippe Rushton. This combination of topics, which goes back much further in time, seems to be that of a WP:SPA. After early March there were very few scouting edits. Has Elonka in fact discussed this with Jagz at any point, on-wiki or off-wiki? Jagz seems to be a valuable editor in one sphere of expertise - scouting - and perhaps a topic ban might therefore be more appropriate and fairer to him. I write this with no feeling of animosity towards Jagz: I question his edits in the articles I have listed above, but recognize that he has made some extremely positive contributions to WP elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Elonka has responded to one of the questions above here and on MastCell's talk page seems to be in favour of a topic ban on Race related topics.) Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, MathSci. to that I add another. Just a few inches above, three editors - myself, Ramdrake, and Matchsci each respond to different, specific comments Elonka has made, requesting in good faith evidence for claims Elonka has made about the situation. Elonka has yet to respond to these requests. I think she needs to, so we can see what evidence she has been relying on, before reconsidering the indef. block. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'd like to offer a precision which I believe is important to all those not fully acquainted with the whole story: Jagz is in effect a POV-pusher, who tried by several means (including breach of WP:PARENT) to justify his position and gather backing for it. When he saw that consensus both of current editors and of unrelated editors attracted by an RfC on the subject soundly defeated his POV, he turned to being disruptive of the general progression on the article, through various means: repeating the same question over and over, snide remarks, etc. However, some of Jagz' edits, especially on the main article, look like perfectly normal edits (and some of them were - and were accepted). However, his dedication to injecting a misleading presentation of facts in the article is what led to most of his edits being reverted by a variety of editors. As time went by, his behaviour became more and more disruptive.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit beyond the scope of this particular ANI thread, which I would like to keep focused on the specific question of, "Can Jagz be unblocked yet?" But since a few of the other involved editors keep asking me for more details about their own behavior, I am taking that to their respective talkpages. I have recently posted to Slrubenstein (talk · contribs) and Ramdrake (talk · contribs). If other editors would like similar details, let me know. --Elonka 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The highly offensive allegation of "gang editing", originating from Jagz himself and repeated here by you, is not something that you have been discussing with individual editors on their talk pages. Since you have been uncritical of Jagz's most recent disruptive behaviour (in particular by repeating his baseless allegation), you might not be the best person to act as his mentor (why not User:Moonriddengirl?). Although I strongly support replacing the indefinite block by a topic ban and appointing a mentor, I think that you yourself could now help "de-escalate the situation" by explicitly retracting the accusation of "gang editing". That way everyone concerned can "move on". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for the topic ban and a lifting of the indef block if others are, Elonka has agreed to mentor Jagz and that's excellent. This is not about "punishing" Jagz after all and he's shown himself to be a good and productive editor in other areas. Cheers. Alun (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle. But frankly I do not understand Elonka's offer to mentor Jagz. Does Elonka truly believe Jagz needs mentoring? in what ways? Clearly, she seems to believe that his behavior at talk: Race and Intelligence was not trollish or disruptive. In her response to Ramdrakes questions she provides edit difs. from June, from after his block from R&I. Her response to my query is on MastCell's page, but her response is evasive - I asked her to provide examples of cases where Jagz made reasonable edits and a gang of editors jumped on him accusing him of trollish behavior or vandalism, and she provided examples of edits where Jagz made reasonable edits to the article and no one accused him of trollish behavior or vandalism. That hardly seems to support her claim ... and makes me wonder if she understands what the problem at R&I was. Like I said, it leaves me wondering what she thinks she is going to mentor him in. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for mentoring too, but while I don't object formally to Elonka's offer to mentor Jagz, I believe that someone else, less involved at this point, may be better suited to mentor Jagz. I believe that Elonka may be too involved in defending Jagz' actions to have the impartiality that I would expect from a mentor.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading through and seeing everything listed here, I disagree with an indef block. Also, I have no problem assisting Jagz with issues and am willing to adopt him if he agrees to it. If Elonka seriously wants to work with Jagz, then I'm not opposed to being a co-adopter or mentor. Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dusti. I have no trouble with co-mentoring, or letting someone else be "official" mentor, either is fine with me. It does look like there is now consensus for unblock, though MastCell, the blocking admin, has not been participating in this thread for the last few days. However he did say at the top of the thread that if "If there's a significant feeling in the community that Jagz should be unblocked, then any admin can feel free to do so." What do other admins think? Has this level been reached? --Elonka 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

← I was just staying out of it because I was hoping to hear some outside opinions. I know what I think (and what Slrubinstein, Alun, Ramdrake, et al think). I'm not going to stand in the way of an unblock, particularly in the setting of dedicated mentorship, but I would strongly like to see the following conditions attached:

• A complete avoidance of race-related articles for at least 6 months.
• Avoidance and disengagement with opposing editors, including those above. That means no snide remarks, no pursuing the grudge on various admins' talk pages, and no Cheshire cats. I'd like to see (both sides) just move on. Of course, this needs to be a two-way street - no poking Jagz with a stick either - but I view this as an essential condition.

With that said, and with a clear mentorship relationship in place, I'm fine with an unblock. Any admin can perform it, as far as I'm concerned. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell. Dreadstar † 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked Jagz, informed him of the conditions, and given suggestions to him about other areas that he can participate.[41] Thank you to everyone that has participated in the thread, hopefully now we can all move on.  :) --Elonka 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Jagz's recent post about possible edits to Dysgenics on User:Zero g's page is completely contrary to his topic ban.[42] Could Elonka please intervene a.s.a.p.? Otherwise it is clear that MastCell's proposal for an indefinite block will have to be reconsidered. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the edit, and don't see a problem. Jagz was suggesting a possible course of action, to another editor who he has worked with in the past. Jagz's ban is to avoid the articles and their talkpages, as well as to avoid interacting with his opponents. Zero g was not one of his opponents. If Jagz wants to engage in a non-controversial conversation with other editors who welcome his comments though, then I don't see a problem with that. --Elonka 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz is forbidden from getting involved in topics of race and intelligence. What is the point in a topic ban if the editor is allowed to recruit and coaches a proxy editor who does their bidding. No, this must not be allowed to continue. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the edit, just a suggestion on a course of action. I belive the topic ban includes (correct me if I'm wrong) editing and discussion on talk pages of race related articles and any discussion with opponents. This is not a violation of the ban IMO. Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree he needs to be kept a close eye on, but I also don't see a problem with this edit. I dislike the idea of letting people off the hook for bad behavior because they're being mentored, but as long as this is what we're doing, let's wait to react until he does something actually bad. Friday (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't counseling another editor on ways to circumvent consensus on a matter where he is subjected to a topic ban strike you as breaking the agreement in spirit, if not in law? Wouldn't this be worth at least a warning?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this is not a court of law. We are primarily governed by common sense here.Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As I read it, he's suggesting things for another editor to read. If he starts saying "Now go make this edit.." then I agree we have a problem. Friday (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

<ec> NO!!! Guys, let's lay off of his back. He was suggesting something to read! Give the man some room to breathe, if we just template him over every little thing then what is that going to accomplish out of our goals for him that we set above? Stand back, give him room to breathe, and see where he goes. If then he does something stupid, template him. Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka now seems to have given carte blanche to Jagz to discuss racist-related topics on WP. User:Zero g is a WP:SPA with the same sphere of non-scouting interests as User:Jagz. They are in Elonka's immortal words an "organized tag team". Has she left some kind of warning message on Jagz's talk page? Richard Lynn is exactly the discredited author that has caused problems on Race and intelligence, Eugenics, Dysgenics, etc. Please could administrators pay a little more attention to content rather than form? Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Granted that Zero g (talk · contribs) is not an extraordinarily active editor, but he has been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and has worked on a variety of articles.[43] I would not classify him as a SPA. --Elonka 16:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And just to bring a precision here, if you re-read the edit by Jagz, he is suggesting that Zero g "try (to create) an article (named) Dysgenics (book)" based on Lynn's work. Why would Jagz point Zero g to an otherwise non-existent article? Certainly not to read it.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to wonder about this comment "although I want to avoid discussions.....". Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the comment is written to look innocuous on the surface. I had to re-read it myself before I grasped what was actually being suggested. It really looks like he's skirting parole violation and he knows he is.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, Mathsci, Slrubenstein, and Alan/Wobble were all engaged in an active dispute with Jagz. If Jagz posted a comment to one of their pages, that would be a violation of his ban. But a simple mention of a source to someone he was not in dispute with is not a problem. Further, the only reason that this is an issue, is because the opposing editors are watching Jagz like a hawk and ready to scream "foul!" at the slightest provocation. Guys, lay off. See also WP:HARASS. If Jagz does something to damage the project, then bring it up. Otherwise, please move along. --Elonka 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you Elonka, read my post above. Everyone, please let Elonka and I work with Jazz, and lay off of the posts. If something comes up and you feel that a violation has been made, instead of "crying foul!" bring it to either my attention or Elonka's attention. Please and thank you :). Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

<- Just a comment on this mentoring situation.. It's not reasonable to expect others to not worry about a problem editor just because you claim to be on top of the situation. I don't believe we should try to fix problematic editors- I believe we should merely welcome those who don't need to be fixed. So, your assurances mean nothing to me. If he steps out of line, we should expect he'll get blocked. He's already on his last chance. I don't quite get why an editor or two would attempt to "own" a situation like this anyway - you don't get to single-handedly decide how to handle this guy. Go ahead and try to mentor him if you somehow feel it's a good use of your time, but don't expect others to cut him any slack while you're doing it. Friday (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Ramdrake, Slrubsenstein and Wobble, I am not a regular contributor to the talk page of Race and intelligence, contrary to what has been suggested above. In this particular case, all that might be required is a little more care in redefining the terms of the topic ban, something actually very minor and straightforward. There is no need for wikidrama. (BTW I did not create this section heading.) Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cease this petty string of messages. --Jagz (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be assured (I'm talking to all here- especially you Jagz) that if Jagz steps out of line and breaks his topic ban, he will be blocked. That is why Elonka and I are working together. Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Jagz wrote the message under his signature, it seems a violation of the non-agression pact. (And, as far as I can recall, I'm not involved with Jagz or his topics before.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this conversation is coming to a close, as nothing else can be said. I'm calling it resolved. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this was closed early, so I removed the resolved tag, my apologies to Dusti. Now, let's see what the ban was for, if I read it correctly, certain articles, their talk pages, and talk pages of opponents. Now Zero g hardly seems an opponent of Jagz, so how is this a violation? Doesn't look like one to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring gone awry

OK, this mentoring notion started out as misguided, in my view, but unlikely to actually hurt anything. Now, I believe it's actively harmful. We've got Elonka leaving him messages telling him that some crowd of enemies is out to get him, and he should lay low. This is the opposite of good advice. I don't believe for a minute that this kind of "mentoring" can possibly help. So, if he starts acting up again, I hope nobody pays any heed at all to cries of "But, I'm mentoring him!" Play therapist on your own time, people. Here, we're an encyclopedia, and we take steps to minimize disruption. Friday (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Elonka could explain why a non-administrator is helping her mentor Jagz. Is this really that great an idea? Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Friday, is it not you who is being disruptive? --Jagz (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Having respect for all the good work Elonka has done here, I'd like to point out that it is not the place of mentors to be advocates for users who are misbehaving[44][45]. I understand that she wants to give Jagz some latitude and has warned him for his above comment but it is not the place of any mentor to speak on behalf of their adoptee - the mentor is there to give guidance not to be a defender. I also share Friday's concern about Elonka's use of "battlefield" terminology to describe editors in dispute and disagreement with Jagz. MastCell indef blocked Jagz but he is not Jagz's enemy or opponent. SLR, Alun & Ramdrake are in dispute with Jagz but they are not his enemies. Mathsci and Jagz have had disagreements previously but Mathsci is not Jagz's enemy. And vice versa. Elonka is an experienced and well respected sysop - she should not be referring to editors in a dispute resolution process as "enemies" or "opponents" and I respectfully request she consider refactoring the remark in the above diff.

@Mathschi a non-sysop mentor for Jagz is fine in my view. AFAIK sysops never had a monopoly on Adopting users and from their record I trust Dustihowe‎ to as good a job as they can--Cailil ^talk 22:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Elonka does need to be more careful in her terminology, but I think she's simply trying to help Jagz.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just in case I was unclear in my post I do think Elonka is work in the best of faith and is trying to help Jagz and personally I hope the process works. However it needs to be treated as dispute resolution and such wording ("opponents", "enemies", "gangs") wont help this--Cailil ^talk 22:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Cailil, as far as the reasoning for me to be a mentor with Jagz, I volunteered as someone thought it would be a bad idea for Elonka to do it alone, for some reason. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has so far been highly reluctant to rephrase anything she has said in this discussion, despite the many requests to do so. It seems that she carefully thinks about what the issues are, then writes her posts accordingly. Pleas to refactor have so far come to nothing for that very reason. I have not been involved in the issues discussed here, but I have experience of dealing with Elonka, when she mentored a dispute at Rab concentration camp. My experience was that she was just about the best intentioned admin I have ever come across, and was resolutely impartial throughout. I have highlighted those two words for a reason. She did not, ever, make an effort to familiarise herself with the subject, not did she factor into her thoughts the fact that there was one editor who was alone, without sources, claiming that Rab was a POW camp, whereas a "group" of other editors, backed by every source available, were of the informed view that it was a concentration camp. She was resolutely impartial throughout. Now, I raise this here as it seems to me that the cases are similar. A lone editor against a pack of hungry wolves. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

Resolved. Blocked for two weeks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am reporting another incident and rather than engage and defend myself I am reporting this incident. I think nipping things in the bud are the way to go with this user.

[[46]]

ChrisJNelson has diplayed a didain for the rules and no matter what kind of wrist-slap he displays the same type of behavior over and over and over. I am asking that the system work to curb his displays of uncivil behavior.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC) [[47]]

User_talk:72.0.36.36#Chrisjnelson_Arbitration Please read. Durova^Charge! 08:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need three links to the same page in the same report? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

More important for someone with the tools to examine how arrogant and blatant the incivility is. This is somebody with a block log so long it requires scrolling to read and who was very nearly sitebanned at arbitration for edit warring and incivility. Basically the only reason he received a second chance was because of an unusual development during arbitration that turned up a banned editor and a sneaky vandal who were simultaneously trolling him: it wasn't known how he'd behave absent those unusual stresses. Well those unusual factors are gone now and he's taunting regular people, and rather proud of mostly getting away with it. He openly regards 24-48 hour blocks as an acceptable price to pay for dumping on other people. Suggest a this-isn't-Usenet reminder in the form of a longer timeout. Durova^Charge! 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that the user apparently also has valuable facts to contribute, which I assume is the reason wikipedia is still messing with him and hasn't issued a permanent block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, the editor not currently editing and the history/good contributions mentioned above, I have issued a Level4im vandal (there wasn't anything more apt) warning, and comment that repeated violations of WP:CIVIL in the manner of interactions with some editors will result in an indef block, on the editors talkpage. I know, it is yet another final warning but I shall watch the page and request anyone who notes any such future similar behaviour to let me know - and I shall issue the block. As far as I am concerned, this is the very last and final chance for this editor to change some of their undesirable habits on WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a civility warning be more appropriate? I don't see how a vandalism warning makes sense in this context. Chrisjnelson is not a vandal. Enigma ^message 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, I think he deserved everything I said. :-D ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins please note. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, is a return trip to ArbCom an option? Because of the absurd volume of productive edits (30,000+), I think a community ban would be difficult to effect and a de facto no-admin-will-unblock ban is unlikely as well. (Hell, I'd eventually unblock him myself if he asked after a reasonable time). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a middle ground between 48 hours and reopening the arbitration case. If it were my call I'd give him a two week timeout. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I might even go a bit longer. But, in all honesty, LessHeard vanU's vandalism warning and threat to indefblock seemed like a bit much. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I benched him for 1 week in the past, 2 looks reasonable here. That leaves room to increase the duration in the future if needed. I'd rather keep him on board than jettison, but remain categorically opposed to the notion that X many productive edits generate a license to be rude. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because somebody has 30,000 many edits shouldn't mean that the user's incivility is looked in a different light compared to somebody with 500 edits; hell, I'd probably make 50,000 contributions if I knew that I could be incredibly rude and get away with it. The user's past block log should be, though. I'll be honest, I picked an awful day to end my three week-long hiatus. I end up returning on the day of what's beginning to be a monthly occurence, it seems.

I think this comment here should be the last straw. These two were 'separated' for some time until Chris climbed back into the ring with that comment. Not only was that comment unnecessary, in my opinion, but I fail to see how that comment could've in any way helped Chris' "incivility issues".

We've pretty much tried every method we have at Wikipedia to try to resolve this monthly conflicts, but to no avail. I don't think anybody can deny that Chris has been involved in numerous conflicts in the past X months, and personally I can't believe that something hasn't been done to end these conflicts once and for all, whether that's a punishment or not. We've gone through ANI, Arbitration (including Arbitration enforcement), Mediation, and Request for Comment, and while there have been some minor actions taken, nothing has been resolved.

If this is still going on today, which it is based on this, then I see no reason why a lengthy block shouldn't be handed down. There was no contact between 72.0.36.36 and Chris for a fair amount of time, but Chris just came in and made this unnecessary remark, which is what provoked this ANI post. Just looking at it, I don't see anything civil about that sentence, from "irrelevant piece of crap" to "Keep up the good work".

If my math is right, I count a total of 11 blocks (taking into account the times where he has blocked and later unblocked for whatever reason). The longest block he has ever received was one week, which he received a total of three times. Of those three week-long blocks, only once has the block actually lasted that long; he was unblocked early the other two times. If you look at Chris' block log, you can see that it really isn't that pretty to look at. I know that I'm not an admin, but based on Chris' past civility issues, a two-week block seems very reasonable to me. The fact that he's already received three week-long blocks and that hasn't resolved any of the issues signals to me that harsher action is necessary. Ksy92003 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I do thing he's turning the Long article into a piece of shit. He has packed it full of irrelevant bullshit and quotes, tons of stuff that won't matter in a month, a year or ten years. So much of what he's added, while true and sourced, is just fluff. It makes the article way too long in relation to the the career he's had thus far, and that makes it what I consider a piece of shit. So I told him so.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No one's suggesting you shouldn't say what you think. You just need to find a polite way of saying so. If you can't, you are harming Wikipedia's editing atmosphere, which is supposed to be civil and collegial. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue in a nutshell:

• Chrisjnelson: "Your contributions are shit!"
• The community: "Calling someone's contributions 'shit' is unacceptable. Try to have phrase your comments in a more constructive manner."
• Chrisjnelson: "But it is shit! <various constructive comments> See? Total shit! Shit shit shit shit shit!"
• Chrisjnelson: (aside to other editor) "Dude, I just called you a shit and the admins aren't going to do anything about it."

If there was ever a case of someone not getting the point, this is it. Endorse 2-week block, with the understanding that it will be longer next time if this user doesn't shape up. He has explicitly stated that the message the community has communicated so far is that he can behave in an incivil manner with impunity. We don't have to guess at this; he said so. It's time for the community to communicate a different message, don't you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we've got disappointing little Stern-like gems: If you had any idea the action I'm getting this summer, you'd know how little I'd care about a block. I had to do a double-take on that one - and verify that his userpage says he's an adult. Endorse 2-week block. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what the hell. This jackass needs to be taught a lesson. Endorse 2-week block.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This disruption needs to be prevented. Non-admin Endorse SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin endorse. Anytime I think I'm being too much of a smart-aleck, I look at guys like this one and realize how little I've accomplished in that area. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well any time I see someone say "smart-aleck", it makes me glad I'm not the kind of guy that says "smart-aleck."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And I am equally glad that I'm not the kind of guy that says the kind of stuff you say. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jealousy.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an immaturity issue here that makes this editor fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. We expect people to be able to behave like reasonable adults. Anyone unwilling or unable to do so needs to be shown the door. Friday (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. I'm capable of working and collaborating with others. I'm just in an "I don't give a shit" mood right now, so this is all just funny to me.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• ...and this isn't vandalism....? As regards my determination of vandalism, perhaps a quote from WP:Vandalism might be helpful;

  Userspace vandalism | Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks).

  Anyhow, WP:CIVIL warning templates don't come with a Level 4im option - and the beauty of an indefinite block is that it lasts just as long as it needs to and no more; why block for two weeks and risk further incivility in fifteen days, when ten days of looking into a future that does not include editing Wikipedia might be sufficient to change the miscreants attitude. Well, folks, sort it out amongst yourselves, if it had been up to me the pillock would be indef'd by now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[[48]] I just want to say that being told my edits "suck" and I "deserve being talked down to" and that my edits are "crap" are not as bad as a death threat (like is mention above) however, I dunno, maybe chrisjnelson cannot help it. I am just at my wit's end. I like discussions about content, I just don't like being insulted. I have the reaction to want to defend myself, but if I do I an counter-productive . . . I long for the good ole' days where people could disagree without being ugly. I will say that chris has not used out-and-out profanity, but being called someone who is not "an intelligent human being" is also a problem I think.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am now blocking Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) for two weeks. He is continuing unabated in his latest campaign of personal attacks[49] and shock jockery[50] and is clearly willing to drive people away from Wikipedia forever to get his way. He's making a mockery of the whole episode[51], is completely unrepentant[52] and is even asking to be blocked[53]. Two weeks is a minimum length mentioned in the discussion above. There are people above quite willing to hand down much longer blocks and I expect that will happen next time. This may be a last chance. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that not a bit over the top? First off, as an administrator, I highly disagree with other administrators essentially making themselves a "caseworker" of a certain user. There has been a few administrators (you, and formerly, Durova) who have blocked or disciplined Chris on more than one occasion. At some point, the administrator simply gets too personally involved when he or she is following around a user for almost a year, and the administrator's ability to make objective and rational decisions can become compromised. Secondly, I see little, if anything, that is a blockable offense in what you presented. Four of the quotes you presented were jokes. If you believe that they are an example of "making a mockery of the whole episode," then I think it is time for a cool-down. I feel it's absolutely ludicrous to block someone based off comments they made on their talk page about their user page and personal life. Chris was carrying on a conversation with other users completely unrelated to Wikipedia. He wouldn't make those comments on an article or on an article talk page. You can't go around policing someone's talk page and handing out blocks because they were joking around with other users with "Howard Stern-like" material. You can't. Even I carry on casual, joking conservations with other users on my talk page. Meanwhile, as far as the "Isn't it awesome how I didn't get in trouble at all?" goes, please tell me which Wikipedia rule that breaks. It's not incivility - not on your life! Wikipedia does NOT need to start handing out two-week blocks based off their perceived "immaturity" of a user. Too many administrators and users are FAR too emotionally involved in this case, and do not appear to be detached enough to make reasonable blocks. Chris can ask for a block, Chris can carry on an "immature" conversation on his talk page, Chris can mock the fact that a number of users have had arguments with him over the past year and want to see him be blocked, but that does NOT constitute a blockable offense. I'm sorry, but this block is absolutely out of line. Pats1 ^T/C 14:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of line? He's not acting like the kind of contributor we want here. So, we don't want him here. Since he's not going away by himself, we help him go away. Where's the problem? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Friday (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You can "not like him" or "not want him here" all you want, but that doesn't give you license to hand out an extended block like that. There's plenty of contributors I haven't wanted here, but I've never blocked any of them. You block users because of violations of Wikipedia rules (and make sure the punishment fits the crime). You don't hold a "tribal council" (with the highest number of "endorse 2 week blocks" being declared the winning party) and vote the least-liked person "off the island." And by the way, there are users who appreciate having Chris around on Wikipedia. Pats1 ^T/C 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about like or dislike. It's about Wikipedia having a code of conduct. You sound like you want people to quote chapter and verse from some book explaining which rule he's violating. You also sound like you feel he somehow deserves more lenience because he's been blocked so many times. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Friday (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What "code of conduct?" It's up to the whim of each individual user. And like I said, most of the people who commented in this discussion have been involved with Chris for almost a year now, some of them blocking him on multiple prior occasions. All objectivity has been lost. Some people don't want Chris around, and they are willing to stretch their "code of conduct" to include "immature comments" made on a user talk page conversation. If you don't follow some semblance of a Wikipedia rulebook, then all order on Wikipedia is lost. Sure, there are community bans, but you don't go blocking somebody based off the consensus of a straw poll held on an ANI. He doesn't deserve "more" lenience because he's been blocked before (I don't know where you got that idea), but he deserves something more than a personally-involved administrator handing out of a block based off an ANI straw poll with little supporting evidence, essentially rendering the whole ordeal a witch hunt. Pats1 ^T/C 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Little supporting evidence?" There's plenty of evidence through this thread that supports a two-week block. Just take a look at his block log; how he was able to get 11 blocks for pretty much the same thing and the maximum not rising above one week is beyond me. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about this particular block. Chris may have deserved blocks in the past (although the whole jmfangio episode unfairly predisposed Chris to some of this), but his "shock jock" comments or mocking of the users who tried to get him block is hardly evidence to support a two-week block. Pats1 ^T/C 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth.. I never heard of this guy til this thread, and the block seems reasonable to me. As Wknight pointed out, I imagine the next one will be longer. He can act like a reasonable adult, or he can be shown the door. So far his choice seems to be the latter. Friday (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And as such, you've missed the fact that the same group of users have pretty much made the same comments every time something like this has come up with Chris. Believe me, I wasn't surprised to read what I did from the consenting parties, because I've read it all before. Pardon the Patriots analogy (although I've used on an AfD) before, but it's like Spygate. When Belichick violated the NFL Game Operations manual, people were calling for the NFL to give him an extended suspension or even ban him from the NFL. Most of these people, though, had hated Belichick and the Patriots long before Spygate even began. They had tried to slander or get the Patriots disciplined before, and so it was no surprise they tried to again when Spygate came out. They simply had no objectivity, and since 90% of the country disliked the Pats, it was pretty much mob rule. Again, blocking people because of "immaturity" is absurd. You block someone for specific violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not because he's joking around or mocking people trying to get him blocked. Pats1 ^T/C 15:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the party, Pats1. Why didn't you voice a dissenting opinion yesterday? The accusation that I'm too involved or engaging in "following around" in this situation is unfounded. I hadn't a single correspondence with anyone involved since I took WT:NFL off my watchlist more than three months ago. And Chrisjnelson should be thankful that I blocked for only two weeks since I was outnumbered by two admins here who were gunning for an indefblock. If it weren't for your so-called "caseworkers", he might be gone for good. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw LessHeard's "vandalism" warning on Chris' talk page yesterday, but didn't have any idea about this part until I saw the block on my watchlist. As far as those "other admins" go, I would love to know who they are and what exactly they have for evidence to support an indef block against Chris. And c'mon, Wknight, I think we both know the histories Durova, ksy, and the others have with Chris. Seeing the endorsements of the blocks was no surprise, but it's no reason to favor a block yourself. Chris may have literally asked for one (although he was mocking the others who were "endorsing" a block), but neither that, nor any pressure to appease other admins or other consenting users should have made you hand out a two-week block for the comments you posted. There may be a time when a two-week block for Chris is necessary, but this certainly wasn't one of them. Pats1 ^T/C 15:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1, it's quite understandable why you're defending Chris to the degree that you are, considering that you two always work together on several NFL-related projects (no, that's not a bad thing). And you say that the judgment of people like Wknight94 and Durova have been compromised because they've been too personally involved with this user in the past. For one thing, if anything, that's a good thing because they know about the situation better than anybody else would and are familiar first-hand with the kind of actions this user has taken. And secondly, you've been as personally involved with this user defending him as they (and the rest of us have) against him. I would probably guess that if you weren't so close with Chris (and I'm not accusing anybody of meatpuppetry, before you get that idea) you would also hand down the same block as the two-weeks he was recently given, or at least understand why he received it.

Pats1, I honestly think that your friendship with Chris is compromising your judgment in this case. As an admin yourself, I trust that you know that one of the biggest things we try to do here (aside from creating an online encyclopedia) is create a good working environment for everybody here. Chris' behavior is a detriment to that. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Chris was unfairly treated in this particular case and was the victim of a mob mentality created by a good number of people who have had arguments with Chris in the past and don't want to see him here. As you know, ksy, Chris and I used to really not like each once (about four years ago). But if you can grow to understand Chris' personality and joke with him, he's not a "detriment" to anything or anyone. Working with him as closely as I have, I've grown to appreciate the work he does and I've learned more about him than anyone else commenting here. I would disagree with any user receiving a block for "immaturity," especially on a user talk page. Pats1 ^T/C 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The other eight users in this thread would tend to disagree that Chris' behavior isn't a detriment. You're the only one I've seen defending him. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So? A two-week block is a serious issue. Not a straw poll. Pats1 ^T/C 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have been the target of rudeness by Chris in the past, along with AllStarEcho, but this block wasn't warranted by the current situation, in my opinion. The IP is way out of line and intentionally aggravating Chris. Enigma ^message 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How much incivility and vulgarity are wikipedians supposed to put up with? I got suspended for 5 days once for calling people idiots. This guy's approach is exponentially worse than that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to earlier comments by various users saying that 2 weeks was too harsh. It's a cumulative process. Sure, another user who hasn't been blocked before wouldn't have received a 2 week suspension for this. But Chris should be (rightly) on a shorter leash, given his history. As far as Chris having a "lynch mob" out to get him, I don't think that's true. But doesn't the fact that he's clearly aggorovated so many other parties kind of give everyone a pitcture of his working style? Sorry, but "I'm always right, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot" doesn't fly on a community project like Wikipedia. Bjewiki (Talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the IP intentionally aggravating Chris? If anything, 72.0.36.36 is responding calmly to Chris' verbal assaults. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just remembered I was involved with this IP before. This IP has done a lot of NFL editing over the past year plus, but has also drawn the ire of some of us (Quadzilla, me, Chris, Yankees10 - just check out the talk page). This IP (now everything is starting to come back), is quick to jump the gun and request arbitration or ANI. In fact, after I had warned the IP to removing the trivia tag from Ted Ginn, Jr., the IP immediately went to ANI and claimed I had abused my admin tools - of course, I had never used my admin tools, but the IP demanded "third-party arbitration or dispute resolution" and repeatedly claimed admin abuse of power on my talk page until apparently losing interest at some point. Pretty similar to what the IP did to Chris on Sunday, too. The IP, I remember, was incredibly frustrating to deal with (quite frankly, annoying the crap out of me), because there was simply no way you could get him or her to understand how the entire process worked and where their claims of "power abuse" were out of line. Pats1 ^T/C 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The IP tries to create as much disruption as possible by placing poorly-written material into articles and then making a big fuss about it. In fact, it even started a second thread on the same exact subject that I had to merge back into this one. Enigma ^message 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you should issue a block against the IP address also. But the "look what you made me do" argument doesn't hold water. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think the stuff that the IP is putting into the articles is poorly-written, that's your opinion. I don't know much about what he or she's putting in there, but I highly doubt that the IP would be purposely putting in "crap" as Chris would say just to annoy the living hell out of him or to cause disruption. That's why the IP has been able to discuss the content civilly on talk pages, unlike Chris. Ksy92003 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would question whether the IP's discussion could be considered "civil." Pats1 ^T/C 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And another point being that if you think he's uncivil, you can file a complaint against him, but his being uncivil doesn't give anyone else the right to be uncivil. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The point being that Nelson blaming another user for his own behavior doesn't cut it. If there's a problem with another user, that needs to be pursued through normal channels. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. And Chris has a long history of "wrongs".

But as Bugs says, if Chris thinks that 72.0.36.36 is being uncivil, being uncivil right back at him/her doesn't help the situation. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved incident

talk 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

 – Blechnic's block log has been annotated per consensus. Thanks Blechnic, thanks everybody. Bishonen

Pointing out unresolved bits from a subpage I marked resolved in part (ironically) because of this. User:Blechnic pointed out that the issues he raised had not been resolved. I also see, that while I was writing this, Ryulong and Blechnic are 'politely' discussing things on that subpage. Please see Not resolved and Not resolved #2. If others could step in and help out, that would be good. What I really want to see is Blechnic feeling able to edit on topics he (or she) wants to edit on (tropical plant diseases). Maybe Ryulong and MBisanz could make that clear? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've formally apologized to Blechnic on that subpage. Should Blechnic not see that as a resolution, then there is something wrong beyond the scope of this board.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't apologize for what you did. You apologized for "attempting to contact me during my block," when what you did was harangue me to provoke me when I was already extremely upset. --Blechnic (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What you see as haranguing and provocations, I saw as an attempt to contact you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity on this page, as well, these are the three "harangues" and "provokes": [54], [55], [56].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet when Kelly did the same to you, you used your administrative powers to get rid of her. Hmmm, if you do it, it's contacting, but if a newbie editor does it, they're harassing you? In other words, back to that policy supported by you and MiBaz and Gwen Gale: don't tag the regulars, because it's not anybody can edit. Exactly how many times was it you posted after I asked you to stop on my talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot your earlier reversions of my talk page, see, User: MBisanz claims I was blocked for edit warring, apparently edit warring with you, then you came to my user page to continue to edit war by reverting me?[57] Hardly what I'd call "an attempt to contact me," but rather what I called it, "an attempt to provoke me at all costs." --Blechnic (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly (who is not a newbie) repeatedly posted different "this image has X wrong" templates after I went to his talk page and say that I don't need to be contacted concerning the images and then I would go about to fix things as I saw fit. Because of the aspects of the script Kelly used to do so, I protected my talk page such that I could work instead of jumping around to all of the images that Kelly found I uploaded with minor issues with. My talk page was protected for less than half an hour, during which and after which, I went through all of my uploads and fixed them (and during which several images I fixed were tagged after the issue had been fixed). My seven (give or take) edits to your talk page which you continue to construe as harassment and provocation. Your edit warring was at shrew's fiddle, which it was clear you were doing. I've apologized for what I did and what you think I did. If you think that this issue is still unresolved, take it to the arbitration committee and see how they see the case. Because honestly, I've nothing else to say, because nothing will change your mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have enough forums now? Maybe some more administrators can jump in and pummel me, and some basic editors, too, as there was quite a frenzy going after me the first time. --Blechnic (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am trying to help here, but please, there is no-one "going after you". You need to be able to discuss things calmly, no matter how upset you might be. I'm going to go and calm down now, and I suggest you do the same. Please, point out inaccuracies in Wikipedia pages all you like, but please also talk to people and if apologies are offered, please accept them. Even if you are not satisfied with the apology or non-apology or whatever, just accept that your point has been made and please start pointing out what is wrong with our pages on tropical plant diseases. You won't get carte blanche to edit how you like (no-one does), but I can promise you that it is far less likely now that anyone will get in your way, as long as you explain the edits you make. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no apology for what Ryulong did because Ryulong is still saying he didn't harass me, even though he did to me, what Kelly did to him to get her blocked. I would absolutely accept an apology for what he did. And, my point hasn't been made, because the underlying issue is, I was given a single warning by MBisanz to not put tags on articles or I would be blocked, then I was blocked, then I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset, then my user page was protected against my edits, then my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator, then I was told I would be banned from Wikipedia if I continued. So, I was blocked for tagging an article I had an editorial concern about after one warning, then blocked for a week, and now have the permanent threat that if I continue my behavior (tagging articles), I will be banned from Wikipedia. Please, do tell me what the apology does for the issue at hand, the threat of a permanent block that arose from my tagging an article when I was editorially concerned about it, warned once, then blocked? And stop telling people who are upset to calm down, it just means you're not paying attention to what I'm saying and you want to take the focus to a personal level rather than do so. --Blechnic (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And PS I was discussing the edits on the article's talk page when I was blocked, so please don't tell me that discussing the edits is the way to go, because MBisanz is going to give me a single warning and block me for that. So, no, explaining the edits is no good, that just gets you blocked. With a single warning. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's take things step by step here. Some of these allegations are serious and deserve further investigation. Let's get diffs first: (1) "a single warning by MBisanz"; (2) "I was blocked"; (3) "I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset" (for the record, re-instating talk page warnings removed by the user in qusetion is something that should not be done, as removing them is indication that the user has read the warning - if Ryulong was re-instating talk page warnings you removed, he needs to be told in no uncertain terms not to do that); (4) "my user page was protected against my edits" - I think you mean your user talk page - again, this should only be done in extreme circumstances, whoever protected it would need to justify their protection; (5) "my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator" - this sounds concerning, but the other side of the story needs to be heard first - you may be misunderstanding why the block was escalated; (6) "I was told I would be banned from Wikipedia if I continued" - please provide a diff for this - or was it in an e-mail? I agree that the real concern is that you were trying to improve articles and didn't get enough warning or discussion first, but edit warring (we need diffs for that as well) does trigger short blocks regardless of whether you are right or not - that is how things work around here. I apologise for telling you to calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we jumped from thread to thread, my response is here [58]. MBisanz ^talk 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And my response was .... Ignored. But that's okay, I know the ultimate result is: I'll be banned from Wikipedia, just what was intended originally and threatened. Thanks for the post "One-warning then block" administrator MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, here are the diffs, the last two edits I made, the last to the article, and the last to the article's talk page before MBisanz blocked me:

My last edit to the article was at 8:47[59]

My last comment on the talk page,and last edit before the block, the edit that infuriated Mbisanz so much that it called for me being blocked with just a single warning was at 9:09: [60]

Mbisanz blocked me at 9:11 for an edit to a talk page discussing the article 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

--Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I was blocked for discussing the article on the article's talk page after a single warning about putting tags on articles by MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And as the block log shows, after discussing it with Sam Korn, I agreed 48 hours was too long for a first block and he reduced it to a 24 hour block. So that is another admin who agreed it was a good block, if a bit overlong. I'll also note for those following this saga, that during the shortened block, Blechnic was re-blocked for a week by Hersfold for harassment and abuse of email. So now that is at least 3 admins who agree the block was permissible. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, all this was when in relation to Ryulong's harassment of me? And, you're now stating here that it was proper to block me for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring? With a single warning on your part, and after I had stopped? So, the other administrator's agree that a single warning to an editor, who then stops what they are warned about, is sufficient for a block? That's your contention? --Blechnic (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Details

I suggest that the following be looked at more closely:

• Page history of Shrew's fiddle
• Talk:Shrew's fiddle
• Creation date of Blechnic's account (he was indeed a new editor as Sam Korn noted)
• Blechnic's block log entries
• Blechnic's talk page history, specifically the period around the block.
• Hersfold's warning about indefinite blocking (maybe this is what Blechnic was referring to?)

I will notify User:Sam Korn and User:Hersfold. Please, no comments about how this was over a month ago. Please just try and sort out what happened and what could have been done better. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is what you should really look at, my early article contributions: [61]

This is the ridiculous nature of Wikipedia: you don't know how to be an encyclopedia while being a community, because the community you built excludes the outsiders you need to create the encyclopedia that is your stated goal.

I already notified Sam Korn and Hersfold, even though the last time I was discussed on AN/I no one bothered to courtesy notify me. --Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. It takes a while to dig out diffs from a month ago. I can confirm that Ryulong did edit war on your talk page to re-instate what he (and an IP) had written there. See here, here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I didn't edit the page again at all after that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unable to resolve

User:Hersfold's user page says he is on vacation until August. This is unfortunate because his block extension of User:Blechnic seems to stem from this: "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked." Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to confirm what was said in the e-mail and no way to tell if the block extension was justified. What can be done? Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be glad to forward you or anybody the e-mail, along with my follow up e-mail. --Blechnic (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for ignoring that all this stemmed from MBisanz blocking me for edit warring after I stopped edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ignored it! :-) I'll get to that in a minute. As I said, please be patient. You could help out by providing details, as I think people had thought previously that it was Ryulong or MBisanz who had threatened you with an indefinite block, when in fact it was Hersfold. I don't know Hersfold at all, and I'm not at all sure how to handle things when he is not here to respond. Please do send me the e-mails if you want someone else to review them. Please understand, though, that a full resolution will have to wait until Hersfold gets back to give his side of the story. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be resolved, but the initial issue is easy: should I have been blocked after a single warning for edit warring after I had quit "edit warring?" Is this Wikipedia policy? Oh, wait, I don't have to have this one resolved, because, unlike MBisanz I read the policies and guidelines on these blocks, and, MBisanz didn't even bother to read the edits I made that he blocked me for. I'm not holding my breath. As far as I can tell it now amounts to I'll be banned if I stop edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the text of the e-mail that you believe caused you to be blocked available? SQL^{Query me!} 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)While I didn't say so in my comment, I'd intended to ask you too, Carcharoth, have you seen the e-mail in question that caused the week-long block? Additionally. please do not modify my signed comments. SQL^{Query me!} 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about tweaking the indentation of your comment, SQL. I haven't seen the e-mail yet, though I will check my e-mail and see. Blechnic, please use Special:EmailUser/Carcharoth if you want to send me an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also keeping an eye on the article in question. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Please don't aggravate the situation there. An opinion on the blocks or the talk page discussions might be more helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions and see what the main issues are. I also began to flesh the article of dead links and introduced some new sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, send me an e-mail, and I will reply with the e-mail that got me blocked for week AND the real prize, the follow up e-mail I sent after getting blocked for a week. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS That not only got me blocked for a week, but earned me a threat of being permanently banned from Wikipedia by user Hersford. Though, I'm sure Ryulong, MBisanz, and everyone will be duking it out for the honors. --Blechnic (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, you are conflating Hersfold's comments with those made by others. Please don't treat those three editors as if they all agree on this issue. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize I was just yelling at Ryulong earlier today for overreacting to User:Kelly's tagging? MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz just told me that they all do agree with each other. Who am I to argue with an administrator? Especially since I'll be permanently banned if I tag another article or if I ever stop edit warring again. --Blechnic (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of arguing and a few very upset people. I can sympathize with the anger, really, some of it looks justified, but there's one thing I think is missing from this conversation: direction. What are the specific goals of users in this thread? What, being as specific as possible, can be done to move this situation forward? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why I was blocked for edit warring, after I had stopped, after only one warning, and this warning by MBisanz for tagging an article. At this point, MBisanz's best excuse seems to be that he was multi-tasking human beings and a bot, and couldn't have been bothered to get correct my 48 hour first block after a single warning when I had stopped the behavior warned for. I'd like to know why administrators and others came to my talk page to attack and harass me because I had the nerve to disagree with content with established editors--and, established editors is a big thing and very important to this crew, because this is how and why Kelly got blocked, again, for editing against established editor Ryulong. Gwen Gale, who was involved in this Shrew's fiddle mess, was also involved in the Kelly mess, right now, asserting the privilege of established editors. I would like to know why "anybodies" aren't forewarned that as long as they are not established editors no courtesies will be applied to them? I would like to know why 1 warning is sufficient for a nobody and too much for an established editor. I would like MBisanz to read exactly the time-line, acknowledge what he did wrong, and annotate my block log to that effect. I would like Ryulong to stop trying to flame me. I would like everyone to stop telling me to calm down when in no way was I treated according to Wikipedia policy or guidelines.

I would really like to know why bots are more important than human editors on Wikipedia, because, the first incident I had on Wikipedia was being threatened with a block for reverting a bot, after getting warned by the bot's owner,[62] then getting a level two warning[63] for asking the bot's owner what the heck he was doing? To have MBisanz tell me he blocked me because he was busy with a bot is the ultimate insult and ending to this whole nasty after, especiall after my first hostile encounter on Wikipedia being with a bot owner, who reverts people simply because they are new editors (to hell with "anybody can edit"), who doesn't give a shit what he does to humans editing Wikipedia. The first time I got "warned" on Wikipedia was when I started copy and context editing a poorly written article to make it a good little start of an article, all because somebody programmed a bot to attack new accounts, and now, it seems, that MBisanz is in the same school: bots deserve attention, human editors can be victimized by careless actions, though. '

I'd like to know what the policy is: are editors commonly blocked for 48 hours for doing something they've stopped after one warning? I'd like MBisanz to know the policy, too. I'd like Ryulong to not use his administrative powers to stop someone from doing something he did to another person.

I'd like an honest, straightforward answer to all of these issues. I got told I'd be foolish to edit Wikipedia's plant pathogen articles because I would get hounded by the established editors because I'd show too much expertise and Wikipedia didn't want experts but community members. I'd like to show people who told me this that they were wrong, there is a place for expertise on Wikipedia to counter the really shitty articles about plant pathogens you have. That's what I'd really like. But I don't see this happening as long as I'm going to be blocked for tagging bad articles, tagging bad sources (and, no Gwen Gale's "if it says it in a couple of so-so places, it must be okay" referencing isn't going to cut it), and for discussing articles on their talk pages, and as long as administrators like Ryolong are allowed to, and supported in, harassing editors simply because they're not established editors--and as long as he disagrees with them, a gang bang on the non-established editor will occur.

I'd like official notification on my block log that I will be allowed to edit without being punitively blocked for having a content dispute with an established editor. Because your established plant pathogen editors don't write well and don't know their stuff: your articles are only suitable for red-inked laugh lines on bulletin boards.

Ultimately I'd like to edit the articles without having to protect myself from this hit squad--you should afford the same courtesy to others who come to edit subject, and who try to work within Wikipedia's policies (stopping the edit war when told to, and it wasn't really an edit war, just a couple of reverts, and discussing the article on the talk page). Because what now stands is: get warned, stop doing something, and get blocked for it, then get harassed by the editor whose content you disputed since he's an administrator and is allowed to harass other editors, but will be protected when others do the same to him.--Blechnic (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attepted to apologize to you. But each time you take offense to what I say. You can go about and edit articles as you have been for the past month. No one is going to ban you. I'm never going to even see you again, unless someone else mentions me and you come to make some sort of statement that lead to this extended thread, again. MBisanz may never contact you again. Hersfold may never contact you again. I would have thought that the month without incident would have shown that. I'm fine if you just go and write something about a mosaic virus attacking raflesia, or whatever it is you usually write about (I have no botanical teaching, so I don't know anything about what you really study). There is no hit squad after you. The blocks on you and Bidgee were both questionable. My protection of my talk page was wrong, and that is why I let Kylu remove it. Again, your block came about because of disruptive (although good faith) activities at an article that hadn't been edited since your block because the issues with it had been resolved. There are currently four new references, including those that support other references' statements.

For the tl;dr version; you're not going to be banned, no one is immune to rules, established editors don't get preferential treatment, administrators don't get preferential treatment, policies are not perfect, sourcing is not perfect. Is there something I did not cover?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that just about covers it on your part. I suggest Gwen Gale ought to be told the last part so she stops telling editors not to template the regulars, and the essay on not templating the regulars ought to be AfDed, and I don't buy it for one minute. However, I accept your apology. --Blechnic (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars says "When dealing with established users, it is generally more effective to write them a short personal message than to apply a standardized template." That doesn't mean "Don't give them any message that would have required a template."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Which is an essay and not a policy nor a guildline. Bidgee (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS And, please do look at what I came here to do.[64] It's hard to believe that my edit history said to MBisanz: block this bitch and block her hard and fast to get back to those very important bots. I'm betting if I read the administrator guidelines for blocks nothing justifying MBisanz's blocking me after I'd stop and blocking me for 48 hours would be found. --Blechnic (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Final note: and then, I'd like to just edit plant pathogen articles without hearing from or about any of you ever again. But, as long as I have the nasty assortment of blocks attached to my account that's not going to happen, so ultimately I won't be satisfied, because my interest is tropical agricultural pests, not being gang banged. So, just an explanation of what the policies are that should have been followed and an annotation on the first block. Then leave me alone. --Blechnic (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then do it. A block log is not a scarlet letter. Only one person is preventing you from writing about tropical plant pathogens and that is yourself (currently). I'm sure Wikipedia's coverage of such a topic would benefit from your research and studies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever quit while you're ahead? Let's pretend you didn't post this. I still have a threat of being permenently banned for tagging articles hanging over me. --Blechnic (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You do not have any threat of being banned for any reason whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do have a threat of being permanently banned from Wikipedia hanging over me. A final warning to that effect:[65] "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning. Are you saying this is officially retracted? It's a lie? It's invalid? It's not policy? It was merely a threat? What? --Blechnic (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That refers to this whole section. The assumptions of bad faith, accusations of harassment where others do not see it, and the continued requests for others to look into them. If that behavior continues, then maybe you would be blocked. However, that statement does not concern placing {{fact}} or {{disputed}} or other content templates that would improve articles, unless the behavior is seen as disrupting the project. I cannot speak for Hersfold, but I believe that is what was meant. That is also what Abd refers to in his message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it refers to the whole section of me trying to get you to stop harassing me? So, in other words, if someone harasses you, you can use your administrative tools to stop it, but if you harass me, and I ask you to stop, or take any other action, I will get banned from Wikipedia for doing so, because when I asked you to stop what got you mad at Kelly, I was assuming bad faith, but when Kelly did it to you, she was committing an actionable offense? In other words, I could be banned because I failed to bow down under your harassment? --Blechnic (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And the only reason I had ANY interaction with Hersford to begin with is for tagging a badly written article. --Blechnic (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You would be blocked due to the language you used, as explained below by Carcharoth. As Abd says, it is the tone you use and assumptions you make of others' statements that led to all of the blocks you have in your block log. Yes, my protection of my talk page was wrong (I stated that, and it is covered in the subpage). Being vitriolic and acerbic does not help anyone, and that would be the only source of a block based on editing outside of the article space. You are not going to be banned for tagging articles. You are not going to be blocked for tagging articles. All that's gonna happen is that someone will see the tags and fix the article. That is what has happened with shrew's fiddle, after everyhing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not the one threatening the ban, so you can't say. --Blechnic (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hersfold isn't here to clarify, so I'm just trying to determine what he meant. And, as Hoary says, blocked ≠ banned and indefinitely ≠ permanently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic seems multiply confused. "Indefinitely" isn't the same as "permanently", "blocked" isn't the same as "banned", and neither Ryulong nor anybody else (other than Hersfold) need take responsibility for what Hersfold wrote. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no confusion whatsoever about who is responsible for Hersfold's threat to block me infefinitely, and, no, I only speak English, and I'm not familiar enough with policies to be able to hit anyone over the head with them, so I have to go with what was said to me, and what that means in English. So, this means, what, "indefinitely" means? Are you going to block me for this now? For getting something wrong? It also appears I stopped the behavior Hersfold threatened me with indefinite blocking for, so, right up MBisanz's policy guidelines, I should be "indefinitely blocked." Don't worry, I'll go look them up so I better understand what I was hit over the head with. I'm betting single-admin "indefinite blocking" is just a way to get around the need for community input in a ban, though. --Blechnic (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Indefinite" means "no defined length." "Permanent" is a defined length. However, it can't be coded to "permanently" block someone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Going by the e-mails you (Blechnic) forwarded to me, I suspect Hersfold was talking about what you said in the e-mail. ie. If you carried on with that, he would indefinitely block you. In fact, he didn't block you indefinitely when you sent him the second e-mail, where you are, shall we say, a lot angrier. But regardless of that, I think it is safe to say that Hersfold too would not block you (indefinitely or otherwise) for tagging articles or disputing their accuracy. It is more the language and personal attacks. Tone the language down and drop the personal attacks (even if you think others are a hundred times worse), and you will be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So, this was, what, a lie? Administrators lie and threaten users? That's the policy? Tone what down? My response to being punitively blocked for a content dispute? My response to being blocked after I stopped edit warring as I was warned to? Tone what down, continuing to respond to the escalating attacks against me by Ryulong, MBisanz, and Hersfold ater I got blocked after I stopped edit warring? Maybe if I had continued edit warring, yes, maybe that was the correct action.

So, what, this was an empty threat? And that's standard for administrators on Wikipedia, empty threats to upset users who are being harassed after being wrongly blocked?

If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning.

Exactly how can a user get blocked for following a warning, then get told that another warning is just a lie? --Blechnic (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And, please, stop forgetting that I got blocked after I stopped edit warring, so exactly how am I supposed to take this? Now, I'm actually supposed to obey the warning? But when I obeyed the warning the first time, it got me blocked~ 0000:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"If you keep this up..." This being the tone in the e-mail and in your messages to me saying that I was harassing you, as well as the constant assumptions of bad faith, "...you will be indefinitely blocked." Indefinite blocks are not bans and both can be overturned. "This is your final warning." in regards to your tone and your assumptions of bad faith. This as well as your comments on the talk page likely resulted in your first block. Hersfold's block resulted from your comments on your talk page during the block (in which you accused me of harassing you) and in your e-mail to Hersfold. I haven't seen the e-mail. All I know is that your tone in every situation I've seen is that your tone really turns me away. They come off as being (as I've stated before) unnecessarily vitriolic and acerbic, and that you take many things way too personally. If this is fixed, then I don't see you being blocked, banned, driven away with your tail between your legs, etc. any time soon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MBisanz says he was too concerned with dealing with bots to really be clear why he blocked me, but if that's what you think got me blocked, putting a credibility tag on a blog, when Wikipedia guidelines for sources says blogs generally shouldn't be used, it seems I was improperly blocked for a content dispute. --Blechnic (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been one month. He can't remember the exact details and he's only going off of his contributions at the time. And "generally shouldn't be used" means that people look it over and determine whether or not it should be used. That occurred, as Gwen Gale, Bidgee, and myself saw the "blog" posting as a useful reference in regards to the subject matter. Sure, more people looking at it would be good. There has to be a noticeboard to cover that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant policy: "Anyone can create a website or ... then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. .... Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

He was a computer scientist writing about his trip with his wife and kids to a museum of torture--it's not his field (there's a Microsoft joke in here somewhere). I was blocked and threatened with a block for following Wikipedia guidelines on verifiable sources--Blechnic (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And I quoted this in the content dispute: "Here's more, just in case you want to debate the site because he is a professor:"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." from the policy. --Blechnic (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, would it really be worth it to lie about what one saw in a museum?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not why you don't use just any source, you don't use the source because the blog is not a place where you've researched and verified, or even where you attempt accurate scholarship. There are so many reasons for using verifiable, and reliable resources that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about this. The place to argue against those in not an aside to another discussion, but on those policy pages. You, Gwen Gale, and Bidgee didn't opt for this. What you opted for was getting me blocked so that I couldn't quote policy or argue against non-reliable sources, especially Gwen Gale and her creationists-delight: 1 plus 3 sorta sources = 1 reliable source. I suggest you promote the idea that it would not be valuable to lie in a blog about what one saw in a museum as a reason for including blogs, even blogs by professors on edu sites, as verifiable sources and just see how far it gets you. --Blechnic (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Some blocking guidelines I'm finding

"Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." So, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, MBisanz was not supposed to block me one I had adjuted my behaviour. This is policy, and Hoary wants me to know policy, so I'll be looking at it. And, I'm guessing that what policy is, is that MBisanz's behavior was way out of line. --Blechnic (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion.

If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe"

So,Hoary, here it is, if no one will lift the block, it's effectively a ban. Exactly what Hersfold was gearing for. And, since my unblock request was 100% ignored, I know damn well what was going down. --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Okey, so I get to do a timeline for the second time in a day.

• 6:43 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews as a Copyvio [66]
• 7:15 UTC He tags parts as unreliable [67]
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews for speedy deletion [68]
• 7:32 UTC Ryulong reverts speedy tag [69]
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic reverts Ryulong's removal [70]
• 7:33 UTC Ryulong removes tag [71] citing "I am an administrator. I do not think that this qualifies for the speedy deletion criteria, particularly because you think it is spam just because the references have stores."
• 7:37 UTC I warn [72] Blechnic that if he inserts unwarranted tags into the Shrews article, he will be blocked.
• 8:11 UTC Blechnic inserts another {{fact}} tag in the article [73]
• 8:12 UTC He inserts more fact tags [74]
• 8:34 UTC He inserts another fact tag [75]
• 8:35 UTC Bidgee reverts the insertion of the fact tag with the summary "Stop 'ing" [76]
• 8:37 UTC Blechnic inserts a verifiability tag [77]
• 8:39 UTC Blechnic inserts a credibility tag [78]
• 8:45 UTC Bidgee reverts the credibility tag [79] with the summary "I see nothing wrong with the source"
• 8:47 UTC Blechnic reverts Bidgee's removal [80] with the comment "Please don't revert without discussion on the talk page."
• 8:50 UTC Bidgee reverts Blechnic saying [81] "Sto edit warrning. You have been already warned for the 3RR"
• 9:11 UTC I block Blechnic [82]
• 9:33 UTC Realizing they were both edit warring, I block Bidgee [83]
• 9:48 UTC Sam Korn declines Blechnic's unblock request [84] with the reason "You were warned very explicitly that a continuation of your behaviour would result in a block. You continued your behaviour. The block was warranted and reasonable."

Now considering that there clearly was edit warring going on, and that I had warned him nearly an hour early to stop edit warring, I'm really not seeing the issue with a block on both Bidgee and Blechnic's sides for edit warring. MBisanz ^talk 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz claims I broke the 3RR. I've counted 3 reverts and how I understand it is if you go over 3 revert which I didn't, Quote from the 3RR template, (Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.)! MBisanz owes me an apology over the handling of this. Revert #1, Revert #2 and Revert #3 and the reason for the revert was talked about on Talk:Shrew's fiddle and also another talk page (could have been AN/I but unsure) which I would have to search for but what did Gwen Gale do? the very thing I removed with the revert. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit is to stop edit warring. Administrators can still block for edit warring, though in practice this is probably applied to people trying to game the system by doing three reverts over the course of many dyas or doing the fourth revert minutes after 24 hours after the first one). hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not an entitlement (and I never said it was), just stating I followed the guidelines. All this happened in one day and I didn't revert 4 times only 3. Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ain't that pretty. You ignored the fact that the last edit I made before you blocked me was me discussing the article on the talk page. That IS what you blocked me for. Really nice sumnation with omission. Is this how it is, first you bash the editors with policy, then you bash them with misrepresentation? --Blechnic (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened in those 21 minutes, by the way, between Bidgee telling me to stop edit warring and your blocking me? Nothing on my part? Then I had stopped for 21 minutes by your time line, so you blocked me for nothing. Or are you omitting something? --Blechnic (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about this lovely "discussion" Talk:Shrew's_fiddle#Professor.27s_personal_blog of you accusing others of personal attacks and lack of respect. And it was a month ago, but if I have to dig down deep in that old memory of mine, I was probably double checking that you had actually done stuff after my warning that warranted a block. Also, at 7:43 [85] I contributed to a discussion on a bot issue, so I probably spent a good portion of time after that reviewing the bot's edits, policy, etc, then at 8:50 I tagged a page for deletion [86] , spent some time fixing that tag [87] and then got around to checking back in on what had happened at the Shrew's article since my last warning. MBisanz ^talk 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, your excuse is you were too busy to do the block properly, so heads rolled and it didn't really matter what you did? I love that, you block me for edit warring after I stop edit warring simply because you were multi-tasking poorly? You didn't give a shit, in other words? --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS that is sure what it sounds like you are saying. --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I see a way to resolve the MBisanz-Blechnic part of this. I think MBisanz's warning was unnecessarily broad: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing." I realise that MBisanz probably meant this only to apply to the Shrew's fiddler article (it was, after all, in a section about edit warring on that article). A more precise warning would have been: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template to the Shrew's fiddle article, you will be blocked from editing.". More pedantically, the "attempt" bit of the warning is meaningless, unless MBisanz is psychic and can block at the moment of attempting to save an edit... :-) More relevantly, Blechnic is right that "unwarrented content template" is a subjective judgment and should be disucssed on the talk page. I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead. Might I suggest that MBisanz make crystal clear to Blechnic that the warnings only applied to the Shrew's fiddle article, and that Blechnic is free to raise objections on other articles . A large part of the problem here is that Blechnic feels unable to tag other articles, and that is bad. MBisanz, please tell Blechnic that you were warning for the behaviour, not the content, and only on this article, not on other articles, or some equivalent of that. That is more important than justifying your block. Also, please remember that Blechnic sees all three bits (Ryulong, you and Hersfold) as part of the same incident. In that sense, your timeline, which only looks at your part in this, doesn't tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey, since I wasn't clear enough at the subpage earlier today, my warning was for the behavior of edit warring over templates at the Shrew's article. Blechnic is free to tag any articles or edit any page in any manner he sees fit. Although I do find this clarity a bit repetitious after my comment earlier today; "This block was a month ago, Blechnic was edit warring, I blocked for a period of time, end of story. I can't find myself threatening a ban, and certainly there is no topic ban in place from my POV."[88]. Of course, as always, User:MBisanz/Recall is available if this is not enough. MBisanz ^talk 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the problem, "I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead," is exactly what I did: I stopped tagging the article and was discussing the issue on the talk page. It seemed, at the time, like the right thing to do. But, apparently it was the wrong thing to do. -Blechnic (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can people please stop advising that this wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been a complete idiot and instead did what I did? IS there some communication problem here that the evidence shows I was discussing the issue on the talk page, and I have to be told as if I'm an idiot, which is what it's beginning to feel like, that I should have been discussing the issue on the talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to post that nasty comment about recall to remind me that I am not, according to MBisanz, a worthy editor: "Editor in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." --Blechnic (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that MBisanz has no intention of doing anything but firmly establishing that he is an established editor and I'm not. There's no point in discussing this issue with MBisanz any longer. --Blechnic (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper method of resolving this is moving on, as what's done is done and cannot be undone. Your block cannot be changed.

It has been stated multiple times on this page that MBisanz's statement solely referred to actions performed at Shrew's fiddle, for which you were blocked temporarily. Events after this block lead to subsequent reblocks and extensions of the block.

No one is saying anyone is established, not established, good editor, bad editor, etc.

Any actions performed by Hersfold cannot be discussed as Hersfold is not currently active daily.

Any actions I have performed I have attempted to apologize for, but if it's not clear enough, I'm sorry for exacerbating any problems that have been construed as harassment, provocation, and haranguing.

Instead of wasting more time and energy on what will likely turn into another subpage, can this be resolved or are we out for blood now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice accusation, if I don't accept what was done to me, I'm out for blood? Can you apologize without a personal attack? If not, don't bother.

And, actually, the issue of established editor keeps arising. That's why Gwen Gale thought that Kelly shouldn't be tagging you, and she posted that here and elsewhere: you're an established editor. You threw that in my face also, during the content dispute: you're an administrator, so you know more. As long as people keep acting in such a tacky and useless manner towards me, I'm not satisfied. I was blocked for a content dispute after a single warning, blocked for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring. Now MBisanz's friends are on his talk page threatening me.

How much longer do you intent to antagonize me? --21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears your didn't read that far down on my user page, the only criteria for being a filer of a recall request is "Auto-confirmed user not under editing restrictions." the other points of edits and blocks apply to people who agree with the filer. And before we go calling User:Abd a friend of mine, about 4 months ago I supported a ban on a friend of his and just last week turned down a request of his via email, so I doubt he counts me a friend (although I have no hard feelings towards him). MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So your enemies are threatening me on your talk page? Thanks for leaving the threat up to make sure I got it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is an "unwarranted content template"

":The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing. MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

Especially since all of the sources I questioned were updated, except for where another administrator decided that if it says it on a couple of so-so source that equals one good source? Please, someone tell me, why I should have been blocked when I was genuinely concerned about technical issues with this article? Why I should have been blocked with one warning. Why I should have been blocked AFTER I stopped edit warring? Please, do go ahead and look at my time-line, too, that includes information that MBisanz omitted conveniently. --Blechnic (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, instead of threatening editors with blocks for content disputes, when the editor is concerned about the quality of the article, why not let them discuss the issue? Why, exactly, did I have to be blocked because of my concern for this plagiarized, poorly sourced article? What was so precious about its content that it required my being warned only once, then blocked after I stopped edit warring? Edit warring, by the way, that only earned me one warning. --Blechnic (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And I take it this means that no one knows what was unwarranted by my templates, so unwarranted that it obviously deserved a single warning then my being blocked? Note also MBisanz keeps getting it confused: I was warned for tags, but blocked for edit warring? Which is it? --Blechnic (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a tip - you're kind of making yourself look bad / unreasonable here by railing incessantly against your treatment over a month ago. I agree with you that this was handled badly, but I think all involved have gone much further than we normally see here in trying to reach a resolution on it (denials and false accusations, sadly, are usually more the norm here - I'm surprised at the good faith I've seen in this thread). It's been admitted by the people involved that various people involved did not act ideally. It's been stated multiple times that there will be no follow-on from this, that you are not topic banned or likely to be banned or anything else. I suggest dropping it at this point, moving on with just editing and improving the encyclopaedia, and if something else happens then we can deal with it here. At this point I'm not seeing anything more that can be done. Orderinchaos 09:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But Ryulong doesn't look bad now that he's decided to taunt me and harangue me after I accepted his apology (my bad, seems I should have seen that one coming, but I didn't), and stalk me.[89]

--Blechnic (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that his stalking you. He could have came across the image in the Featured picture delist nominations category. You may wish to see WP:Wikistalking. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course not, just like he wasn't harassing me when I was blocked. His interests do run to Golgi bodies and biology, though, as I can see from his contributions list, and he often edits in FP delisted--oh, my bad, not to both. But thanks for stepping in and bludgeoning me over the head with policy that I'm supposed to read and know, but Ryulong can ignore. Guaranteed, no one will be asking him to back off. --Blechnic (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just posted it incase you didn't know about the policy. Bidgee (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I believe that. I'll ignore your first comment. --Blechnic (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone looks bad (and like I said, I agree that this was handled badly). By continuing this fight for justice, however, you really can't achieve anything further and risk only making yourself look bad by beating a dead horse. Orderinchaos 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold's response (sorry, another subsection)

Hello, wonderful to know I am missed while on vacation. The block was extended in relation to the email I have included below. As Blechnic has stated he will freely forward it to anyone who asks, I see no problem in posting it; however anyone who feels otherwise is free to remove it.

Attacking other editors (namely Ryulong and the other involved administrators) through email is unacceptable behavior, as I'm sure everyone will agree, so therefore I extended the block and cut off his access to email for the duration. A quick review will show that I was attempting to assume good faith as much as possible (see my comment here). That received the following unhelpful and continually rude replies [90] [91], upon which I protected his talk page for the duration of his present block. I warned Blechnic to stop assuming bad faith in the protection notice [92]. Shortly thereafter, he sent the above email.

Blechnic, I would again offer the advice that you try to calm down and work past this. I've had issues with editors in the past as well, and sometimes the best remedy is to simply agree to disagree and avoid each other as much as possible. You will not be blocked or banned provided you continue to abide by policy; my warning which you have repeatedly copied above referred to your continual assumptions of bad faith and attacks. It's difficult to run a collaborative project when people scream at each other, I'm sure you can understand, and so such behavior is considered disruptive. Nobody is out to get you, and I assure you we admins have much better things to do than stalk people (especially considering we have very little time to devote to stalking in the first place). Taking a look at your talk page now, it looks as though you are more than capable of being a valuable contributor - keep that up, and there won't be any reason to worry about being blocked or banned or whatever.

I do apologize to all for not being very available at present - I am currently on vacation in Nova Scotia and will travel around to Utah by the start of August. During this time I will only be able to connect on occasion, and usually not for an extended period. People wishing to contact me may drop me a line on my talk page, as was done in this case, or send me an email if a matter is particularly urgent. I check emails before coming to my talk page. Of course, because of this, I may not be able to adequately respond to any one with questions about my above statement, so I hope I've explained everything fairly well. Sorry for the delay once more. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather condescending response:"calm down and work past this." I was in a content dispute with Ryulong when I got blocked by MBisanz. Ryolong posted 6 or 7 times on my talk page after I was blocked. I asked him to stop. I felt harassed by him and made it clear that I felt harassec by him. You stepped in and continued posting on his behalf after he stopped. Then you blocked me for being harassed by you and Ryulong. Not even Ryulong seems willing to continue defending his repeated posting on my talk page, while I was blocked for a content dipsute I was in with him. You're coming by to join the fray was guaranteed to have only one reponse: further inflammation of an already irritated user. And to have the nerve to demand that I stop accusing people of harassing me is really too much. I'm suprised how little Wikipedia administrators seem too know about simple techniques not to inflame situations on the web. Just keep telling people to "calm down," assuming they're hysterical, and you're calm.

So, please, don't condescend to tell me to "get over it," because I'm not over being blocked after I stopped edit warring, or for tagging an article that had improper content, and I'm not over being blocked by you for accusing Ryulong, rightly, of harassing and provoking me, which you continued to do on his behalf. That's exactly what he was doing. He even continued it here after I accepted his apology. And that's exactly why you came to my talk page in the first place: to defend Ryulong and continue his behavior.

Maybe administrators ought to get over provoking editors they're settling content disputes with by bullying and blocking.

I was editing just fine before I had the nerve to question a blatant copyright infringement on the main page. Oh, well, and before I pissed off a bot designed to attack irregulars. --Blechnic (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I stand by what I said in the e-mail 100%, Ryulong coming by to follow me to WP:FPD today, and egging me on after I'd accepted his apology, just goes to show the extent of it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A link to an outline on my talk page

With a few important details, thanks to all who urged me to calm down: Hersfold, who finally blocked me for a week, came to my talk page to continue Ryulong's harassment, and blocked me for calling Ryulong's harassment, exactly what it was, harassment and provocation. In other words, I got pissed while being provoked while I was blocked punitively and incorrectly by MBisanz, then I got blocked for getting provoked. Nice play, MBisanz, Ryulong, and Hersfold.

Here's a link to my outline.[93]

--Blechnic (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm really confused about what is going on here. Please just answer this one question, as succinctly as possible: What can the community do for you? We seem to be going in circles here, with no end in sight. —Kurykh 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one's going to apologize, but with it up here it's a nice chance for people not involved to get in a good kick while I'm down. --Blechnic (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, well, Blechnic ... since approximately 16 of the past 24 replies to this thread are from you, I am not sure very many other people are still listening. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are, it seems. But, I respect your right to speak for others. What a surprise though, the pissed off person is the most vocal. It kinda happens like that. Maybe if I'd been treated like a human being from square one I wouldn't be pissed off. --Blechnic (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Yes, this was handled badly, with a big dose of newbie-biting and a non-apology apology. People, did you click on Ryulong's posts to "get Blechnic's attention", that he has posted several times in this thread? I thought them quite hair-raising: "Perhaps it is best that you are not returning to Wikipedia, as your mindset would hinder the project"..."maybe you are not cut out for Wikipedia." Now, at this point, Blechnic does go on and on, making herself look bad (at least, bad in the context of the Wikipedia culture which she's obviously not aware of, and which says May was a century ago and she may under no circumstances refer to something that ancient or be still upset about it). Please remember, everybody, that newbies are touchy and experts are valuable.
If nobody objects, I'm going to post a one-second block to Blechnic's block log (errr...I mean, admin Bishzilla is going to), where I state that the blocks of May 4 were unjust and in violation of WP:BITE. And then, hopefully, we can close this thread, and I hope Blechnic will feel that the purity of her log has been restored, and feel better about the unfortunate episode altogether, and accept that admins are just human, and try their best. Is that all right? Ryulong? MBisanz? Blechnic? I don't want to start an edit war on Blechnic's log, so I'm going to leave this proposal up for 24 hours before I implement it. Please note below if you object. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC).

No objection from me, as always my actions are open for review and modification. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll still feel my block log is a stinking piece of ..... But you know what, I'm betting newbies act on wikipedia just like they're treated.

Anyway, I do accept this as a solution which will leave me feeling the issue is 100% resolved, as long as Ryulong also keeps his word to stay away. --Blechnic (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a fair resolution. We can't set things back to the way we were, as the software won't let us, but I think this is a reasonable alternative. Orderinchaos 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd like to thank Bishonen for proposing this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever ends this is awesome.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'm going to annotate the block log now. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

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

My comments

Seems that my comment have been ignored, I posted this in the Timeline section. This is what I said and the only reply I got.

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz claims I broke the 3RR. I've counted 3 reverts and how I understand it is if you go over 3 revert which I didn't, Quote from the 3RR template, (Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.)! MBisanz owes me an apology over the handling of this. Revert #1, Revert #2 and Revert #3 and the reason for the revert was talked about on Talk:Shrew's fiddle and also another talk page (could have been AN/I but unsure) which I would have to search for but what did Gwen Gale do? the very thing I removed with the revert. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit is to stop edit warring. Administrators can still block for edit warring, though in practice this is probably applied to people trying to game the system by doing three reverts over the course of many dyas or doing the fourth revert minutes after 24 hours after the first one). hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not an entitlement (and I never said it was), just stating I followed the guidelines. All this happened in one day and I didn't revert 4 times only 3. Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz blocked me for 48 hours (with no warning), I then asked for it (the block) to be removed, Sam Korn then reduces it to 24 hours however I've seen other users have there first time blocks removed. I think it's totally unfair to have different rules for one user. No doubt this will be ignored (just like the reply I left on MBisanz's talk page). Bidgee (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit warring by User:RedSpruce

User:RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to McCarthyism and has been involved in extensive edit warring, removing sourced content that has been added to a series of articles, most notably G. David Schine, Elizabeth Bentley‎ and William Remington. In all three of these particular cases, RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed content added by other editors. The pattern is that other editors, including myself have added content and sources, and then RedSpruce has removed it. While it takes at least two to edit war, the pattern here is that of an arsonist who sets new fires after the firefighters have put out the previous one and built a new building in its place; the arsonist then blames the firefighters for causing the problem. This can be best seen by User:RedSpruce's recent edits over the past two weeks, almost two dozen edits, every single one of which has removed sourced content: June 1st) this diff of William Remington‎ (rm repetitious & unnecessary footnote quotes); June 2nd) this diff of G. David Schine‎ (rv); this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with the classic edit summary of "rv for the usual reasons..."); June 3rd) this diff of William Remington, removing sourced content without bothering to provide an explanation; this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with an edit summary falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)".); this diff of William Remington‎ (again, based on a false claim of "RV per RFC and general consensus"); June 4) this diff of William Remington‎ (again, falsely claiming "RV, per RFC and general consensus"); this diff of G. David Schine‎ (with an edit summary of "RV per general consensus. Editors can look at the history and the discussion if they want to see what the issue is" after deleting content uder discussion at RfC). On June 5, User:RedSpruce swept through all three articles -- Remington, Bentley andf Shine -- again deleting sourced content without explanation or justification, a continuation of the WP:OWNership rights improperly arrogated over these articles. After taking a week-long break following the previous ANI, User:RedSpruce returned, sweeping through all three articles again -- Remington, Bentley and Schine -- using the edit summary of "restoring to better version" as an excuse to remove weeks of work on improving, expanding and adding sources to these three articles. This time around User:RedSpruce added some more arbitrary deletion of content at Joseph McCarthy, and then some WP:wikistalking at Lizzie Borden, deleting content from an article he had never previously edited that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been actively editing. In the span of two weeks, dozens of edits adding sources and sourced content to these three articles has been removed by User:RedSpruce. In no case has RedSpruce indicated why this content violates Wikipedia policy nor has he added content or sources to any of these articles. I and other editors have shown a sincere interest in improving these articles; User:RedSpruce has shown a persistent objective of interfering with any effort to change these articles from what he has decided is appropriate. Administrative intervention to address these issues is sorely needed. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a whole lot of really strange, but clearly bad-faith, editing. That's definite edit warring, though to what end, I'm not sure. Might just be an 'I'm right you're not' situation. A block should be issued, as it's clear that he will continue such editing and reversion. ThuranX (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe RedSpruces' reversions were worded well, but I will note most of them were reverting extraneous and unnecessary quotes from citations. Edit-warring over such quotes is something Alansohn is currently engaged in an Arbitration over. Neıl 龱 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a broken record - see Alansohn's last AN/I complaint, which led to no action. Repeating the same complain a week later is one thing, but if you post this yet again without noting that there is an open ArbCom case on this very subject which is close to its conclusion, and which bears remedies and findings which are relevant, then it's going to be hard to view this as anything other than shopping around for a block. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I might even have agreed with the snide broken record remark if it weren't for the fact that the same user has returned a week later with an additional series of reverts to the same articles, with the best and brightest excuse being that his version is "better", and done so after the evidence-gathering phase of the Arbcom case has been completed. Arbcom has baffingly chosen to ignore the footnoted quotes issue in its entirety and has decided to ignore the ample evidence of previous abusive editing by User:RedSpruce, despite the numerous examples of edit warring and incivility by RedSpruce. All that is needed is one admin who can look at this problem and come up with a solution to stopping sourced material being arbitrarily removed without coming up with rationalizations to enable the abuse -- "I don't believe RedSpruces' reversions were worded well" is an entirely unjustifiable excuse to justify deletion of dozens of edits -- and we might have a solution here. Can anyone here actually deal with this problem? Alansohn (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Being blunt - Alan, you will find few, if any, editors who believe your habit of lumping extensive quotes into references is appropriate. Nobody is denying they are sourced. You seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that Redspruce's reversions were only because you had reinserted the unnecessary quotes. Was his edit-warring appropriate? Possibly not, but no more or no less inappropriate than yours was. I have witnessed this from you firsthand before. Neıl 龱 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• To be absolutely blunt Neil, I think that there is a rather clear difference between editors adding sourced material to articles and editors who have decided that they will remove sourced material from articles, a distinction that few editors are unable to appreciate. I and other editors have expanded the three articles in question and added sources for statements that had none. In turn, User:RedSpruce has simply taken it upon himself to remove weeks of work. You have simply got to do better than the utterly irresponsible "Was his edit-warring appropriate? Possibly not...". I have offered over a dozen examples of abusive edit warring by User:RedSpruce, and I challenge you to point to a single edit that I (or any other editor) has made to these articles in this period that would remotely meet even your definition of edit warring. User:RedSpruce can be stopped or he can be enabled. Alansohn (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through a few articles and made several reverts. First of all, these quotes provide some essential details and therefore improve the articles. Second, this is an WP:NPA problem. People made good faith work by sourcing the articles with appropriate quotes. The justification of deletions by RedSpruce sounds unconvincing. Simply going through the articles and deleting a good faith work by others is unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one hope that Alansohn keeps making these metronomic ANIs. Perhaps they will eventually lead to some admin or admins actually becoming involved and taking a good look at this issue, or even at some subset of it, looking at just the G. David Schine article, for example. The ArbCom has looked into it, but they are clearly going to decide that the issue isn't within their purview. It seems the only remedy they're certain to apply is a restriction on Alansohn for his "uncivil [comments], personal attacks, [and] assumptions of bad faith." That will be a start, but the major issues will be left untouched. Alansohn and his partner-in-edit-warring User: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) are relentless in their defense of bad edits that they can't justify on any grounds, and boundlessly dishonest and obstructive in their discussions and interactions. RedSpruce (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• In an extremely rare point of agreement, I too would hope that this process would lead to appropriate admin intervention to address RedSpruce's persistent edit warring. Coming from someone whose entire edit history over the past several weeks consists of removing content and sources added to improve articles he believes he WP:OWNs, User:RedSpruce's shrill statement that I and other editors who have improved these articles are "boundlessly dishonest and obstructive in their discussions and interactions" only adds to the mounting evidence of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations. If RedSpruce's comments here and multiple unjustified and arbitrary reversions are intended to be examples of good faith editing, we have a real big problem here. Neil, are you still OK with RedSpruce's actions? Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

← Again, this argument (footnoted quotes) is the subject of an ArbCom case which is ready to close (there are actually enough votes to close it now). The proposed decision includes findings that Alansohn has repeatedly engaged in "personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith", and is to be subject to an editing restriction providing for blocks in the event of "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". In that context, taking this content dispute to AN/I repeatedly in an effort to have RedSpruce sanctioned, when ArbCom declined to act on these claims, is forum-shopping. Not mentioning the ongoing ArbCom case dealing with these exact issues is poor form, and sets a trap into which an unwary admin might venture. Reposting essentially the same complaint a week after failing to get the desired response is poor form. The quotes issue is a content dispute. Stop forum-shopping to get RedSpruce blocked and consider the usual means of resolving a content dispute. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Forum shopping? I did not initiate the RfArb, RedSpruce did. After Arbcom refused to consider the ostebsible subject of footnotes (and RedSApruce has been removing far more than footnoted quotes (as socumented below) and refused to consider RedSpruce's edit warring and repeated incivility, RedSpruce has undertaken a two-week long edit war in which he has repeatedly removed sourced content and references, without any explanation or justifcation other he likes his version better. This is a rather one-sided edit war; I and other editoirs have added sources and other sourced content, while RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed them. The claim that this effort to seek a fair and neutral review of the pattern of abuse by User:RedSpruce is in "bad faith" is completely and entirely unjustifiable. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce actual changes vs. "quotes in citations" subterfuge

• I am not sure why "quotes in citations" is always being used as the counter argument. I don't think anyone is actually looking at the edits. RedSpruce was blocked once already for 3RR and a second time for "edit warring" at these very articles, for removing referenced info, and overriding consensus, not for deleting quotes. He is removing info during an active RFD, and using the summary "better version". At this point his deletions have been reversed by three people. Lets look at the articles and see his changes: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Elizabeth Bentley changes:
  • He removed the name: "William Ludwig Ullmann ref name=coc/ and the source from the list of people she named in testimony
  • He removed the Time magazine reference attached to other names that she gave in her testimony, leaving them unsourced
  • He removed her employer: "Academy of the Sacred Heart, Grand Coteau (1953)" from the infobox and the associated reference.
  • He removed the reference to this sentence: "Her parents were described as straight-laced old family Episcopalian New Englanders." Leaving it unreferenced.
  • He removed the New York Times review of a biography of her: "Galagher, Dorothy. "The Witness: Review of RED SPY QUEEN - A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley. By Kathryn S. Olmsted.", The New York Times, November 3, 2002.
• G. David Schine changes:
  • He removed the names of the children from the infobox: "children = Frederick Berndt Schine (1964-1996)
    Mark Schine (twin of Berndt)
    Vidette Schine Perry
    Kevin Schine
    Axel Schine
    Lance Schine "
  • He removed his role in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations from the lede: "in his role as the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations." overriding consensus on talk page, during an active RFC.
  • He removed authorlinks from citations: "|authorlink=Richard Rovere" and reverses the wikification of publishers.
  • He removed the intermediate person: "through newspaper columnist George Sokolsky" in how Schine met Cohn and the associated reference from Time magazine.
  • He removed the citation for "At one point, Cohn was reported to have threatened to "wreck the Army" if his demands were not met." leaving it unreferenced.
  • He removed the marriage date "On October 22, 1957," from the text of the article. And the year from the infobox.
  • He removed "sic" from the incorrect age used by the New York Times in the title "Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69 [sic]".
• William Remington changes
  • He removed "employer =National Resources Planning Board (1940)" from the infobox
  • He removed "salary =$2,000 (1940)
    $10,305 (1948)" from the infobox
  • He changed "parents =Lillian Maude Sutherland (1888-?)
    Frederick C. Remington (1870-1956)" to "parents =Lillian S.
    Frederick C. Remington"
  • He removed the url to the book citations: "url = http://books.google.com/books?id=SgX4AAAACAAJ&dq"
  • He dewikified the publisher in citations
  • He removed a large chunk of the biography on education and birth vs. raised. The article originally stated that he was born in "New Jersey" which was incorrect. He was born in New York and raised in New Jersey, hence a number of references to substantiate the correction ... which were all removed.
  • He removed "His father worked for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co."
  • He rewikified free standing years.

Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton have made quite a few valid and worthwhile edits to the articles in question. They have also made a great many bad edits that are deeply damaging to the quality of the article, and which they have never been able to rationally defend. Sometimes when I remove their garbage edits I take the time to filter in the good edits. Other times it just doesn't seem worth the effort, because I know that my time and effor will just be undone by a revert. If and when some action is taken to stop Alansohn/Richard Arthur Norton from making their garbage edits, I would be delighted to replace their worthwhile edits. This is what I advocated with the Annie Lee Moss article, as shown here. RedSpruce (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the acknowledgment that there have been "quite a few valid and worthwhile edits to the articles in question", the question of how one determines which edits meet the "garbage edit" category is left rather unclear. Unfortunately, the flip side is an acknowledgment that edit warring by repeated reverts has been done in arbitrary fashion by User:RedSpruce, tossing out the baby with the bathwater given the supposed difficulty of filtering out the so-called "bad edits". That this acknowledgment comes after the close of an arbitration proceeding in which repeated good faith edits to expand and source these articles were used as an excuse to initiate the litigation only demonstrates the collateral damage caused by this edit warring, especially when those who could have put a prompt end to this refuse to step in to see the clear one-sided nature of this war. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say "collateral damage," I'm guessing you mean the restrictions placed against you for being chronically incivil. Judging by your comments here, that restriction will only mean you have to spend a little more time trying to cloak your spite in subtlety. What is more obvious is that you and Richard Arthur Norton have a habit of supporting each other's viewpoints and revisions across an enormous spectrum of articles. On the frequent occasion that you find an editor who disagrees with the form or substance of your edits, you take them to the wall while Richard Norton extends your three reverts until any opposition has been crushed or disabled. It's disappointing that it took a question about the |quote= parameter to enforce a restriction on your contempt for other users, but I hope you will take the time to understand the substance of this message and not the form it takes. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, incivility apparently means anything said by anyone who disagrees with you. A cursory review of your spiteful remarks would show them being far more uncivil than anything I've been accused of. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering your editing restriction, the rubber-and-glue defense doesn't hold much water. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering your history of persistent edit warring and incivility at Cameltoe, Cleavage (breasts) and Whale tail (among many others), I'd say the characterization is fairly accurate. The pattern of continual removal of sourced material in the face of multiple editors disagreeing is a remarkable fit with User:RedSpruce. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• So what are you trying to say here, Alan Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cosprings user page and piracy

User:Cosprings keeps linking to blatant sources of copyvio on his user page despite being warned. The last time he was advised by an administrator here, he removed a slew of bit torrent links. I just deleted two of the music piracy blogs from his user page, but even his own personal blog ("Silentsprings, the official blog of Sybylys") is nothing but links to torrents containing complete discographies of musical artists. Someone stop this guy from flaunting his user page as a one-stop illegal download hub. Also, his personal music he's linking there is admittedly in violation of copyrights via sampling. 72.66.80.133 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this user is using Wikipedia as somewhat a webhost, and the history of his userpage is full of torrent links. I'll crosspost this to WP:AN/I which is probably a better venue. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from WP:VPP#Cosprings user page and piracy x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was one of those who advised him to ditch the torrents in the first place, but in light of this latest info I believe more aggressive action may be appropriate. I'm tempted to MfD it, but I figure waiting for comments here first is better. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the torrent links and the link to his torrenty blog. If he readds any links, I suggest a short block. Neıl 龱 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems he disagrees. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Neıl 龱 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone suspect that page is almost like webhosting or advertising, links or no? x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and some hours before your post I deleted the redirect from his userpage to that page for just that reason.[94] The subpage should probably be AfDed or MfDed or whatever. (IP editors can't AfD for technical reasons relating to the article creation "experiment".)

Since his October block for "disruption",[95] this user has a history of incivility, failing to communicate, inserting plagiarism of copyrighted text into articles, making changes without consensus, removing AfD and speedy tags from articles he created, removing "no rationale" tags from his images, and repeatedly misusing CSD G7 in his speedy deletion requests. Have a quick scan of his talk pages since January. [96] [97] Really a problematic editor. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User subpages deleted as advertising (G11). Userpage selectively deleted to remove copyright infringement. — Werdna talk 08:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Buckshot06

I would like User:Buckshot06 to stop stalking my editing. There are too many diffs to list, so please help yourself by using User contributions feature--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a case of Wikistalking, rather than a dispute over the appropriateness of the category [[Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars]]. mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has added this category to some 30+ articles or so, and Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) has removed it from each with the edit summary "Rmv overcat".

There is ongoing discussion of the issue here, and it's worth pointing out that Nick Dowling (talk · contribs) has observed that mrg3105 has had repeated problems with overcategorization, often in explicit breach of consnesus (diff of ND's comment). Quite troubling is that mrg3105's response to Nick's advice was met with "Nick, don't try to impress me with your admin status" (diff, it's a long read, but trust me the comment is in there).

mrg3105, can you show me where there is consensus for the inclusion of such a specific and awkwardly-phrased category? If there is consensus, I will warn Buckshot about the reversions. However, at present, I think his removal of the category tag was appropriate. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not just about this category, but an ongoing stalking of articles I edit by Buckshot06, often within minutes, for many months, and his constant opposition to virtually everything that I do, regardless of consensus being there or not.

In this particular case the category name was taken from the higher level category with the addition of the Napoleonic Wars to the higher level category name, so not exactly inventing anything here.

The troop types, all present in the period, but uncategorised as such, were then gathered so I can work on them from one central category since many use same sources. In at least one case this is currently the only category being applied to the article, and in the cases objected to by Buckshot, Infantry, [[Cavalry] and Artillery, there are currently only 4-5 categories. What Buckshot06 objected to this time is the possible overcategorisation of these articles if every period in military history was to adopt the same category name. However, no one has done so in the many years these articles exist. Most of the troop types cover only three centuries, so overcategorisation is highly unlikely. The plan is to create dedicated articles for the period to cover the Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, as Infantry of the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars and Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, and subsequently removing the current category from the more general articles (however something is needed now). Buckshot06 as usual would not enter into a discussion, and I felt that I have as much right to create a category as anyone. If anyone thinks the category inappropriate , by all means use the category talk page.

What I did find inappropriate was Nick suggesting that I am asking for "some kind of block". This is actually before a blockable action has been found. Sounds rather like a threat to me. Administrator rites are not there to be invoked every time an editor doesn't do what the administrator desires. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

There was no consensus because the category did not exist. So far as I'm concerned the entire categorisation of the Military History is a mess. I have taken several efforts to bring the matter to discussion over a period of months, and every time has found apathy and Buckshot06's opposition that lacks argument. My last effort to achieve a discussion received interest from less then 1% of the group of editors officially signed on to the subject area, so what I decided is to be bold and create the category and start working on the articles. I rally do not wish to waste more time in fruitless discussions because aside from new article patrolling, occasional salvage and de-stubisation I also actually contribute articles that are not stubs, and they also take time to research and write.

I do not see why I should have to be shadowed by Buckshot06 continuously correcting and reverting my contributions. Previously he claimed that we edit in the same are. This was only partly true, but is completely untrue now. Since I begun new article patrolling, he has been a shadow to me despite there being lots of other editors and bots quite up to the job, and lots of articles that he can be destubing even within the Project that has 196 pages of stubs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if I got the core issue wrong, then provide diffs. You said "please help yourself by using the User contibs feature". Frankly, most people who patrol these noticeboards will just ignore a request like that (notice that nobody else has responded other than me). I decided to go the extra mile and check the contribs, and that was the conclusion I came to.

If there is a longer term issue, you are going to need to provide diffs, e.g. show multiple examples where you started editing an article that was entirely unrelated to your past interactions with Buckshot, and which he had not previously participated on, and how he showed up to thwart you. Given this mediation case, I am more inclined to guess that you two just have a shared interest in military history, and that's why you butt heads so much. But maybe I am wrong. If so, you need to prove it to me with diffs. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Jay, that would take more patience and time then I have. Pick an article, any article I created. It would be hundreds of diffs, thousands even. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and its true that we do share the Mil Hist interest. Originally I offered to collaborate, but that soon came to a conflict off-wiki. Currently I rarely edit the articles Buckshot06 is mostly concerned. So far as I can tell he has never edited the Napoleonic Wars articles, which is why I decided to go there to see if he would follow, and he did. Besides that I have tagged and did minor (and occasionally extensive) edits on new articles from random areas of the Project and Buckshot06 is always there. What is more, his apparently gnomish behaviour is sometimes accompanied by biting remarks which are only a hair's breath away from being personal insults. I am not going to sit here amassing diffs. So far I am not aware of having done anything wrong in regards to any Wikipedia policy (except occasional loss of temper).

Guidelines and conventions are just that. Given an option of rigid guideline observance and waiting another 6 months for consensus, or getting 20-odd articles to a higher quality of content, I have no problem doing the later. My previous experience with Buckshot06 is that he is not able to offer a reasoned discussion backed by constructive suggestions that focus on improving Wikipedia as a reference work, but is more concerned with strict observance of what are usually not policy issues, but his own sense of what is correct.

As far as consensus-building is concerned, for example I recently brought up another issue on categorisation two days ago which to me is at once essential and obviously in need of a consensus, but have not receive any comments, not even from Bucksot06, so its not like I have not tried. Strange that of 100 editors on the task-force not one was logged in over the weekend. Stranger still that no one seems to mind using two category syntaxes for at lest a year now, and not doing anything about it.I guess I'm just a lot less willing to sit here and wait for someone else to do the work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, if it would take more patience and time than you have to present the case, dunno if I'll be looking into it too much ;p BTW, if you have not already done so, it is customary to notify Buckshot06 and any involved parties using the {{ANI-notice}} template. This will give us a chance to hear both sides of the story.

If I may try to paraphrase your complaint: The thing that specifically bothers you is that you butted heads with Buckshot over WWII-related articles, so you switched to Napoleonic Wars-related articles in order to resolve the conflict, and you feel he followed you there? Is that the gist of it? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but decided to go to sleep finally so did not respond.

I sent Buckshot06 the notification almost immediately

Its not just to do with Buckshot06 following me to the Napoleonic Wars area. He persistently follows me everywhere by watching my posts and interludes in my discussions with others, invariably in opposition, but usually lacking any supporting sources, and basing himself in guidelines and conventions while failing to appreciate that they are not policy. My academic background is strongly predisposed towards factual evidence to support statements, an I find lack of this in Wikipedia (despite policy) quite unsettling. How much more so when aside fro having to dig up reference for articles, I am forced to do so on talk pages also. Being gnomish is one thing, but from my perspective Buckshot06 is as close to being disruptive towards me personally as I think is possible without actually crossing the line. I have no problem if his activities in respect to my edits were gnomish, but they are not just that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this matter Jaysweet. Might I encourage you to contact user:Kirill Lokshin, user:Roger Davies and user:Woody. All three are coordinators of the Milhist project, all administrators, and are in a more neutral position to comment on Mrg3105's actions, which I believe are harming the encyclopedia (though most recently Roger issued him a block warning). Mrg has been involved for months in a string of bitter disagreements with Milhist and religious editors on article naming, categorisation, deletion debates, WP:RMs, article introductions, and other matters and has usually been in a 1 versus all other users position. WP:Consensus appears to have no meaning for him whatsoever. I started monitoring his edits because he was working on subjects I was interested in; now I do so because he's warping wikipedia and usually doing so without regard to anything anyone else thinks. Buckshot06(prof) 01:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everything Buckshot06 says is completely true, with one significant omission. All these disputes were, and are centred on the non-use, use and mis-use of sources. As a reference work, Wikipedia can not include in its articles information which is not referenced properly, and in each and every case that has been the issue. It is still the issue. Lets be clear about what Wikipedia is supposed to be - a work of reference that has public trust. Currently most academics tell their student not to use Wikipedia. One can not add content to a reference work by consensus. Consensus is only required to evaluate the validity and verifiability of sources on which that information is based. One can not for example establish by consensus that 2+2=7.43, or that the capital of Australia is Alice Springs.

If I contribute to Wikipedia, I want my contributions read. If I want them read, the quality of Wikipedia needs to be brought to a level where it is not just trusted, but recommended. If I, and other editors, have to drag the others kicking and screaming to a level of higher quality of produced articles, so be it. If this does not happen, than Wikipedia has no right to existance. It is just that simple. I am not liable for actions or inactions of others. I answer for my own actions, and so far, with one exception, I have nothing to be sorry about in my participation in Wikipedia. Buckshot06 can not seem to fathom that beyond the daily grind of editing there is a strategic goal for Wikipedia we are all supposed to be focused on

Roger's block warning was directly related to Buckshot's activity. Most of the bitter disagreements have been with Buckshot06, and several groups of highly nationalistic editors, something I will address elsewhere.

It is true that I am "warping" Wikipedia...into shape! Currently the coverage by the Project is out of sync with other Projects within the area of Humanities and the discipline of general History. Its articles are disconnected, uncategorised properly, many core articles are unreferenced and unsourced and the subject areas badly organised. This is largely because there is a lack of awareness of the big picture, and a lack of direction. I accept this to be the nature of Wikipedia participation, but that also allows me to contribute in the way I see best fit and within the policies of Wikipedia as they relate to editing. So far my only cardinal sin has been in in being uncivil to people who usurp these policies and stack consensus discussions to really warp the process by which Wikipedia is created. If Buckshot06 can't see this, I suggest he is not really paying attention--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and ScienceApologist

After a long discussion (and much drama), I am closing a thread about Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs). The result is a restriction on both editors that is intended to force them to disengage from their long-running dispute, by specifically sanctioning certain problematic actions. It would be sincerely appreciated if a few uninvolved administrators could provide a cluecheck for the resolution, and indeed it's almost certainly needed. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Closing. Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been reminded about the disengagement restriction mentioned above and Martinphi has been reminded about his ArbCom restriction. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that restrictions be put on Vassyana from discussing anything about MartinPhi or ScienceApologist because Vassyana is being unfair and should leave both Wikipedians alone. Thanks. QuackGuru 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated attempt to reveal personal information

Could an administrator please remove the thread [98], and protect the page of this blocked editor? He has been warned about this repeatedly but still persists.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh? isn't this the matter above that just got blanked out at your request? Is the matter resolved or not? I'm confused at what is going on here. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This complaint is unclear to those of us who are not familiar with it's context. Please give more background (including diffs). Also, if you are looking for oversight you need to follow the directions at the top of this page and not post here. --Selket ^Talk 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the user pages, subpages and user talk page of this blocked and banned user. I've protected the user and user talk pages to prevent recreation. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you review all the discussion that went beforehand before you did so? However at this time, given that this user reposted some things that (tangentially) revealed information about an editor who does not want that information revealed, after he was expressly counseled in no uncertain terms not to do that, regardless of whether he thought it was warranted or not, without first seeking advice about it, I think this user just does not get it. It's not an honest mistake any more, it's stubbornness. The matter needs addressing in a different manner than he was using. Support the reblank/reprotect. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry it came to this. This user seems to want to flout the rules of Wikipedia over and over. They might be stupid and unproductive rules in many cases, and they might need to be changed, but the answer is not to break them over and over and over. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• From what I can see, it was one edit Moulton made, linking to a rename log. He didn't exactly use the name again, and he even seems to have provided the link in some unicode babble, but if you followed the link he provided, you could still see the name in the logs. This does directly contravene what Lar told him not to do, though ironically, Lar did something similar himself earlier. The difference is that Lar hadn't been told explicitly not to do this, and Moulton had. When you are near a cliff edge, you don't skip along looking up at the sky. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Though on closer examination, it seems Filll had more problems with a different section on Moulto's talk page (called "Outing others") where Moulton republished the descriptions of e-mail conversations that had been at User talk:Moulton/Answers, but replaced John Doe with J...D... ie. he refactored it all. One thing I would say about all this, is that people who use their real name off-wiki when talking or e-mailing others about Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia editing, are asking for trouble. You just can't trust everyone to keep things confidential. If you don't want your name to be known on Wikipedia, don't use it off-wiki in such a way that it gets connected to, or can be connected to, your on-wiki activities. Keep things separated as far as possible. Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If this is true, that Filll used his real name in e-mail communications, then he self-disclosed. Moulton is under no obligation to keep self-disclosures a secret. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a big difference: Filll has never used his real name onsite. I checked this out under similar circumstances long ago: the Foundation privacy policy still applies. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The discussions on User_talk:Moulton are relevant to an ongoing RfC ("Intelligent design"), and some of the evidence at the RfC is now redlinked. Shouldn't the page be oversighted instead? Gnixon (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was no need to delete all 759 edits. Some of the discussion there is relevant to things being discussed elsewhere. We don't simply delete all of a talk page because the user is indefinitely blocked or because a recent edit is problematic. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Undelete those pages at once Toddst1. There are important conversations going on and you have no grounds to do this. I think it is Filll who does not get it. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, please calm down. We have five separate actions by Moulton which violate the policy on harassment. Just an hour after Lar gave him very comprehensive advice regarding the issue, Moulton was back at it again. Saying "it is Filll who does not get it" really makes me wonder. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

From the look of what Lar wrote it would appear that he is talking about Moulton and not Filll. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm..yeah. What I was trying to say was that Dragon seems to have the wrong person in his sights. Filll isn't at fault here, Moulton is. Lar advised Moulton to err on the side of caution when talking about people's real names. Moulton's response was to switch from real names to initials. Not very clueful. Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for context, there had been personal info in this user's subpages discussed recently here, which is why I went ahead and deleted this indefinitely blocked user's files.

I'll be glad to reverse anything I've done, but this is a pretty complex issue and I'm not sure restoring all those files are the right answer. We've got to balance protecting privacy, a highly disruptive editor and the ongoing needs of the discussion. Can someone clue me in to which files should be restored? Is it just the talk or is it the archives as well? Then we can look to see if there is personal info there.

Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, I've restored most of the previous edits. If reversion is required, then please do so. Toddst1 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively if another admin has more context than me here, please go ahead and restore the appropriate files. No ego at stake here for me (at least in this case 8-). Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The privacy issue takes priority. Resolving that in a way that intrudes minimally on other matters is fine, as long as the privacy is adequately addressed. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As was politely pointed out to me, I resotred a bit too much. I think/hope I got it right this time. Please AGF on my part here. There were several other files in user space and user talk space that have been deleted. I assume it's only User talk:Moulton that is required at this point. If I don't have it right, then I think I should step aside from this issue at this point.

Oh - and yes, I agree whole-heartedly that we should err on the side of protecting privacy here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone accidentally reveals his actual name in emailing someone or in posting on IRC, that does not constitute a license to repeat that information on Wikipedia. One anti-Wikipedia site talked about the real name of an editor which had somehow popped up in an IRC posting, due to the software attaching his name and institutional affiliation. I have avoided IRC for that reason, not being sure what personal info would be revealed in a posting. I once emailed Wikipedia with an oversight request, after creating an email account which did not attach my real name. I was surprised to find that the software tried to pick up my other (real name) email account rather than the account specifically attached to Wikipedia. Another type of accident would be if one did a copy and paste in a posting, and the software on the PC pasted the wrong text, something previously copied which included personal contact info (thank God for "Show preview"). But these or other accidents should not be cited as a license for someone to maliciously reveal personal information which the editor has not intentionally posted on Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The undertow and related dispute

Following events today and arbcom list consensus, The undertow (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 9 months. Because the matter has gained some communal interest, a brief summary of what's gone on in the background follows. A lot will be common knowledge.

A dispute primarily between two administrators (the undertow and Swatjester) boiled over a few weeks ago on the wiki, over discussion and accusations against the undertow. (A few others were swept up in it somewhat, especially two other users (one of whom was at RFA at the time) who also had similar accusations made against them, by others close to the case.) None of the parties was in the right in their conduct. Roughly speaking:

• Undertow had tried to make a point in a contentious area, and wanted others to agree with definitions he felt correct on the topic, which he knew in the real world were often viewed with hostility and would often be rejected. It backfired badly.
• Swatjester (and others) felt the definitions in question were unacceptable, personally, and stated on-wiki (rather than taking note that personal issues should be left off-wiki) that the undertow should be desysopped.
• Undertow responded by parody and such [99]
• Others created WP:POINTy userboxes and made comments that caused them problems in turn, at least one user reimported comments from an off-wiki blog to build a like case against another user.

The matter was dropped on-wiki, but off-wiki Undertow stated intent to take action against Swatjester for his words. Most times, WP:LEGAL ("If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels") is the best guidance to follow, especially since in most cases, claims are unlikely to have substance, and are "puff" by persons who weren't able to get their way. In this case by contrast, and exceptionally unusually, both parties were deliberately keeping the matter largely off-wiki, it was not likely to be an ongoing cause of on-wiki disruption (Swatjester had pledged to keep it off-wiki, the undertow at that time was also doing so), and talk seemed more likely to resolve the matter for the benefit of users and the project, than the possible escalating effect of a block.

The undertow had also emailed Arbcom that he would probably need up to six months to sort out some personal matters contributing to the situation (he gave considerable detail in private), and that his tools would be given up voluntarily for the good of the community; if in six months he was able to act effectively as an administrator once more, he proposed he could ask for them back.

Over the course of the last few days, a number of developments have taken place that make us feel we are less likely to make headway in resolving it. Separate to this, the undertow has escalated the matter. It was off-wiki; today it was brought back on-wiki specifically to further the dispute. If ignored it may fade; equally it now looks like it may not. There's a difference between ignoring a dispute when it isn't impacting the wiki, and when it is. A large amount of detail was given by all parties in private which I'd as soon not make public unless they wish it, and which would fill in the gaps in the above - please respect their privacy on this - but it may be that dialog cannot do much more. This dispute should not have been brought back on wiki, and that decision to keep it off-wiki -- now gone -- was what was holding off the block last time. An arbitrator consensus therefore now exists, that todays events have led to an extended period of blocking, with regret.

Our hope is that in time he will understand our action as an attempt to balance the needs of the community, the needs of other editors to not have off-wiki disputes imported, and compassion for the undertow himself, that his off-wiki stuff sorts itself out, and understand we have tried our utmost, and strained matters at times, to try and find a resolution that was better for the project and for all even if non-standard. It should be stressed that a number of people acted poorly, all parties recognize things they did wrong, and the situation escalated quickly enough that perhaps no realistic handling could have really prevented it. We hope he will read into this block, that we have not used the normal arbcom ban period of 12 months, nor banned him, and understand we mean it. Private dialog will continue if wished. Should the undertow handle this well, and resolves the personal off-wiki matters he describes in his email (not related to the dispute), and it becomes clear this is all "old stuff" at the time, then he would be welcome back. It's entirely up to him.

Given the privacy and legal issues, this is not an easy one to write up - if it is vague or ambiguous in part, or some stuff is completely missing, that's why (as happens in many cases these days), and hopefully for the same reasons speculation can be avoided where possible.

Finally, be aware that we have had to check a number of purported points and claims made by various parties and users in the course of this case, both in private communications, off-wiki, and on-wiki, and verified a number are/were not reliable when examined in depth (though some might appear to be without careful investigation). No details, more just caveat lector. Also there are a number of other factors and minor issues that arose in the dispute, and a few other users who acted in a problematic manner - not everything has been gone into. It may be that some aspects will need addressing further.

As a personal comment on a block and the prior dispute, rather than a formal Arbcom statement.
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting the full rationale here: this is a very complex dispute, and I think it's appreciated that the arbcom have handled it (I for one do). It's an unfortunate set of circumstances, and not the outcome everybody would have hoped for, but it's now apparent that it is a necessary course of action. I am simply disappointed that these are the thoughts of a single arbcom member, rather than a statement from the committee as a whole: one would hope an en banc statement would be offered in a situation like this, sealed and agreed upon by the committee as a whole. Anthøny 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The block summary or subsequent messages, I can't remember which, state that the block was agreed upon by the unanimous consent of the ArbCom. I think they just leave it up to FT2 to write the long tedious emails.

I'd first like to say thanks for posting this. I'd rather these types of blocks be posted right after though, as ex admin blocks could likely always get communal interest. I'd also, for clarity, like to point out that the events that transpired today were not made with any effort to escalate a dispute (as far as I've seen). But once again, thanks for the post. — _Maggot^Syn 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The actions of the arbitrators were not made to escalate the dispute, but to defuse it. The actions of The undertow specifically were to escalate it. Please have faith that the arbitration committee has more information about the whole of what his actions were than you do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't imply they didn't know more or that they escalated the matter. I just happen to know exactly why he created an article on you (off wiki communication), and seen the article (as I edited to it). Upon seeing the article, I did not notice one thing that could resemble anything defined as a dispute. I am of the opinion that he should not have created the article, but it was written with neutrality. I don't wish to drag this on any longer than it already has on other talk pages SWAT. :) — _Maggot^Syn 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I never questioned the neutrality of it. Did you watch his video he made in which he articulated his reasons for the article's creation, punctuated with a remark to the effect of "It would be a shame if someone's kids found out their father died on Wikipedia."? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've seen it (its on facebook for anyone to see I believe). What he meant was, we have set up precautions such as WP:BLP in the event, and in his example, in case a child finds an article on their father and reads it as saying he is dead and its possibly wrong. I'm wondering why you would bring this up, as it doesn't appear pertinent here (if you'd rather discuss it on my talk maybe, you're welcome to it). I'd like to request an outside viewer archive this now. Thanks. — _Maggot^Syn 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiight, it was unrelated. Just like how for the Mafia its unrelated when they say "It would be a shame if someone were to wake up with cement shoes on the bottom of a river". Implicit threat is implicit. Considering the entire rest of the video was directed at me, what makes you so sure that it wasn't, keeping in mind that he's made implicit threats to me before?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being directed at administrators rather than the editing community at large? I'd like to echo Anthony's suggestion for en banc statements and further suggest a dedicated page for explanations of non-transparent Arbcom actions (i.e. at an WP:ARBCOM subpage). Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: the above question is seeking a normative rather than descriptive answer. Skomorokh 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be better addressed at arbcom's talk, citing this specific thread. — _Maggot^Syn 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly addressed, thank you for the suggestion. Skomorokh 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick answers: 1/ The drafting took a lot longer than I thought (due to privacy/non-escalation/"real-world" concerns balancing with "being useful to the community"). The problems moving back on-wiki needed attention sooner and was addressed as soon as consensus was clear. An "agreed draft" would have taken longer and added little. 2/ The purpose of the article is fairly transparent given recent directions in the dispute. There was no good-faith reason. It was created for no reason whatsoever beyond serving a targetted personal agenda, and using the wiki to do so. 3/ Those interested are likely to be either admins themselves, or aware of ANI and rapidly hear about posts on it. They'll see it wherever it's posted. AN/ANI is fairly usual for arbcom actions. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a link to the facebook video for those who havent seen it? :D Dusti^SPEAK!! 21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this action or maybe I would've said an indef block until he showed signs of recovery at least, as his actions have been a bit random recently to say the least and I found the video disturbing. Dustihowe, I will email you the link, assuming no-one already has- well you can have the pleasure of it twice if so lol:) Sticky Parkin 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had made it pretty clear at WP:NLT that off-site legal action didn't matter as long as the user didn't discuss the matter on-wiki. And unless there's a case involved, it doesn't matter what arbcom thinks about this. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, seems this isn't "arbcom authority", but simply it was those on the arbcom mailing list that were trusted with the personal information. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I take of it, and trying to not say too much, I take it Undertow did do something on-wiki related to the legal actions. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't sure on this at first form the summary above. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There was an escalation of the trouble with posts made on-wiki. And that's when arbcom though it was necessary to issue the block. Samuel Sol (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain, for the benefit of those not clued in to the jargon, what is meant by "off Wiki" in the above comments. IRC channel communications? U.S. mail? E-mail? Postings on a blog somewhere? The court system? Stepping outside and duking it out man to man? Thanks. Edison (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Off-Wiki refers to any communication that takes place in any venue or form other than the editing of a Wikimedia project such as Wikipedia, including its articles, talk pages, project pages, or any other type of page, and edit summaries associated with same. Off-Wiki communication includes (but is not limited to) personal contact, phone calls, postal mail or e-mail, IRC or other chat communications, Skype, blogs, and most specifically discussions on other websites. I suppose a fistfight would also qualify. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Colors8 to report on material

Resolved

 – no admin action needed, taking to talk

Carolyn Purdy-Gordon is listed on Wikipedia in the movies she's been in, so why would my submission of her be considered useless information, she's an actress just like Drew Barrymore or anyone else.

Also, The Initiation is a film listed under list of horror films, I even put an external link proving that it was real, I've seen it, and now I've reviewed it, only to have it be deleted, why?

For one thing, "reviewing" a film on Wikipedia violates WP:No original research. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the actors or actresses I create a page for, may not be considered big time movie stars to you, but they're still actors, what if there are curious people out there who don't know who Cooper Huckabee, Michelle Joyner, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon, or any of the other people I listed are, and would like to know who they are?

• Colors8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colors8 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain on the user's talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Block Review Please

Amacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Allisonmacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

more about the timing than the actual blocking. I blocked User:Amacmunn for repeated copyright violations. She requested unblock which Sanstein declined. Then User:Allisonmacmunn popped up, editing the same accounts. I filed a Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Amacmunn (although Twinkle hiccuped on the puppet), indef blocked the 2nd account and upped the block time on the primary. I *think* this was what I was supposed to do, but I'm not certain. Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA: I'm also headed offline so if anyone wants to keep an eye on the favorite articles for other edits, it would be appreciated. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious, I was cautioned against biting, however is blocking a sock created to evade a block really a sock? I've also asked [[User:Smith Jones] for his input. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your actions look correct to me, both the indef on the sock and the extended block on the main account for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

it just sems harsh to indefinitely block someone without even talking to them to try and ifnd out if they are a sock or not. thats why i gave the welcome so the user if she is not a sockpuppet wouldnt be compeltely discouraged from editing consturcitvely in the future. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed Johnston. SmithJones, did you look at the master account and second one? I don't think there's any question about it not being a sock, the last name is the same and it's just a question of first initial or full first name. As far as editing constructively, neither account has so far done anything other than copy paste from their own website and has not shown that she's understood the related copyvio issues. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have another one

Resolved

Currently unblocked but a whois of 38.104.69.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows it to be the Titan offices. Continued to edit Titan Worldwide after I blocked Titan 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated spam. I'm not sure about protocol of blocking what appears to be a static IP in this case if it's enough for block evasion. Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted Titan Worldwide. seicer | talk | contribs 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was leaning toward. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the protection will expire next month. If you're going to lock an article into deletion, it's best to put an expiry so that someone else can write Titan Worldwide (according to the guidelines, of course) after the protection time is up. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:84.134.65.233

Resolved

Please consider blocking this IP for persistent incivility following warnings, and in particular for this response to a warning: User_talk:AndrewRT#Tocino AndrewRT(Talk) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bunch of these today, and blocked them. This is one already blocked 24 hours. --Rodhullandemu 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gen IV reactor article needs moderation

Resolved

I'd like to request some kind of moderation in Generation IV reactor article to avoid an edit/revert war with User:Eiland. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Both users involved have been notified of a possible WP:3rr violation. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Core damage frequency

Resolved

Core damage frequency articles also needs moderation to avoid an edit/revet war. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Both users involved have been notified of a possible WP:3rr violation. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is three reverts (total, by two people) in 18 days really a 3RR violation? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

By definition, no it isn't. However, its still an edit war that isn't beinfiting the project. Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

user Cardiff123098

Resolved

Hello,

This user Cardiff123098 is an habitual vandal. If you check his edits on many topics you will see his edits mostly get undone pretty soon. We have tried to help him but he just takes it personal and carries on regardless. Thanks harris 578 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

cardiff123098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is ok, I would like to work with this editor to see if I can possibly steer him on the right path? Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes OK. No problems. harris 578 (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive edit warring

Pardon me if I'm a bit short, but the last three times I have posted to ANI, I have been wholly ignored. It concerns Dr.enh (talk · contribs) - see the post here. I have repasted the contents below:

Some input: Does the above user warrant a block? The user has edit warred a lot on John McCain against several other users, including past a final warning on the bottom of his talk page. This is ignoring a bit of POV pushing that went on too with all the edits the user wished to put in: (e.g., [100] [101] [102]).

The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User has NOT edited past the "final warning". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I gave a final warning, though I forgot to put in the word "final" (the editor has been warned several times already). I've removed the resolved put up by a non-admin tag because in my experience a "final warning" from a non-administrator is not a final warning at all because it's impossible to ever get an administrator on this damned board to look at one of these cases unless it's been looked at before. (I near guarantee any successive postings would result in another warning or be ignored). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned. If he/she edits again in an inappopriate way, he/she should/will be blocked. Resolved? Not much else that can be done here. Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Since this editor is clearly edit-warring against consensus with a side order of snide personal attacks in response to attempts at engagement ([103], [104]), I think the last warning has been given. If he continues edit-warring or attacking people on the talk page, you can let me know directly for a potentially faster response. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user:Dicklyon

Dicklyon has engaged in persistent harassment, incivility, and edit warring, as detailed in the following.

• Dicklyon makes accusations, refusing to back-up those accusations or to report them through proper channels (using such accusations, I believe, as an intimidation tactic):

• Dicklyon falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet (user:BarbaraSue) [105](see bottom), [106]; when I recommended he employ the appropriate channel (checkuser)[107], he refused [108]. (The other account turned out to be someone else’s sockpuppet [109].)
• Dicklyon falsely accused me of “blatant COI” [110]; when I suggested he employ the appropriate channel for pursuing that charge[111], he declined.[112]. (He deleted the accusation[113], after I pointed out that making accusations of COI for harassment or other reasons was a basis for being blocked [114][115].)

• Dicklyon uses inappropriate language, including “this is bullshit” [116], [117].

• He was warned by an admin that he violated BLP[118] with his edits to Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior[119] because they insinuated without evidence that the journal (or its editor or its editorial board) engaged in unprofessional handling of a manuscript[120], [121]. Dicklyon repeated the insinuation on another page[122]. I reminded him of BLP [123], but he reinstated it nonetheless [124].

• Dicklyon violated NPOV, selectively quoting sources:

• He put on a page the half of a sentence that was negative[125], and omitted the positive half[126].
• He posted a newspaper’s negative quotes about a living person[127], but omitted the balancing information from the same newspaper article (e.g., “Naturally, it's very disappointing to me that there seems to be so much misinformation about me on the Internet. It's not that they distorted my views, they completely reversed my views."[128].

• Dicklyon adds text on the basis of unreliable sources including self-published blogs, [129], [130], [131], an internet petition [132], [133] and a student newspaper[134]. I pointed out that such sources violate WP:RS [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143]. An admin also noted that student newspapers were not reliable (with regard to the topic in question) [144], but Dicklyon reinserted it[145].

• I asked Dicklyon to seek input from WP:RS/Noticeboard and Third Opinions: [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151]. Dicklyon did not respond.

• Because we were involved in a mediated discussionWikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-01 Lynn Conway, I asked that problems leaking onto other pages be brought into the mediation:[152], [153], [154]. He did not respond.

• Within our mediated discussion, some progress was initially made, but Dicklyon never agreed to any text he did not himself author, including refusing to agree to text recommended by the mediator (multiple diffs through here[155]). He appears now to have withdrawn from mediation altogether; at least, he has not participated in several days, while still making edits to disputed pages and elsewhere in WP[156].

There are other problems, but these do not fit within the word limit recommended here. I can provide them upon request.

The related pages on which Dicklyon’s disruptive editing occurs (of which I’m aware) include:

• Andrea_James
• Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior
• Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory
• Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory_controversy
• Centre_for_Addiction_and_Mental_Health‎_
• Deirdre_McCloskey
• Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
• J._Michael_Bailey
• Lynn_Conway
• The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen

I believe Dicklyon should be blocked from editing pages related to sex, gender, transsexualism, and related biographical pages.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion, thank you for bringing our dispute to the attention of more admins. I was intending to do the same. I presume that anyone who examines our respective histories will be able to see that you are a WP:SPA promoting the POV of the editorial staff of the Archives of Sexual Behavior and the staff of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, including attacking the biographies of those who have crossed them. I am prepared to lay out the WP:COI case when I can find the time, but I've been pretty busy with other things. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to work with the people here, and I have the impression that several of the parties involved on various sides have sufficiently strong POV that it inhibits neutral editing . The material on the journal that was reinserted was in part justified on the talk page, and was not contradicted there. In any case, the proposed limitation is absurdly wide--we do not make topic bans of this sort after this relatively mild sort of disruption. I thought of suggesting a one-month moratorium on all of the involved editors for the immediately involved topics--except that I'm sure the same would continue then. These articles need the active involvement of neutral editors--but I'm not sure any neutral editors are sufficiently interested to decipher the complexities. I know I am not. DGG (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with DGG that POVs can interfere with neutral editing such as with the present topics; however, I do not believe that all POVs are created equal. Neutral reflections of reliable sources can still be had when editors follow the applicable policies, which Dicklyon has largely not, as detailed above. For example, when one editor repeatedly requests that input from outside parties be sought and the other editor repeatedly ignores it, there is little hope for a solution regardless of anyone's POVs.

It is also true that I have not contested the current material on the journal page (nor the DSM page). This does not reflect agreement with that content; rather, it reflects a recognition that leaks cannot be addressed until the main problem is addressed.

I am entirely open to proposed solutions other than the ban I recommended above. I have agreed, I believe, with every recommendation DGG made in the aformentioned mediated discussion. (In fact, I am disappointed that DGG did not make any recommendations in his comment above.)

Finally, I agree also that the content issues in dispute are complex. Judging adherence to WP policies, however, is not. Dicklyon has never claimed expertize in transsexualism or related issues; his familiarity with Lynn Conway and the surrounding controversy may come from his long-standing relationship with her [157], [158], [159]. (I recognize, however, that Dicklyon's relationship with Conway is not in itself a violation of WP:COI; it is specifically his behavior that I contest here.)

I remain open to suggestions. I do not believe a solution can be found without admin input.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am adding here the following text that Dicklyon has just posted to our aforementioned mediation page. The edit summary was "It's still bullshit."[160]

I am not willing to accept the biased text by MarionTheLibrarian, a blatant WP:SPA with clear WP:COI, because it lies by not admitting its role as an insider in the cabal that asserts that "Dreger's article underwent standard peer review, but the commentaries did not." I'll make the case on the COI noticeboard when I get around to it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion is correct that I have no experience or expertise in the sexuality topic. I got involved by removing clearly incorrect WP:BLP violations from the bio of Lynn Conway, whom I have known for over 30 years (without knowing that she was a transsexual, for most of that time). I have no particular POV on the transsexual issues, but Marion's POV is so clear, and its editing actions so biased, that I have been trying to counter some of that. It has rewritten many of the above articles completely, essentially unchallenged, to spin them to the biased viewpoint of its institutional affiliations. As far as I know, none of the little quibbles it points out above is a policy violation; it just doesn't like it when someone calls it on its bullshit. My involvement started in late May (see Lynn Conway edit history), fighting Marion and its IP variants such as 99.231.67.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Some of its edits are clearly outrageous, such as this one, and almost all show the clear POV-based bias. If someone else would take a look, and help restrain it, I could back off. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between 're-writing articles without being challenged' and 're-writing articles so that no one has a problem with them' is in the eye of the beholder. Several editors have demonstrated that they have been following my changes by correcting typographical errors and other minor changes. That the pages have been stable is hardly a basis for a negative assessment of my contributions to those pages; the only pages which have been unstable have been the ones on which Dicklyon participates.

That Dicklyon has not violated any policies was not the opinion of the admin[161]. Moreover, whether the totality of the behaviors documented above merit action (rather than any one in isolation) is the very question I pose. It is my opinion that they do.

Finally, I would be more than happy to have someone to participate in producing appropriate text and to root out POV, no matter what its source. I have successfully worked with several people on controversial (sex or gender related) pages, give or take a disagreement along the way. Repeatedly engaging in the tactics noted above, however, can never accomplish that.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's impressions and comments. I think a RFC or third opinion may be appropriate to get some additional feedback. BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am all for BrownHornet21's suggestion to seek Third Opinions and other venues for additional input. By my count, I suggested it myself six times during the discussion. (Diffs listed above.) Because that suggestion went repeatedly unheard, however, what is it exactly I should have done that I did not? Although I remain open to input, what suggestion do you have, BrownHornet21, that would help request number seven succeed where the prior six failed?

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need Dicklyon's consent to initiate a third opinion or RFC. Why not go for it, and see what other editors have to say? At the very least, it might start help building a consensus on how to portray the issue(s) in as neutral a manner as possible. BrownHornet21 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not following you on how that could help very much. Third Opinions would not stop Dicklyon's repeated (false) accusations, personal attacks, and leaking disputes to other pages, for example. Morever, the issues that could have been helped by Third Opinions pertained to Dicklyon using non-reliable sources (listed above). The WP policy, however, is that the burden for evidence is on the editor who adds new text to establish that the source is a reliable one. (That is, Dicklyon would have to demonstrate a consensus for questionable sources). WP couldn't function if things worked the other way around: One can add an unreliable sources very quickly, but demonstrating a >lack< of consensus takes time.

Perhaps I would understand your point better if you gave a specific example of an issue you observed while moderating that could be addressed by third opinion or RFC. Because Dicklyon has refused the suggestions for neutral text made both by you (the moderator) and by DGG (an admin who was providing input), not to mention by me, I am skeptical that suggestions received from still other sources would be of much use either. Nonetheless, if a specific recommendation could be had, I am willing to try it.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet dumping copyvio on user pages and articles

Resolved

 – Indef blocked sockpuppet

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please indef-block User_talk:Adeebtanoli as vandalism-only account and sock. Look at the multiple other IPs and accounts that he used to dump the same content on multiple pages, including one wikiproject[162] and "Wikipedia:Citing_sources" which he keeps vandalizing for whatever the reason [163] --Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also please delete user page and talk page as also having the ofending material --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to nuke 'em, but User:Gwen Gale got 'em about 10 minutes ago. I'm going to minimize the user and talk pages as a sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WLRoss

Hey guys, what do you think of this user page? It's a bit over the "couple of pages" of personal information specified in WP:USER but it's not so obviously excessive as to warrant deletion. I haven't looked at enough User Pages to form a definite opinion as to whether this is excessive so I figured I'd ask here first. So... whaddya think? Is this actionable or am I just being too rules-conscious? --Richard (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit too pedantic rules-conscious, in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not hurting anybody. — Werdna talk 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit much for me but otherwise looks like nothing to bite over. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Sock

On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jet_Delivery. The article's creator Bbarbata (talk · contribs) and Jbarbata (talk · contribs). 5:15 05:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the usernames seem similar, and possible meat puppetry or sock puppetry, both users only edits are to that AFD, however, the arguments given for keeping the article are rather different. I'd say a checkuser would be needed here, but what do you admins think about this? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like definite meatpuppetry, realtives of some sort. I assume barabata is their last name. No sockpuppeteer would be so stupid to create usernames so similar. - Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that Michael Barbata is the CEO of the company, meatpuppetry seems likely. Kevin (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to point that she replied and admited a bit of COI. Article wrote by her brother and CEO of the company. If the claim about findinding the seconday sources is valid it could work. Although with major rewrite due to the intense [[WP:COI}}. [164] Samuel Sol (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this community is pretty sharp! Like Icewedge said, if I was trying to create a sockpuppet, then why would I use names that are identical in syntax and differ in only one letter? The truth is, we are brothers and share the same last name. Jbarbata and Bbarbata are unique users and were not created to deceive the wikipedia community in any way. Bbarbata (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• We appreciate your ringing endorsement, but the edits between the two of you still violate the policy on meatpuppets. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Caspian blue

I had requested Adoministrator's comment for Appletrees, the previous name of User:Caspian blue gaming conducts.[[165]]. And he and I are both preacehed by adomin. And so I delete his gaming conducts on my talk page, then he say not to say gaming conduct on my talk page. What can I say to him? His gaming conduct was already recorded, and so he was preated about it. I can't understand his comment on my page. He didn't feel apologetic for it? [[166]]. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz81089 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can the editors involved in this incident please be more clear in their description of what the problems are? It's almost impossible to tell what the issues are from the above comments. Badagnani (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was preated by admin for because of not familiarity with terms, I wasn't preated for gamings. And you, Appretree (Caspian blue) was preated for gamings. And I deleted your gaming conducts on my talk page, and write edit summary. Your gamings are already recorded as this[[167]]. It's a fact. You should read the page again. I can't understand your writings on my page. Jazz81089 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_15#User:Jazz81089.27s_inflammatory_personal_attack According to this admin The fact that he is himself gaming the system and his filing at ANI shows he knows better, almost. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) --Caspian blue (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can the editors involved in this incident kindly be clearer in their description of what the problems are? The above still makes little to no sense to the general English reader. Badagnani (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

>User:Badagnani. In short, I am personal attacked that I did personarl attack. But as it was, what I did is to write a summary of edits on my talk page that was already recorded as this [[168]]. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. That editor frequently does that, yet for whatever reason has never been disciplined for it (most likely that for admins, there are always "bigger" issues to attend to). But, as our project is collaborative in nature, it really is important that we try to keep our rhetoric moderated and not incendiary, as I've often seen with certain editors. Badagnani (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm the one who heard his personal attacks, and you came to retaliate me for Korean cuisine artilce. You frequently attack me per your history. And then this is clear evidence you've been stalking me as usual--Caspian blue (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can know that I am not only one done by him like this. I try to keep them. Thanks!Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jazz81089's repeated personal attack

• Summary Some Japanese OCN ISP anon has vandalized manhwa article over a year, and also appeared at the same article about one weeks ago. After that, the anon went to Blade of the Phantom Master and removed the mention of artists' nationality and manhwa. The work was actually created by Korean manhwa artists and published in a Japanese magazine in Japanese first. Shortly after or almost simultaneous, it was also published in South Korea. The adapted animation was jointly created by a Korean and Japanese company as well. However, the anon replaced the manhwa related mention with manga and emphasized it.

To avoid disputes and NPOV, I suggested the anon to participate in a discussion or RFC and then presented a sort of compromised version as "cartoon and animation series by Korean manhwa artists published by a Japanese manga magazine as manga. However, the anon refused any compromise but just kept reverting and the behaviors were very similar to a banned user Azukimonaka (talk · contribs). Suddenly, Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) appeared to do the same edit as the anon after his 8 month break and looked like violating 3RR with the two accounts. So I reported to RFCU, but Jazz81089's edit numbers were not enough for checkuser to examine anything. At that time, WP:RFC and suggesting a discussion were no useful (no response at that time), so I filed to WP:3RR on him, but the both were blocked for edit warring. However, after that, Jazz still produced inflammatory comments against me at the talk page of Blade of the Phantom Master and his talk page too. As a result, I gave him a WP:NPA warning, then he reported to ANI previously as if he was a victim. What a lie.

Admin User:Moonriddengirl intervened the case, and everything seemed okay and going to be settle down peacefully. However, the usr kept making personal attacks on me and reverted to his preferred version with no consensus, so I let the admin know of his personal attacks. The admin gave him a warning for his disruptive behaviors and edit warring. Jazz complaint that the article is not removing manhwa mention and emphasizing manga-centered. I was busy dealing with other things, and Jazz and I actually did not contribute to rewrite the article much since the dispute occurred. As Jazz deleted his sockpuppetry case and warnings on his talk page given by me, he wrote the insulting comment against me at the summary field regardless of his previous warnings. So I gave him a NPA warning, and left notes about his behaviors, then he reported here. What a good gesture.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You apparently gaming the system again to report here. Since the dispute is between you and I, I titled as such. (This is not fair to use only my name, since I was attacked by you. You intentionally wrote to mock me at the edit summary over and over and the administrator at that time said you're the one gaming the rule. Besides, it is a courtesy to notify me, and you did not. If you think reporting first is to justify your POV, that is not good approach. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 2008-06-17T04:50:57 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (Your gaming conduct was already recorded, read it again.)
2. 2008-06-17T04:41:50 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete Caspian blue's gamings)
3. 2008-06-17T04:40:32 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete. Appletrees gamings)

The editor did not edit the disputed article but complaint or attacked me at the summary field, so I gave him waring and left notes. I feel very absurd this disruptive behaviros of Jazz81089 (talk · contribs).--Caspian blue (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your gaming conduct was already recorded as this [[169]]. And I only wrote edit summery on my talk page for the reason already reported above. You looks you don't feel apologetic for your conducts. It's repugnant of you. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nay, the admin said you're the one gaming the rule and then you're the one who received the formal warning from her. You just prove that as you keep making personal attacks against me, and then victimize yourself. That is too pathetic. Nope, everyone at the talk page of the article said that you're always complaining and not helpful for the article. The previous ANI is the evidence of your gaming Wiki rules, not me.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand your saying. I editted my page, then why it was my gamings? It's edit summrery of deleted of your conduct which was already reported. It is impossible of being my gamings, and the editing summry was already reported as your gamings. You don't feel apologetic for them? Jazz81089 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are them? You do not make any sense. Personal attacks do not justify anywhere within Wikipedia. After your highly inappropriate personal attacks, you do know that I will see your talk page for a while as you checking my contributions. Somebody who wrote very inflammatory and personal attacks on his own page was indefinitely blocked because of his user page. Your excuse "Oh, I only wrote so on my talk page" is not plausible rationale. You intentionally wrote the personal attacks (not even true) at the summary field. It is so possible you're gaming again as the admin said so and gave you a warning. I sense that you're deeply related to 2channel again per your weird usage of "apologeitc" and disruptive personal attacks. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You did gamings as this [[170]][[171]] that was reported in here [[172]], and the editing summery is short comment of the reason. If this is a personal attack, your writings is a personal attacks too. You say I did gamings, so it's personal attack as you said. You shoud apply same rule on you and others. It's contrariety of yours. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the admin who looked into the case said, you're the one who gaming the rule. As the result of your blatant disregard of consensus and the previous attack, you received the final warning from her[173][174]. Beside, the admin warned about your edit summary as such[175] "The thing to do at this point is to civilly discuss your differences at the article's talk page. I'd recommend keeping your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them." --Caspian blue (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly sense that you're one of banned users by checkuser, or Furf, or Rlevs per your very unique usages of English, and the implausible rationale. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs)

I don't know why you seem like Opoona (talk · contribs) or Princesunta (talk · contribs),Limited200802th (talk · contribs), all of which are related to Japanese 2channel and indefinitely blocked, especially Opoona. Your 9 edits in 3 years and your return after 8 months break do not still make any sense. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep it Short and Simple

Fellas... if you keep sniping at each other back and forth on the Administrators' noticeboard, you are not going to get anyone to actually look at your concerns. I suggest each of you summarize your problem in 100 words or less, providing the diffs you feel are most representative of the conduct in question, and then just shut up for a few hours so an admin or other user can take a look and respond. As it is, I just see a whole bunch of ranting about "gamings" and "preated by adomin" (I had to look up "preat" on urbandictionary.com -- does that make me old?), with a few diffs thrown in with no context that don't tell me anything. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll second Jaysweet here, even though I do know the context of much of this. :) The first thing you might do, Jazz, in response to your first question here is stop antagonizing Caspian blue. I advised you in the continuation of the last ANI thread at my talk page, archived here, to keep "your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them". At this point, since you acknowledged yourself that he found the term upsetting in that thread, you seem to be taunting him. There is no good reason for you to keep referencing that term other than the fact that he told you there that it bothered him. Please review civility. In the last ANI thread, I did not confirm that Appletrees (now named Caspian blue) was gaming the system. Gaming the system is a deliberate effort to subvert the system. I explained to him why his actions could be interpreted that way, but in the lack of persistence did not assume bad faith. Caspian blue, please try to ignore his edit summaries. If he expands the behavior, including it in edit summaries at the article or talk page, then you have a clear case of harassment. In the meantime, if you did not respond to them, they would probably go away. The article in dispute here, Blade of the Phantom Master, is now being addressed by additional editors who are helping to find a consensual version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like Jazz's reporting appears to be deliberate and looks like my name have repeatedly exposed to ANI regardless of his absurd behaviors (I'm the one who got his mockeries again) Besides, Jazz looks like one of Japanese disruptive offenders who harassed me for while and then banned for the reason or meat/sockpuppetry, I think filing sockpuppetry on him is really needed.

• Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets--Caspian blue (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

>Moonriddengirl. I will read the gaming the system and assume bad faith, and will understand them. I understood that was a gaming system and I think I only wrote a summery what was told in ANI page[[176]]. So I was astonished by Caspian blue's conducts, and then I can understand what he is, and what I should do by you all, especally thanks for Moonriddengirl and Badagnani.Jazz81089 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a malicious filing (I'm the one who should report Jazz's gaming the system and his possible sockpuppetry). Per the admin's advice, I will try to ignore the person who tries to produce bad dramas. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lotte Motz edit war

• Lotte Motz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit war restarted between previously warned editors. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii

Following a checkuser user:Fonez4mii was found to be preteding to be two seperate people is a block not in order?--194.217.118.50 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the checkuser only uncovered his IP and the user has said he had already acknowledged this and was not trying to pretend he was two people. The account has only been editing since 18 May and this all may have owed to making some posts while not logged-in, then not handling the outcome whilst clued-in to the community's take on WP:SOCK. I'd AGF for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by Sahyadhri

Sahyadhri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account, is continuously making disruptive edits in the article The Hindu and repeatedly violating WP:NPA. This user is continuously inserting non-RS and WP:SYNTH which I have described in detail in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits.

Edit-warring by this user:

• [177]
• [178]
• [179]

Another IP Special:Contributions/59.145.142.36 is probably a sock of this user. Administrator Nishkid64 removed the non-RS and SYNTH in this edit. But the IP reverted admin Nishkid64's edit. I said to discuss the issue in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits, but they are not willing in any discussion, blindly reverting others' edits. The user was warned two times - first by administrator Nishkid64 and then I issued a warning for repeated insertion of non-RS. But the warnings are ineffective. This user repeatedly called me "eulogist". I request a block of this SPA. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

EvilWendyMan

EvilWendyMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, according to his userpage, 9 years old. Or so it said before the older versions (containing birthdate and school, among other things) were deleted and hopefully by now oversighted. (just looked - they have not been oversighted) However, at this tender age he doesn't seem to understand copyright, and has been uploading logos, tiny photos from the web, and huge blurry photos that add nothing to an article, all without any copyright information whatsoever. He's been warned and bugged about this, with zero response, and just continues reuploading the files (sometimes two or three times on the same filename... and sometimes before they're even deleted)

Normally, I'd hit a user like this with a 24 hour clueban to give them time to respond or read the policies, but in this case, I'm hoping someone more familiar with how to deal with young kids has either a better answer or response. Any ideas? --Golbez (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess taking their toys away and sending them out of the room is the appropriate response... which translates around here as a 24 hour clueblock. I would suggest that they are advised of the block by something other than a templated message, with some friendly pointers toward the help and policy pages but with a clear message that repeated behaviour means they will be told to leave the room for longer next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

After the flock of warnings on his talk page, he seems to have stopped for now. I'd suggest oversighting the deleted edits on his userpage though, they went way too far. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because he is a child doesn't mean he has to be treated any different to anyone else. He should be blocked, yes, 24 hours for the first time as is usual. However, if this user is as we think, 9 years old, then LessHeard vanU has made a good point. Instead of the blocking template, maybe a much friendlier message, and some help. Thats as much as we can do - he may not even read those if he takes no notice of repeated warnings. But a block should be used all the same, for Wikipedia's sake. Lradrama 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If he's really 9 years old, then I'm the Easter Bunny. Which I ain't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, far too many people lie about their age on this website when pretending to be children. I'm sure of it. The amount of vandals who say I'm only a kid is frequent. He is an extremely bright 9 year old if he has developed internal link & other wiki-skills in only a matter of days, I might add... Lradrama 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If we take a look, and this is just an assumption on my part, at his contribs, I don't know of a 9 year old with this form of vocabulary, but maybe I'm just not out there enough. Dusti^SPEAK!! 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did edit Spongebob Squarepants, after all. I highly doubt this is another nine-year-old, based upon the contribution history... pretty damn good English skills. seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all this could be true. Either way, I wouldn't want to block this user myself, for now, since he's stopped after the final warning on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes OK, well we'll wait. But if he continues.... Lradrama 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

IP check for Falcon9x5 and SeanMooney

IP check for two editors (User:Falcon9x5 and User:SeanMooney) suspected of sockpupettry. they are editing the same articles, pretty much the same way, and are trying to disrupt consensus on article discussions like Talk:Haze (video game). an IP check could be useful, thanks. Cliché Online (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to request this, please report the users to Checkuser. Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Usercompare β^{_{command 2}} 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, ok, I do have to admit it doesn't look good. It does look like there is the possibility of the two editors being the same, I would support a checkuser. Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like to make clear here the consensus is not with Cliché Online. In fact, we were the only two users having a civil discussion - User:SeanMooney joined, and Cliché immediately responded with a sockpuppetry accusation. I've been explaining my reasons for most of the day for reverting his edits, and he's ignored them. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and he's the only user involved in the discussion (apart from myself and Sean), and the suspicion of sockpuppetry is his alone. "disrupt consensus on article discussions like Talk:Haze (video game)" is completely misleading, as it's the only discussion page we're both (Sean and me) involved in (as far as I know). Anyhow, Thanks! Fin©™ 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some background information on the whole issue? I'm curious. Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Basically, Cliché has been adding resolution sections to videogame infoboxes for the past few days (maybe longer). He edited Haze (video game) a few days ago, changing the resolution from 576p to 720p. I reverted it, as the creative lead stated in an interview that Haze's native resolution is 576p. Today, Cliché restored the 720p resolution. Sean reverted, and so began a mini-edit war. I added 576p with the source (Eurogamer one) and pointed out his mistake on his talk page. He then reverted with (what I feel is a less reliable) source while I tried to explain on the article talk page and his own talk page that the interview trumped the comment from a developer (which was his source), and anyway, the developer said Haze runs at 720p (which it does), but the native resolution is 576p. I kept pointing him to articles on sources and upscaling, but he continued to rant on about how it displayed on 720p on his PS3. Anyway, eventually Sean reverted one of his edits to Haze, I noticed this and pointed him to the discussion on Cliché's talk page. Sean responded on the article talk page, basically telling me not to bother arguing, Cliché responded with an accusation of sockpuppetry, and that brings us up to this moment! Phew! Thanks! Fin©™ 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you've mentioned a lot of reverting. Please remember this rule. In addition, this seems to be a content disupte. I'm going to point you to here unless someone else has any other thoughts. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that WP:3O is good, also WP:RFC or WP:DR. I find it highly unlikely that there is a sockpuppet issue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I added it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games before I came here. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sticky & Sweet Tour

Resolved

There seems to have been a large amount of vandalism to this article and it has now been semi-protected. Could someone who is familiar with this subject please take a look and correct any errors, as I am definatley sure that there are some. :). Thanks and Happy editing, Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In related news, there are definitely errors on the other 2,476,328 pages. Can someone take a peek at those too? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Um....Keeper, I believe your wrong there. 2,576,327 as I'm sure one was just deleted :). Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you added 100,00 articles, and then took away one? (look at your number again...) :-). My point is really that the article is only semi-protected. Any autoconfirmed editor can edit it/improve it including you. Not really an "ANI" problem, as admin rights aren't needed to edit it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, not appropriate for ANI - Tan | 39 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user talk page protection review

I just page protected User talk:Keysoft‎ after its 5th unblock request. I feel like this is such a dramatic step that it should be reviewed automatically. --Selket ^Talk 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wikilinked Res judicata, since I had no idea what the hell it meant... but other than that, I concur with your decision, if only due to the username. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that they probably should have been directed to Template:Autoblock after the second unblock request. Protecting the page was a good idea though. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I replied to their email, confirming mostly all that has subsequently been said (I commented that COI didn't mean they couldn't write about themselves - but they needed to be very careful about NPOV) but emphasised that notability and verification were at the core of the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoon bending and psychic

User:Vassyana has tried to claim that I inappropriately edited psychic and spoon bending here: [180]. Both of these articles are on my watch list and I have edited Psychokinesis in the past with respect to spoon bending and I have edited [181]. My work on Wikipedia is to make sure that people do not violate WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. I am not stalking Martinphi, but this kind of absurd monitoring is unreasonable since I work in a variety of areas. Note also that Vassyana did not comment on the actual edits (as to whether they were justified by out content guidelines) but seems unusually obsessed with who was making the edits. This is unreasonable. I strenuously object and will continue to raise the issue until someone explains to me some justification for not making edits simply based on who has edited an article previously.

Thank you.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is regarding the issue noted above at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Martinphi_and_ScienceApologist. The restriction that ScienceApologist is being warned about is at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Closing. The restriction specifically notes: "Showing up to revert each other is disruptive, regardless of claims about protecting the wiki from each other." This specific situation and my actions taken are noted at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. I welcome the review and feedback of uninvolved administrators. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Vassyana should stop poking both MartinPhi and ScienceApologist with a sharp stick. At this point, I think Vassyana is the problem. QuackGuru 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was the one who first noticed you reverting Martinphi on spoon bending, and I was the one who asked Vassyana to look into it, as I was bogged down with non-Wikipedia stuff to do at the time. (I apologise to Vassyana for any abuse he/she might suffer as a result of wading into this morass.)

ScienceApologist, there are lots of people watching both psychic and spoon bending. This wasn't 'absurd monitoring'; this was me seeing you undoing Martinphi's edits and recognizing both your names from the ongoing back-and-forth here and on other noticeboards. Vassyana wasn't 'unusually obsessed' by who made the edits—there are few administrators left on Wikipedia who wouldn't raise an eybrow at seeing you undo one of Martinphi's edits (or vice versa).

The two of you have made abundantly clear that – for whatever reason – you can't resist poking at each other. Scarcely a day since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi was closed, and already you're undoing Martinphi's contributions. (I quote from that page: "Showing up to revert each other is disruptive, regardless of claims about protecting the wiki from each other. ") Enough is enough. If you 'continue to raise the issue', you will be subject to increasingly strict paroles and editing restrictions, and you may be subject to escalating blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, in my view, this helps no one. D.M.N. (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It helps me keep my blood pressure down. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to the fact that I no longer monitor who is making what particular diff, I have pointed out that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Note about technology this restriction is pretty much fatuous. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: ScienceApologist claims to be now using "an automated Wikipedia browser which no longer lists who the name of the account who made the change".[182] That really seems "off", to be polite. SA also left a note on my talk page erroneously referring to WP:DTTR and noting that further warnings would be ignored as they are "insulting".[183] Some outside input would be seriously appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, "claims" is a word to avoid. It would be nice if you assume some good faith and realize that your attempt to referee has simply not gone very well. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I am concerned that you're using a highly automated tool to revert content edits without discussion, and that you need to make such reverts so quickly that you can't be bothered to look at the article history. Your full edit summary for your revert on spoon bending was "Undid revision 219842664 by Martinphi (talk) deletion of content reverted." You didn't bother to explain why you felt that your judgement about that paragraph ought to supercede that of the previous editor's, and flatly undoing an edit with that sort of summary borders on being an accusation of vandalism.

I am quite curious about which automated tool it is that you are using. If you would share that information with us, I'm sure that there are experienced editors here who could suggest alternatives that don't have the limitations that you describe, or who could help you to configure your tool properly so that edits wouldn't appear to be anonyous. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm happy with my handle on my WikiBrowser technology, thank you very much. The "limitations" are actually a feature I turned on upon realizing how ridiculous this is going to get and I categorically refuse to turn it off as I have no desire to see who is actually making edits: I just want to see what the edits are (see User:ScienceApologist). That way, if Martin reforms right now and makes only fabulous edits from here on out you won't see me reverting a single one of them. I have designed the automated browser explicitly so that the edits are anonymous.

Let's consider the alternative: I monitor who is making poor edits and when I see it is Martin I buzz one of my "friends" (and believe me there are plenty of people willing to shill for me) to make an edit. That, to me, is unethical. I refuse to do it. I will stand by my commitment to anonymous checks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what your definition of a "poor edit" is? Removing unsourced material per WP:V and removing POV material per WP:NPOV is a good edit in my view. D.M.N. (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A poor edit is one which explicitly violates Wikipedia policy. For example, removing prose that properly characterizes the WP:WEIGHT of a subject is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I don't think you really know what you are talking about since you use the weird terminology "POV material". Anything that is not a fact is a POV. The question is, how does Wikipedia present POVs? We have policies and guidelines which explicitly spell out how to do this. If an edit fails to conform to these, it is a bad edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how does MartinPhi's edits violate this? Surely edits would be bad if POV material was being inserted, not the other way around? D.M.N. (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is "POV material" that you and Martin keep referring to? Have you really read WP:NPOV carefully? Do you realize that everything is ultimately POV? It is up to editors to weigh the POVs and determine which ones deserve the most prominent level of coverage. This edit removes material that does just that. The paragraph in question is cited to a high-quality source about the most famous instance of spoon bending known to humanity. The rationale? It makes Uri Geller look bad. We are under the obligation here at this mainstream encyclopedia to point out the fact that Uri Geller's spoon bending is not due to the psychic powers he claims to possess. If Geller's feelings get hurt by pointing out this, that's not a reason to remove material. Puh-leeze. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Science, it's you not AGF'ing. Why didn't you say that before to avoid all this drama? And it's "coincidental" you two edited the same article one after another. It doesn't hurt to stay away from each other. The more you undo; the more it escalates. Stop now before it heats up again. D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've raised this question on the subpage as well, but I'll repeat it here. ScienceApologist, would you object if Martinphi declared his intention to also use a browser tool that anonymized edits, and would we be back here on AN/I again tomorrow if he (purely coincidentally, of course) happened to revert some of your edits?

As far as I can see, since the remedy was announced yesterday, ScienceApologist has edited fewer than a dozen distinct articles. In that time, he managed to hit two different articles on which he reverted Martinphi. Editing 'blind' or not, it's a nasty coincidence, and it seems obvious that relying on chance to keep the two of them separated isn't going to work. Allowing ScienceApologist to use a 'tool' in this way creates a decidedly unbalanced situation, in which he is permitted to revert Martinphi, but not the other way around.

SA, you also didn't get around to responding to the first part of my comments. The edit summary for your revert seemed to be awfully curt, and might even imply that the previous edit was in bad faith or vandalism. It didn't respond to the previous editor's concern that the material you restored to the lede wasn't addressed in the rest of the article, and you didn't choose to make an edit to fix that problem. Is that a good way to treat editors whom you don't know and with whom you don't have an ongoing dispute? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it doesn't "hurt". But what was wrong with the edits I made? If someone other than Martin had made them, I bet we wouldn't be here, eh? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So, SA knows that he is restricted from reverting a certain editor's diffs, and then adopts a browser which prevents him knowing who made an edit, and then claims that this means he shouldn't have to abide by the restriction? Have I got that about right? DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Entirely correct. D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Not entirely correct. I'm not saying I shouldn't "have to abide by the restrictions". I'm saying that this makes it impossible for me to abide by the restrictions. That's all. If we live in an authoritarian society, this simple act of civil disobedience will get me banned or blocked for attempting to make a WP:POINT. Only, I'm suggesting that it is the boneheaded restriction itself which is making the point and the technologies we have surrounding Wikipedia make this sort of restriction nonsensical. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And, assuming the description is accurate, a reasonable request. Is the intent to keep SA from removing bad edits, or is the intent to keep him from purposely seeking out MartinPhi's edits and automatically classifying them as "bad"? I don't know why we would want the former restriction, and a tool that blinds him as to the source prevents him from doing the latter.
Kww (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Martins worst edit, the one here persists. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see much wrong with that edit. All he was doing was removing unsourced material, and POV. Per WP:V: Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. D.M.N. (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's "Martin's worst edit", could you please explain what's bad about it? As far as I can see he did the following:

• Corrected the definition of "retrocognition". If it was defined as "alleged" transfer of information, then everybody would agree that it exists, because clearly people do allege it happens. But it is "apparent" transfer of information, and the existence of retrocognition is not generally accepted.
• Removed an obviously silly statement claiming that all people who are said to have this ability can see into the past. When corrected to make sense, this statement would become completely redundant.
• Rephrased the statement about who coined the term, making it more encylopedic.
• Removed two claimed (without source) examples, one of which doesn't seem to have the (defining) temporal component in its definition. I am guessing that the other is rooted in a different community, so that it might not be an appropriate example in the lede.

Did I miss anything? Did I get anything wrong? What's so bad about this edit? Unless you think the word "alleged" must be preserved in a prominent place to make it clear that we disapprove of the topic, I can't think of anything. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone will ban Martin from article he disrupts without going through this stupid drama. Why did Martin change the word "alleged" to "apparent" here. Why did Martin remove statements about scientific acceptance of UFOlogy here? I get that most are unwilling to engage in this fight with the tenacious defenders of woo-woo, but come on, now- you've given Martin carte-blanche to go around disrupting new article after new article, and because no one but SA does anything to stop him, his first mover advantage is hurting the encyclopedia. Wait, I have a solution.... PouponOnToast (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit to Ufology looks fine to me. He removed an entirely unsourced paragraph as it's OR and POV. Nothing wrong with that in my view. D.M.N. (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think another editor has already addressed this point excellently, somewhat ironically in reply to Martinphi making the same objection.[184] Vassyana (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing like an argument "everybody hates it so it must be good". With that attitude, we might as well re-introduce smallpox to the populace. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize but I will be unable to respond to anything further until much later in the day. Without getting into great detail, a private communication has taken this to a very personal level and I will not be able to provide responses for a while. Please accept my apologies for any delay I may cause. Vassyana (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding also to the message left on my talk page [185], where Vassyana said I was being disrutive at Spoon bending and elsewhere. I also hope I'm not seen as butting in here. SA did start this thread, but I really think I'm involved, so that doesn't violate the restriction, at least I hope not. If it somehow does, please just warn me. I also want to put it here to get feedback on the particular edits said to be bad, which I did hope were good.

I'm not sure how I was across the line. Spoon bending is one of those POV articles which has really needed fixing. Geller should be mentioned, indeed, but as history, not, well, in the way he was. However, if I need to remove sourced information in the future, even highly insulting stuff about a living person based on a POV source as in this, I'll make sure to say something about it on the talk page. But, I don't think it was disruptive at all to remove that, as I think it comes under BLP where it says:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]

That's what I did. Just because this isn't his bio doesn't mean we treat him with complete disrepsect, does it?

I'm especially confused about this [186], because I did not remove any sourced material, I just moved it a little. The sourced material is

Retrocognition, like all forms of psychic functioning, is said by critics such as Robert Todd Carroll to be, in all probability, illusion or fraud.

And I kept it.

If anyone really wants to discuss particular edits, I'm happy to do so. I had reasons for all of them and feel they were NPOV or else removing unsourced stuff which seemed quite POV or unnecessary. On other edits, for example, the word "apparent" is not a WTA (as are words like "supposed, alleged, and purported"), and completely accurate, since it applies whether the thing is psychic or some magic trick. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

SA responds to MP

Here are the main problems with Martin's statement:

1. There is no such thing as a WP:POV article. There are articles which do not comply with WP:NPOV, but from what I see the edits that I reviewed at spoon bending categorically do not do that.
2. From what I can understand, BLP is being used as a smokescreen. Either Geller has amazing psychoflexive powers or he doesn't. Since the most prominent view is that he doesn't, giving that view the most weight is appropriate according to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.
3. WTA is likewise being used as a smokescreen in similar ways.
4. I'll also note that Martin seems to be in constant violation of WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution. Including Carroll's name is a way to make it seem like it is a singular opinion when, in fact, the Skpetic's Dictionary is one of the best general references we have for fringe ideas. What Martin seems to be advocating is similar to someone writing "Acceleration, like all physical quantities, is said by physicists like Richard Feynman to be, in all probability, observable and frame dependent." It's an absurd, clunky wording that is meant to marginalize the point-of-view that Wikipedia policies says is the point-of-view that should not be marginalized.

Since Martinphi is under restriction for disruptive editing, I ask, why is this kind of advocacy tolerated by the administrators?

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

block review - User:Cbsite

Cbsite (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has sent me an email, the whole contents of which (tildes and all) was:

• Unblock my account.~~~~

Feeback is welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is all that really needs to be said here. – iridescent 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a good block. Given that edit summary, I am inclined to re-block with e-mail disabled. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, wash mouth with soap. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend shampoo rather than soap. Works a treat. Seriously, endorse. Alex Muller 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Such a nice young editor. Good block. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend replacing indef with, oh, 125 years - anyone unblocking before the century is up to be desysopped for wheel warring? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten another email from Cbsite. Ok if I or someone else blocks email? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So why did you block my talk page after I said I didn't do whatever edit you said I did? And then mentioned that it wasn't a factor in your decision TWICE???

I want you to hand this off to someone else and let the appeal go on without you.

• Reblocked without email. --Rodhullandemu 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A little late, but Cbsite also sent me an email, first saying that they would NOW agree to dispute resolution (but I will listen to consensus). Second, I was told that Gwen "has an ax to grind", saying the edits were done "inadvertently", and that the talk page was protected "before I could offer an explanation." All in all, agree with leaving this to Arbcom for unblocking. Support. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little late, but the prior attitude shown was indefensible even given a perceived grievance. I don't believe Gwen can be faulted in the slightest and if he chooses to appeal to ArbCom, they will look at the whole picture. I took the view that he was likely to continue pursuing his grievance by email, and enough has to be enough at some point. We are, after all, volunteers here. --Rodhullandemu 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Motofan

Previous ANI discussion
I'm starting to think he doesn't get it...
I know absolutely nothing about Formula 1, but I'm having a hard time believing that the few contributions this user has made on the topic make the rest of their contributions worthwhile. --Onorem♠Dil 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Block is in order per this personal attack. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's what we'd normally consider a personal attack... I'm assuming that it's his recently blocked friend, User:Flyhead's, new account. Either way, he's been warned about that type of edit. --Onorem♠Dil 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... maybe you are right. Within context, maybe it is a compliment? Block is in order anyways. This is disruptive editing, previously strictly warned. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Using racist language should always lead to a block. Corvus cornix_talk 20:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have enacted an indef block, giving my reasons on the editors talkpage here. I invite review of my block and rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed, clearly. Long history of attacks, disruptions. Tan | 39 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya, good block, very good block. _{1 != 2} 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was at first contemplating the block, but looking at it again in more detail, yes, good block. D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block. Ever since I had to revert one of his edits, he's been nothing but trouble. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Aerofreak1061 (talk · contribs) is in fact a reincaration of Motofan's indef-blocked friend Flyhead (talk · contribs). I remain concerned about these two and do not object to a block of Motofan, although his conduct has not been as bad as Flyhead's. Thatcher 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone snowball this AFD. The article in question was created by Aerofreak1061. D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowballed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I am concerned that WP should host any account that believes that placing the [[Image:Three sevens.svg]] image, and supporting the AWB while "hating kaffers" comments, on a userpage is acceptable. Now, and since this is clearly impinging on my own personal political/anti-racist agenda, I feel that a little investigation into this little drawer of ultra white socks might be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any idea how Flyhead is using a Norwegian IP? - 195.189.143.61 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(There is an WP:AIV report, by Corvus cornix, on this ip if there is any admin free - I cannot act since I have now declared a bias. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) )

Used by the Opera Mini mobile browser, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive104#Opera_proxies. I can see their true IPs. Drop a short term soft-block if you need to block. Thatcher 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who gave Motofan a slap on the wrist 24 hours ago. I was under the impression I was just dealing with a young idiot and his idiot young friends but somehow convinced myself he could remain a productive idiot. Seems I was badly mistaken and the indef block is the obvious call. Indeed, no matter how good his contributions were to motorsports articles, we don't need this. But I'd also like to point out that his work was not exactly stellar (see [187] for a good laugh) lest anyone have second thoughts. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Seven deadly sins indeed

Someone might care to look at the Seven deadly sins talk page which seems to have been invaded by a bigotted fool. Abtract (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of nonsense that hardly related to the article at hand, and to diffuse the situation, I've removed the passages. seicer | talk | contribs 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

i have chastisted the user in question with regards to her vnadlaims. Smith Jones (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both ... I wonder if you would care to look at Gender of God and its talk page. Not quite as clear cut but imho this article has been taken over by an editor who, by his bullying ways, now effectively owns it. In particular the lead does not mention the topic and the Comparative Religion section is simply an essay on a vaguely related topic ... he brooks no opposition and, as you will see, is very aggressive in his manner. Thanks again. Abtract (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that will help. Corvus cornix_talk 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Christopher Paul Stephenson

I have an unblock request from Christopher Paul Stephenson (talk · contribs · logs · block log). However, since being created in December 2007, the account has edited only once - to post this unblock request. Unless its an autoblock of some sort, the user is not blocked at all. This raises two questions, 1) Should I indefblock for a threat of harassment, and 2) whose sock is this? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but is it possible it's related to this?WP:AN#John_Paul_Neil--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just ignore it. Troll. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)Could there be oversighted edits? In any case, I would support an indef-block for the threat (and potentially libelous statement) in the unblock request. I don't see an editor with that sort of mindset contributing anything useful to the project; he's here for disruption and harassment. Horologium (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there, or should there be, a CU report on John Paul Neil? If there is an underlying ip we could have that blocked for some little while to stop the drawer getting refreshed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So far there are two IPs involved and they are both autoblocked. This might be a chance to draw some more sleepers out of hibernation. Thatcher 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Map based off copyrighted data

Please comment on Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008#Projection based on weighted averages of aggregate statewide polling data and the corresponding thread on the talk page. This map is based off of carefully calculated data on another website, and I worry infringes on copyrights. It may fall under fair use. Is this map a copyright infringement? I know the US supreme court (and all this is based in the US) recently ruled that baseball statistics are not copyrighted; however, this map clearly involves an intricate calculation, unlikely baseball, which is just statistics. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Data is not copyrightable in the United States per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, only presentaion. --Selket ^Talk 21:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball doesn't do intricate calculations?  :) Have you ever tried to calculate an Earned run average. On base percentage or WHIP? Corvus cornix_talk 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec, respond to Selket)Yes, but is a certain very complex algorithm coyprightable? The data itself is not in question. 216.169.164.70 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Algorithms are not copyrightable (though, in some jurisdictions, they may be patentable). A specific implementation of a algorithm, e.g. in the form of computer code, may be copyrightable insofar as it involves creative choices that would not be an inevitable part of any comparable implementation of the same algorithm. To put it simply, you may not copy someone else's code, but you're free to reimplement the same algorithm yourself. Also, there's nothing stopping you from using a computer program that you've legally obtained (at least unless you've signed a restrictive EULA) and publishing the results, even if you're not allowed to copy the program itself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template Error

I'm sure I've asked for help with this before - Template:Db-reason has a problem. Once you've placed the template on the page, copying and pasting the warning onto the creators talk page does not reproduce the reason for deletion you've entered, instead you get

{{{2}}}

.

Can someone fix this please? Exxolon (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Does it work now? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me now. Thanks Kevin (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)