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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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:Betacommand socks

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks (archiving comment, discussion on subpage has been archived for two days Fram (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Elonka (talk · contribs) has made an arbitrary and antagonistic decision to place an attack list here. It was done by Elonka, a wholly involved editor in various pseudoscientific topics, to poison the well of editing. She is singlehandedly interpreting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist as her basis for doing this, and I do not see where she has the right to do so. I have tagged the thread and asked a really uninvolved admin to delete it. I'd ask that it be oversighted too, but I don't want to case another kerfuffle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While it might be removed - why would it be oversighted? That's a step too far for me - it doesn't reveal any Personal history, fail foul of WP:BLP etc. Removed - yes, erase - no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reaching on that one, of course. It's just that the attack list remains in the history of the discussion. Deletion by an admin is sufficient, just not perfect. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you note my verbiage, I said "I'd ask" not that I was actually requesting it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned that your behaviour is on course for being sanctionable and you... keep on with the exact same behaviour? Well done. Sometimes I think the ArbCom vacated the OM case too rashly. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre: focus on the issue not on the person, and beware WP:NPA. Now then, can we all discuss the issue of the list with animosity toward none? The list has proven to be disruptive, divise and has had a chilling effect on a conversation that was proceeding apace toward a resolution. I have my doubts that that was Elonka's intent (although measuring intent is at best difficult) but it has been the effect. Let's focus on that, shall we? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, vacated what case? I didn't know they vacated a case about Elonka? Or Pseudoscience? I'm confused. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Orangemarlin was vacated after you promised to stop being disruptive (and that's not a personal attack; the ArbCom did find you had engaged in personal attacks and the like). To be honest, I don't see what can be done here. The exacta of it being another Elonka thread and another of your ANI threads makes it kind of hard to take this seriously. In any case, I really don't want this to be dragged into evidence of my super-duper-ID-cabal-stalkathon™, so I'll just post this and be on my way. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever its intention, that thread has had no apparent effect other than to spew an additional 23 kB onto an already noisy page. I am not certain that administrator attention is required, but I suspect that the original poster desires that removal be performed by an outside party. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat: let us focus on the issue. Sceptre, that you and OM do not play well together in the schoolyard is well known, but let's assume that recess is over and class is back in session. Focus on the issue.

Another Elonka thread? What are you saying: that she's here so much in some capacity that wee should just ignore the issue? Or is it that as OM raised the issue it should be ignored? In either case, you would be wrong: this issue needs to be looked at seriously and without prejudice. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka is one of our more controversial admins, I'll admit. People complained about her a lot about her capacity overseeing the Israel-Palestine articles (which were, more often than not, instigated by POV-pushers who didn't like her attempting to keep the peace). Such threads tend to get boring after a while. That, and OM appears to have really thin skin. Quite a few things he complains about, most people take in their stride. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again with the personal comments. STOP! Basta! Ist genug! Alto! Capisce? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My actions at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts are as an uninvolved administrator, trying to stabilize an article that has been in such severe disputes that it is currently under indefinite full protection (not by me). Several editors have been using the page as a battleground in the pseudoscience wars. I have been attempting to help stabilize the article, by invoking the discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. That some of the battling editors don't like this, is par for the course in arbitration enforcement matters. A few of the editors (such as Orangemarlin, Verbal, and Jim62sch) are accusing me of being "involved" and therefore forbidden from using admin tools, but their claims are incorrect. I am neutral in the dispute, and have no preference on the article content, as long as it abides by policies. I've never been involved in editing this or any other articles in the topic area, and I have been doing my best to issue warnings evenly to both "sides" in the dispute. Additional administrator attention on the article would be appreciated, though be warned that the flame wars are intense, so put on your asbestos booties before entering.  :) --Elonka 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a completely uninvolved administrator, my inclination would be to remove it. It doesn't serve any majorly useful purpose, and, as can be seen from the discussion page and this thread, serves only to increase the amount of drama, of which there's enough already. Black Kite 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As I suggested at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Discussion, we can probably just move it to a subpage, as was done at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. This kind of list technique has been very helpful in managing a variety of complex and chaotic disputes. It helps administrators identify which editors are on the page, who's under sanctions, for how long, when they were notified, which editors are SPAs, etc. It's also very useful for the "after the fact" discussions, to track exactly what administrator actions were taken, and on whom. For example, months later, an administrator might be routinely accused of "blocking people left and right", but when there's a recorded admin log of exactly what took place at a given article, it's easy to see exactly what actions were taken, rather than relying on biased exaggerations. --Elonka 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Elonka's intervention on this article does not seem to have been particularly helpful. A number of administrators and one arbitrator have advised her against some of her pointed talk page warnings. Her idiosyncratic strategy for managing fringe science/pseudoscience articles could possibly be profitably discussed in the current fringe science ArbCom case, which until now has not examined the actions of specific administrators. I don't think most editors will agree that there is a parallel between opposing groups in nationalist-related articles and those editing articles on fringe science or pseudoscience, as Elonka has suggested. It would certainly be going out out on a limb to suggest that those representing the academic community of scientists form an "opposition group". After all articles on science on wikipedia must concentrate on mainstream science, just as the Encyclopedia Britannica does. The article chiropractic is much better managed now by editors like User:Eubulides who have some experience editing this kind of article and are medical experts. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Elonka's intervention has been and continues to be disruptive, and has increased the tension on the article. It has caused multiple problems and solved none. It should not be moved to a subpage, it should simply be removed. Although Elonka may be uninvolved in any content editing on the page (I haven't checked), she is deeply involved with many of the editors concerned (having repeatedly asked for several to be banned, for which she has been sanctioned by outside editors, while defending editors which were later banned). Her input to the debates is welcome, but her self-appointed role as a small-minded county sheriff is unwelcome and unwise. She is very involved and not at all neutral. She hasn't helped solve the problems (that was happening anyway), instead she has added new problems. Removing her from her role here would be removing a problem. I see above she is trying to scare off other admins by saying the flame wars are intense - this is not true, not that I've seen. The only person to have been "flamed" is Elonka herself (justly) for her disruptive actions. At the very least the list should be removed. Verbal chat 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to this talk page discussion and I am an admin. I do not think I have edited the list itself, so I am uninvolved. I do however have a POV. I believe this list would be best deleted, but two AfDs have said otherwise. I am far too busy at present to keep up with this vast discussion. Trying to read and keep up with that discussion over the last few week, does lead me to the view that Elonka's intervention has not been particularly helpful. It has just increased the volume and the noise, when it was possible that issues would get resolved. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, I think you are confusing the list article with the list of editors on the talk page of the list article[1]. It is the list of editors which is causing the issues, not the article List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has indeed been to Afd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing that. I was just giving some background before both explaining to anyone who knew I was an admin why I was not being an admin on the list as Elonka is trying to do, and why I think her intervention on the talk page of the list is unhelpful. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What a colossally bad idea. Elonka's NOT neutral in re: Pseudosci, and this essentially becomes a 'naughty list' with the undertone of 'all you, I'm watching you, waiting to pounce and punish.' This is a chilling effect for BOTH sides of this already contentious issue. No one is served well by this, and given that Elonka's published a list of who she's thinking about with regards to this title, I say that it represents a permanent conflict of interest for her to use her admin status in resolving anything with regard to any editor listed, ESPECIALLY as connects to Science and PsuedoScience related articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ThuranX, I agree with you. I cannot understand why Elonka thinks she is neutral. Elonka, please listen to those that do not see you as neutral -- if you were neutral, why all these comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 January 2009

I've already tried, several times, to explain the concept of perception to Elonka. Either I'm explaining the concept poorly, or she's just not getting it (unwillingly or otherwise). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the list in question, I must say that I take no issue with the presence of said list nor with the involvement of an uninvolved administrator such as Elonka. I truly feel that any disruption that has come to the page following Elonka's arrival is not a fault of Elonka but rather the enormous amount of venom that follows her in the form of "anti-Elonka" editors. Several of the complaining parties have previous grievances with Elonka yet had little to no recent meaningful activity at the List of Pseudosciences and Pseuodoscientific Concepts article and talk page. Since her arrival, these editors have popped up out of the woodwork mainly to complain about Elonka's presence (most of them in an uncivil manner). Elonka has the best intentions to bring peace to an article which was in the middle of edit war turmoil just before she arrived; and though I am not thrilled to be on the list of "Editors notified of restrictions", I do recognize that I that I was fairly warned and that my presence on said list does not imply that I have been disruptive. Could the discussions move forward amicably without Elonka's or another uninvolved admin's presense? Quite possibly. Other than those complaining about Elonka, the majority of the editors have been quite civil and open to listen to each other's thoughts and suggestions. However, with Elonka (and SoWhy) present to monitor the discussions, I for one feel much more comfortable. Perhaps if those who have a personal grievance with Elonka would just chill-out and focus on the content discussion at hand on the page, there wouldn't be a need for all of these pointless histrionics. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you take no exception. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The administrative list on the list talk page is fine. It sticks to factual assessments of editors involvement in the page. If you have a problem with an item on the list, focus on that. If you dont like Elonka administrating this page, find another uninvolved admin and ask them to add their name to Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Administrators_monitoring_this_page. If other admins are doing the work, Elonka will be left with nothing to do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that your last sentence, assuming it was not sarcastic in a way that paints Elonka in a bad light, is simply silly, yes?

The list is not fine only, and this is tenuous, in theory. In reality (as our presence here shows, it has been unhelpful at best. It's effect has been to disrupt, divide and derail helpfull conversation. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is fine? By what standard? Its not helping the encyclopedia. It is harming it. That is the only standard. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Or use admin recall, since Elonka promised to be open to that. Oh, wait, no, she reneged last time there was a COI problem, didn't she? I would not try to administer that page and Elonka should not either due to many past disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one wants to be impeached, do they? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirty-seven good faith editors recalled her. She didn't like the result. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think that's more indication of a flaw in the recall process (and really, any other straight voting process) than any fault of her own; that recall proposal was seen as a disruptive ethnic-fuelled vendetta. And you know how powerful voting blocks get; Jimbo almost had to step in during the last Arbcom elections because of vote rigging. (and OM: 50 editors opposed that same recall. Nice try.) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed her pledge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed yours. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "this is not about OM, it is about Elonka's actions" is causing comprehension difficulty? Is there some way we could better explain this so that the comprehension difficulties can be attenuated? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please exemplify by way of diff how Elonka is not uninvolved at this article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka continues to add names to her attack list here. This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that, in demonstration of evidence that Elonka has a conflict of interest, and further, the appearance of Vendetta behaviors, at least two of those who supported her Recall are now on that list, Verbal and MathSci. As such, she's making them into bullseye'd targets. Since she has no interest in removing such an attack, nor seems interested in stopping until this is settled, I'm heading over there to remove that attacking hitlist immediately, per BOLD. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka's intervention at the Muhammad al-Durrah article succeeded in remarkably calming down a very troubled article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The point I think Jay is trying to make is that Elonka is *gasp* trying to work for the good of the encyclopedia! Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But so what? We aren't talking about "intent" we are talking about outcome - Methods that might work at one article might be completely useless at another. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to see this as a good-faith attempt by Elonka to resolve part of this thorny dispute, instead of an attempt of undermining NPOV; don't let history repeat itself. At the moment, this is becoming a cesspool of bad faith (which, admittedly, wasn't really helped by some of my comments). Can we all try to steer towards being like Richard Dawkins, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is (and this isn't directed only at Sceptre, but also to Levine2112 and anyone else with similar sentiments) Elonka has been playing "uninvolved admin" for four months. There comes a point where you aren't "uninvolved" any more and you are heavily involved. She isn't a neutral party trying to resolve a dispute, but, rather, a heavily involved party and a party to the dispute. --B (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed by ThuranX, re-instated by Jayvdb. I have to say, I don't see what the list is achieving (well, I do - a large amount of pointless drama) by existing here. I don't know of any precedent for this, and without taking sides whatsoever, the fact that Elonka is adding people to the list who she has previously been in dispute with is unhelpful even if the list makes it clear that no aspersions are cast on those in the third section. Black Kite 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, out of this thread, please. You commenting in a thread started by OM is going to do nothing but stir the pot. No comment on other matters. Moreschi (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• To review a previous such "list of editors" in a different topic area (Israel/Palestine), and see what it looks like after the dispute is finally resolved, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 9#Conditions for editing. Before my arrival on that particular page, the article had been in a state of more or less constant edit-warring and disruption for a long time. However, once the list was provided to give more structure to the dispute management, administrators were more effective at reducing the chaos, and the article has been stable for months now. This technique is not called for on every article in dispute, but for very complex situations, it really can be quite effective. For an example that's more directly related to this particular ANI thread, anyone reading here can simply scan the list of editors on the pseudosciences article, to get a quick-reference on which voices here at ANI are participating as "involved" or "uninvolved" voices in the dispute. It's a definite time-saver. --Elonka 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Re "involved"/"uninvolved": Thanks for the explanation, Elonka! That makes sense! Now I see why the last part of the list can be useful. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see how this list is a good idea. It should have seemed obvious from the beginning that it would probably spark an edit war. I also have a difficult time seeing Elonka as a neutral problem-solver in this particular dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the list non-neutral in the sense that Elonka is only adding certain names to it? No, she is clearly adding the name of anyone who is active on the article. Has any evidence been presented which shows or suggests that the list is an "attack" list or a "hit" list? No, none, although this has been asserted/assumed many times. Is the level of outrage about the list of names demonstrated both here and on the list talk page justified? No, not even close.

A most illuminating spectacle. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has spent the last four months as an "involved" person and was using this list to attempt to establish by fiat that she is uninvolved. In other words, she alone is a "neutral" admin and will use the admin tools as she pleases. Heck, she even keeps a list of her involvement at User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Even if her initial involvement was as an "uninvolved admin", that ship has sailed long ago. --B (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to react in the strongest possible way to the actions of Elonka in this diff [2]. She added my name to her "list", after I posted twice on the talk page, criticizing her policing of pseudoscience/fringe science articles. This is a terrible abuse of her administrative position. It shows that she does not listen to criticism and bears grudges. Might she possibly be ill at present? That is the only explanation I can find for her actions, which seem to be uncalled for and highly irrational. I wonder whether she might stop this disruptive behaviour? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the appropriateness of Elonka's actions, this kind of personal speculation about her health or mental state is completely inappropriate. I suggest you redact your comment to reflect that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have scored through my speculation. If I post two short messages to a talk page (now in a removed section), I do not expect my name to appear on a list of frequent editors of that page. Adding my name was a completely misjudged action on the part of Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, let's try to keep the discussion here cool and impersonal. Regarding your statement that the addition of your name was "irrational", a more appropriate term to describe your view would probably have been "erroneous". "Erroneous" is a comment about the action, "irrational" is a comment about the mental state of the person taking the action. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It did not refer to Elonka's mental state, just the nature of her action; "completely misjudged" seems an appropriate alternative. Has anybody thought of having a quiet word with Elonka - even by email or a text message - to sort these things out? There is a newly created article Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, formerly a redirect to a BLP that I successfully nominated for deletion, that should be restored to the main article. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page at [[3]]. I'm not certain that "a quiet word" is possible. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of Sceptre's request, I have considered how I would act if this were a Good Faith effort by Elonka. I would act exactly the same, because the outcome of her actions is still the same, and I would say 'we recognize that you tried, but it is failing, and needs to be removed, and I would remove it, as I did. (Only to have it immediately restored, then re-removed by another, then re-restored by yet another editor, then re-re-removed by a third (fifth?) editor.) And I'd still support the removal of the list. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called it an attack list. Such an assertion in itself implies bad faith. I think it could've easily been solved with a {{discussion top}} tag and a note on Elonka's talk that said "the list really isn't helping", in a more civil way than what was done. Then again, there is a trend in the psuedoscience area to have really awkward wording when pen is put to paper (for example, if the ID article went to FAC now, instead of two years ago, I'd reckon most if not all of the objections to promoting it would be the quality of prose). It's a trait often seen in controversial areas, but the most obvious problem (to an outsider) would be the language, not any sort of bias. Excuse me for rambling on here, but I think a major part of the problem in this instance is the way of communication is all wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware you wouldn't call it bad faith. I'm not you. Consider MathSci's case. He posts twice ABOUT the list, and thus makes the list. that's Gotcha Behavior, and screams vendetta. it's unprofessional, unethical, and questionable judgment. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The only good faith reason I can think of is Elonka thinking "oh, I forgot about Mathsci when I put the list together". I would expect him to be on a (impeccable) list of psuedoscience-area editors. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No this is not an explanation, because the list was compiled long before I made any contributions. I was aware of the main page because I knew it linked to Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, a deleted redirect to a deleted BLP. I don't know what you mean by your last comment - perhaps you should remove it. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Elonka (per her revised recall conditions, written post her first set of conditions by which she was actually recalled under) uses these "lists" to then paint the picture that people on these lists are being monitored by her and hence are ineligible to even participate in her recalling. It also needs to be noted that the Community has given admins considerable "powers" (aka the "tools") to do the job that Elonka discusses below. Why on earth does she need more powers - especially those not granted by the Community - is largely beyond me and many other editors. Of course Elonka fails to answer the actual issues but continues to point the finger at all those other people out there. Shot info (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the above thread thus far: A few things are visible. First, many of the objections here are coming from editors who are already using the "List of pseudosciences" article as a battleground. A few are tossing around inflammatory terms such as "attack list", or claiming that administrative experience in this topic area equates to "involvement". But let's be clear here: The reason we're even looking at the article to begin with, is because the editors on that article have not managed to solve their own disputes. They (collectively) have been incapable of seeking consensus; they have engaged in incivility and personal attacks, rather than collegial dialog; some have been edit warring and editing tendentiously; some have been gaming the system; and things have gotten so bad at the article that it is currently in a state of indefinite full protection, such that no one can edit it.

We are here to write an encyclopedia. In order to do this, ArbCom has ruled that discretionary sanctions are available to the admin community, provided that a warning is given first. This topic area currently needs those sanctions, and the "list of editors" that is being used on the article's page, is an effective starting point to help the article re-achieve stability.

Administrators who are acting in ArbCom enforcement matters, are understood to be working in highly unsettled areas. (see the SV case). Discretionary sanctions are a major step, yes, but no better means has been suggested to deal with this dispute. If enough other uninvolved administrators were actively managing the page and helping the editors reach a collegial resolution, I (Elonka) would have no objection to standing aside. But as it is, few have volunteered more than momentary assistance. I tried ignoring the dispute at this page for a long time too, but things just kept getting steadily worse. So, I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and try to help this article. I am completely neutral in this dispute, and uninvolved as an editor in this topic area. The goals here are a stable editing environment, and stable and high quality articles. Given this article's history, arbitration sanctions appear to be the most effective tool towards stability. --Elonka 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this post focuses on the big picture: the goal of administrative intervention is to improve and stabilize the editing environment. The "list" is demonstrably worsening the editing environment, and so it seems a no-brainer to remove it. All the more so since its upside is theoretical at best - any admin newly entering this dispute will of course need to reach their own conclusions about who is "involved", and to what extent, rather than simply relying on a list compiled by Elonka. I don't understand the insistence on keeping the list in the face of evidence that it's actively worsening the editing environment on the article. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with MastCell. BTW I do not regard this as a very important article on wikipedia - it's just a kind of curiosity. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason she is insisting on it is obvious - she is not an uninvolved admin, but, rather, a heavily involved user. But the list would codify her status as "uninvolved". On my talk page and on Killer Chihuahua's talk page, she has attempted to use this arbcom finding to say that she should be considered unrevertable. It's a ludicrous proposition, but adopting that list would legitimize it. --B (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 16th Elonka started a second private list on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. It seems to imply special powers as an ArbCom enforcer even when asking questions on talk pages. The last entry in the second list is concerned solely with somebody removing their name from her first list. Elonka seems to have stopped adding entries to the second list after her first list was shut down. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is my feelings about this, I do not like having lists like this. As I said on the talk page, the list in design makes it look like the editors are disruptive. I mean putting in the list that certain editors have been warned already sounds to someone just looking in that these editors have had discipline of some sort or under arb restrictions. Then the comments that editors are SPA accounts and/or listing their account sign up date. To me this is at least close to don't bite the newbies. Lists like this have caused heated debates all over the place. Comments to User:Elonka have been extensive and by many. [4], [5], [6] Some of the comments lead to questions of whether accusations of WP:Cabal was being charged. During the start up to the RFC for the Guido case, Jimbo himself said that lists like this that marks editors in such a way should not be left up for long, just long enough to get the case together. [7] The set up for the talk page was considered an attack page by some but Jimbo said it wasn't but that it had to be moved to an RFC ASAP. My point is, this list looks like an attack list considering the comments made to some of the users and the comments made directly to Elonka. The difs are conviently located on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. I'm sorry but I feel list like this discourage editors to participate that maybe more neutral than the regular editors at the article. I would also love to know this, when is an administrator considered involved when that administrator has been active in many articles involving a lot of the same editors that she has cautioned, warned, banned etc.? I think Elonka has been involved via her comments to editors and sanctions she has given to be considered no longer uninvolved. Some of these editors that is listed as warned she commented on also at arb page, RFC and of course her recall. I see the list is now deleted with a comment to check the history with a link to it. For consideration of my comments I disclose the following, I did vote at the recall, I have commented on this talk page about this list and voted a couple times on suggestions for a new name for the article. I have not been censored in anyway by Elonka, or anyone else. I just feel very strongly about these kinds of lists anywhere other then lists made by the arbs on their pages, and I still have a little problem with lists being there as I think they mark an editor with a big scarlet red A as a trouble maker, which may not be the case or the reason for these types of lists. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind having my name listed on such a list. Jayjg's observation that the measures applied led to calming of disputes at an article is consistent with my experience at several articles. Signed, an editor such that one could list at least two such lists on which this editor appears, including the list pertaining to the List page about which the present list of comments is listed. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Elonka

Elonka has given me a fake last warning. This is disruptive. Her behaviour needs to change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, no matter what you think of Elonka, YOU are the one who used VERY WP:POINTY edits to bait and provoke her. They were totally unnecessary and showed an absolute lack of Wikipedian spirit. You should be banned for your actions of late. These last two (as well as deleting or striking out other editor's comments!) are ban worthy. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Starting this section was unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs: unnecessary provocation, also unnecessary. Her warnings were not only perfectly proper, I simply don't understand why she didn't block you. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar list of editors was deleted from a talk page. It is appropriate to remove lists of editors from other talk pages too.[8] See Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 16#Other frequent editors on this page and here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would not call it disruptive per se, but it is clear to me that Elonka is not accepted as an honest broker by a lot of the involved parties, so should not be taking administrative actions here and should not be trying to police the articles in the way she is. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not being accepted as an "honest broker" by a lot of the involved parties probably has less to do with any negative trait's on Elonka's behalf, and more to do with the well-documented faction-based POV wars in this particular corner of Wikipedia. But, yes, I want to reiterate what Mathsci said: This section was ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with Swatjester on this. Also, this is a sad issue and the rhetoric is getting far too lofty. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Probation

Looking at the various editors arguing here on AN/I and the conflict on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, I would like to suggest something better. While the list Elonka created did not work as intended, might an Article Probation along the lines as this: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. The probation did help in reducing some of the conflicts, it gave admin's the tool to stop most problems before they got too aggressive, and it served the community at large as a way to keep track of those who were there mainly to disrupt. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It might, if Elonka were to recuse herself from acting as an "uninvolved admin". KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the Arbcom ruling on discretionary sanctions for articles related to pseudoscience serve essentially the same purpose? In any case, I have added a notice of this ruling at the top of the article's talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When is an administrator considered involved in a disputed area? If the administrator hasn't edited the actual article that is controversial but has been involved in many notices to many editors about multiple articles in multiple areas? In other words, would an administrator be considered involved if they have been sanctioning and responding to editors for a long period of time, three or four months. This seems to be a question others are also asking. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This question needs to be answered! WP:UNINVOLVED says nothing of the sort and using just that as a reference, Elonka IS uninvolved at "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts". Unless there is some other standard which people are looking at, right now it is incorrect per Wikipedia policy to say that Elonka is involved at this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED states: "An administrator is considered 'uninvolved' if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality." MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "uninvolved administrators" from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." I think "on the topic" means actual article content disputes, which Elonka doesn't seem to be engaged in on these articles. On some of those lists, ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling says, "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." She has been in a current, direct, and personal conflict with me for a few months. During that time she sent a threatening and defamatory email to me, which I published on my user talk page. Certain individuals who are protecting her deleted it. I've forwarded that email to Arbcom, which is proof that she is an involved participant in these matters. I think she should be immediately desysopped.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calls for desysopping are really helpful here, following from the principle that any kind of call for someone's head based on participation in a hotbed subject is generally unhelpful in solving the problem. Also, OM, deletion of published emails on your talk page is less related to anyone trying to "protect" Elonka, but more that a) we don't publish private correspondence on Wikipedia for several reasons (copyright being not the least of them) and b) It falls pretty squarely under the purview of what Wikipedia is not.) This is not to say Elonka is blameless or anything -- I really don't know because the whole series of events is so mindnumbingly complex it makes my brain hurt. That being said, I think we could do to lower the anger level from everyone here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time Elonka has done this sort of thing

Apologies if someone else mentioned this and I missed it, but a similar list a few months back here [9]. Elonka included me listed as a frequent editor even though I hadn't edited the article in months but had made some comments critical of her on the article talk page. When I tried to get my name removed from the list, she threatened to ban/block me. I also note that she made a few minor edits to the article that were comparable in scope to mine (formatting and tags) yet she had a clear double standard by insisting that I should be on a Warned/Involved Editors List but that she shouldn't.

I hate to say it, but it sure looks like Elonka has a tendency to use her admin powers to try and crack down on people who disagree with her instead of trying to actually get difficult situations settled down. Since Elonka seems to have changed her mind on admin recall, maybe it's necessary for Elonka to back off from topics and users that she can't seem to handle in an impartial way and find other topics on which she truly can be neutral. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

Since my name's being invoked here and there, a word of explanation. While I've been rather busy lately and haven't been involved much, my watchlist which is far too large attracted my attention to this edits by Elonka.[10] While it makes a reasonable point about participating more on the talk page, it comments on using twinkle to revert and then adding a request to the talk page for protection, and says "what you did could be considered disruptive." Since the request for protection explicitly pointed that out,[11], the suggestion that it was disruptive appeared a stretch. On the article talk page replies to Elonka's suggestion of sanctions proposed that retitling be sorted first and that an "uninvolved administrator took interest, rather than one who has personal disputes with several involved editors and refers to them as a 'tag team'", so I made suggestions for possible retitling to discuss while the page was protected.[12] When Orangemarlin added a comment, Elonka responded that she was not involved and had no personal conflict with any of the editors.[13] When Orangemarlin responded to what looks rather like baiting from Levine2112,[14] Elonka posted a message to Levine2112: "Hi, I appreciate the support at the talkpage, but don't worry, I can handle Orangemarlin on my own. :) What would be more helpful, would be if you would keep comments focused strictly on the article, and what type of discretionary sanctions (if any) might be helpful towards stabilizing things. Any creative suggestions?",[15] and two minutes later cautioned Orangemarlin that his comment "was uncivil and unhelpful".[16] In the past I've noticed a tendency for Elonka to emphasise civility over article content policies, doubtless with the highest motives but inadvertently favouring Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.

I commented later "At present there seems to be room to find a constructive way forward, and I've not noticed any warnings being handed out. If warnings are posted to any editors, it would be helpful if the admin doing so pointed that out on this page. Both Elonka and, given my comments below, myself are rather too involved in the area to be making any blocks, if conditions do deteriorate to the point of warnings being issued and ignored, a report to ANI for an outside admin to take action would be appropriate."[17] One hour after that, Elonka added the list which has been the subject of so much discussion,[18] and replied to my comment "Ah, your name is currently on the list of uninvolved admins below, but if you would like to remove it, that's fine. For myself, I still have uninvolved status....".[19] My reply was that "as stated above I've no intention of using the tools, and given past disputes it's my opinion that you'd be well advised to ask an admin without your degree of personal involvement to carry out any actions if it reaches that stage. This procedure that you've initiated seems like overkill at this point and if anything is distracting attention from finding agreement on a way forward...".[20] That remains my view. While a mention on the talk page of any formal warnings would help to identify the alleged misconduct and facilitate any necessary discussion of the warning, I share the view that the whole list is more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does she get credit that she doesn't mention blocking, giving any real warning, and seems to be prodding him towards changing his behavior instead of being an over aggressive rabid admin like many, many have done before? I can provide you names if you need. :) I would be extremely grateful if -Elonka's- response was the response I received from many admin in the past. I'm sure that Orangemarlin would not wish to trade his position for one of mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated at the outset, my attention was drawn by Elonka making an apparently reasonable request to discuss matters on the talk page. It's certainly polite, but focusses on "trying to act as an administrator on that page to reduce disruption, and what you did could be considered disruptive", with the clear implication of further sanctions which she has since applied. The actions by Orangemarlin were explicit and in my view reasonable: he requested article protection with the statement "Temporary full protection' dispute, User:Levine2112 and User:QuackGuru are battling over verbiage. I think that QG's version is the best, and I've reverted, but I don't think this is going to end. Maybe a page protection for a cool out period to discuss would be best."[21] In the context of article content covered by WP:NPOV/FAQ he reverted to what he saw as the mainstream position, drew attention to the edit war and requested admin intervention to allow discussion of the issues. Elonka did not caution the edit warriors, but failed to WP:AGF and accused Orangemarlin of WP:DE in the nicest possible way. Her proposal to introduce sanctions diverted attention from the much needed talk page discussion, as the responses indicated. When I proposed an alternative article title to get discussion going, Elonka was increasingly involved in arguments over her proposal, blatantly taking sides against Orangemarlin and with Levine2112. In my view both had made remarks breaching WP:EQ but short of incivility, and both could reasonably have been given a caution to that effect, but Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other. Note that this was entirely a dispute over etiquette and proposals for sanctions, not over article content. There's nothing wrong with giving people reminders of ideal behaviour, and I did that myself,[22] but while it pays to be polite, it's also important that admins taking on the mantle of Arbitration Enforcement should be seen to be fair and reasonable. . dave souza, talk 11:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification

Since I don't agree that Elonka has the right or the "uninvolved status" to be the policeman for these activities, I have started this request for clarification. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as an uninvolved administrator ... by this reasoning, there would be no such thing as an uninvolved administrator, because by taking any administrative action, one becomes involved. This is pure sophistry. A judge doesn't become an involved party in a lawsuit by making rulings in the case, and admins don't become involved in an editing dispute by acting as admins. Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Schools of Philosophy (an Ayn Rand issue)

Advice/action would be appreciated to avoid an edit war. There has been prior discussion on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) about renaming the article Objectivism. Objections were raised that while Ayn Rand's philosophy is called objectivism, it does not define that word; there are for example objectivist approaches to ethics which are the antithesis of Rand's approach. There was no consensus for the move. Shortly afterwards the same group of editors attempted to change Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticisms of Objectivism. The same argument took place and the consensus was to leave it unchanged.

We then get a third attempt. At Schools of Philosophy Objectivism was created as a school with a pipelink to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Attempts to get this to conform with the page name, ie Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or to simply use Objectivism which takes you to the disambiguation page have resulted in more or less instant reversal by two editors User:SteveWolfer and User:Kjaer. The latter has already received a ban for edit warring on Ayn Rand which is currently frozen and both the named editors are refusing mediation (this may well come here as an issue too). The have a history of working together as seen [here].

In December I left a reasoned note and today made the change back to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), it was reverted with some fairly intemperate language by [User:Kjaer]] a short while ago.

Now this is a minor article, with some really esoteric "schools" and in the overall scheme of things I am tempted to just let it go. However the pattern of persistent pursuit over different pages (I suspect attempting to create a precedent) is disturbing. Both editors seem to be taking a line that anyone who disagrees with Rand who edits is taking a POV position. In the case of User:Kjaer he at one point reverted an actual quotation from a cited source to his more accurate summary. Trying to introduce any type of balance results in abuse, edit wars and the whole thing is exhausting.

Any advice or action would be appreciated. --Snowded TALK 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please link to a page about an alternate form of Objectivism. I tried to find one, and the disambig links to only pages about her ideas, except for hte case of one synonym. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) outside of the US and I guess that most people would be looking for that than the wackjob version that Rand pushes - a series of em.. ideas that have never got much traction outside of the US. I had a quick scan of the various academic databases I have access to and it pops up all over the place but none are references to the wackjob version. We don't have an article on Objectivism? really? (runs away to look). --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

These squabbles are so distasteful... I really hate seeing my name pushed into this or that strange little disagreement. My suggestion would be to ignore Mr. Scott's comment (I suspect that "wackjob" is an indication of bias and that kind of approach has never gone far in bringing reason or agreement to the forefront :-) - and in any case it doesn't address the issue. Snowded has misrepresented my part in this as well as the issue. He appears to be painting some kind of ominous picture of a conspiracy that just isn't there. Look at the history. Read to see if what he says is really what is happening. So far as Wikipedia goes, I'm an open book. Look at my edits, look at my comments. What you see is what you get. I'm just going to suggest that anyone interested in this issue should read the arguments made on the talk page of that article - My comments there are quite adequate in representing my view of what makes the best choice for this encyclopedia. If anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. As to why I did not participate in the mediation, I answered that on the talk page of that request. --Steve (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Steve that we need someone to look at the history. ThuranX, if you want the merge discussion it is here and the key thing is do look at the google scholar search. Very simply the citation evidence shows that Objectivism is not encompassed by Rand's position. Objectivism is a common concept in the philosophy of science as well as ethics and elsewhere. The google scholar search supports the comment made by Cameron Scott. To be honest the real issue is a policy one. Consensus to rename was not achieved on the main articles, so the schools insertion is a back door attempt to avoid accepting a prior consensus. On a related issue mediation on the Ayn Rand page will now be rejected as Steve has just refused to accept it, so a referral here is more or less inevitable. This is an issue which affects several articles. --Snowded TALK 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pay careful attention to the fact that Snowded is directing everyone to a history that is about a totally different page. He is talking about the article for Objectivism and NOT the article that is a List of schools of philosophy. They are similar squabbles, but with an important differences. When one is at the List of schools of philosophy article less disambiguation is needed, for one thing. If there were a school of philosophy named "Moral Objectivism," which there isn't, and if it had an article (it doesn't), one could just add that school name and link to that article. Take a look at the arguments that are actually about the article in question: List of schools philosophy talk page. There is no attempt to backdoor anything, and it is a deflection to make that or process or mediation on another article or me the issue. --Steve (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, There was talk that we had articles on other forms of Objectivism. I asked for links. None have been provided yet. Moral Objectivity is different, and I, an American with that above-impled inferior education, wouldn't confuse the two as 'moral' is an intergral part of the terminology. If there is no other philosophy of government and self-determination and so on, then I don't see why we need to distinguish Objectivism as you seek to do.ThuranX (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, the question you raised was previously discussed on the talk page of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and I have given you those links. The most telling is a search of `google scholar on "Objectivism" in which Rand hardly features. However what I brought here was a question of process. Edit warring has broken out with two editors determined on one solution. It's that issue of process I brought here, content discussions on this issue have (as I said) already taken place. I have not idea why you should think that any inferiority of education is implied by the way. --Snowded TALK 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded talks about edit warring and darkly alludes to "two editors determined on one solution." This is the process issue that he holds to be the prime issue. Take a look at the recent history links. This issue came to life in December 29th when the link was set to Objectivism by Kjaer rather than the disambiguation page. Since then, NO one has done more reversions than Snowded - he leads the pack, he is his own process issue. --Steve (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you misunderstand my point when I say Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) the US - I'm not commenting in the slightest about the american education system - I'm saying it's a widely understood concepts by those who have studied higher degrees in other nations in the right subjects - especially the UK where I was a prof. So I wouldn't automatically expect someone from London who didn't go to university to have come across any of the concepts. It's not really an either/or for us because Rand's stuff isn't widely taught at universities, well it's not taught at all really except as a footnote to say "not to be confused with..." --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand 'insult' quite well. I'm an American. We're stupid, but good at hearing insults. That said, Objectivism, in this country of stupid people, refers to Rand's extremist libertarian/anarchy theory. Moral objectivism is different, and not referred to as objectivism, but 'moral objectivism', both terms being needed. But hey, I'm just another stupid American, right? Cause we never have any people here in Dumbfuckistan who've studied, and hold any sort of higher degrees, and certainly not in the right subjects. And our universities which do talk about Objectivism certainly aren't worth bringing up, cause hey, this is just Retardania. ThuranX (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious understanding, it's much appreciated. Looking further into this, I can't find any evidence that it's taught in American universities either or at least not any where the staff publish in international journals. (but that's just a quick skim so I could be wrong). --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivism is taught in some US Universities and academics have attended seminars. From the evidence today the bulk of this is funded by Rand Institutions of various types. The issue is not anti-americanism (although the comments of ThuranX are indicative of the problems with this subject) but that Rand has little notability outside of America. In a European context (and in the majority of Academic philosophers not matter where they come from including America) "Objectivism" does not mean the doctrines of Ayn Rand. This is a simple fact, and the process issue I raised in respect of the article. Some editors believe that Objectivism should be uniquely associated with the ideas of Ayn Rand, in the main that seems to be from declared supporters. Other editors (including all the non US participants) are arguing for a wider more objective (sic) interpretation. The Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA. This is especially true in a page which purports to show schools of philosophy. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed in one of my classes, as an examination of how my field would change under different governmental philosophies. But I'm just an ignorant dumbfuck american, so what the fuck do we know, right? ThuranX (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has said anything that would remotely support the self-abusive language you are using. Please calm down. --Snowded TALK 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) the US. So in the US, we don't teach Moral Objectivism, and if we did, it would depend our your education. Speaking of Education: it's a widely understood concepts by those who have studied higher degrees in other nations in the right subjects - especially the UK where I was a prof.. So people in OTHER nations get it, Americans don't, and people with Higher Degrees, who xist only in nations NOT America, get it, but Americans don't. Such ridiculous arrogance. Excuse me, us imbecilic Americans are busy installing one of those... Presidents, today. I'm going to go watch other stupid americans, instead of wasting the time of such laudatory fellows as yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you're reading more into the statement than actually existed. There was no "Americanz iz stoopid" comment anywhere (although, George W has which degrees again??) Nobody was using "holier than thou" here ... it was a "X appears more recognized elsewhere". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was a 'the whole educated world thinks it's something other than what uneducated Americans think' statement. ThuranX (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please examine Cameron Scott's statement again. Xe only said that in non-American (particularly academic) settings, "Objectivism" means something different than it does in the US. It's just a dialectical difference, like "stone" or "football". That Ayn Rand's Objectivism hasn't spread to non-American academic settings doesn't mean Americans are stupid (though some of us are, of course). -kotra (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute so I don't see how any Admin action is needed. Does anyone else want to weigh in with their personal opinions on Rand before it's closed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

She was silly. -kotra (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

15 year olds really like her. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I will not couch my argument in the same tone as ThuranX, there is most definitely a strong whiff of anti-Americanism in some of the statements that some of the non-American editors have advanced, and such sentiments are offensive to those of us who are American (like it or not, there are a lot of us out here). The statement The Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA is so incredibly condescending and sanctimonious that that I find it difficult to formulate a calm and measured response. The main argument I am seeing here is an attempt to make "moral objectivism" the same as "objectivism", forcing the Randian philosophy to a disambiguation page, despite the fact that "moral objectivism" needs the adjective for identification. And while it may be true that Objectivism is most common in North America (Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff are both Canadians, and they are certainly conversant in the philosophy), the 330 million+ people in Canada and the US make it easy to construct an argument that the Randian term is the one that belongs on the main page, with a hatnote linking Moral objectivism and a link to the disambiguation page for all of the other terms, most of which relate to the Randian concept. Horologium (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet, oddly enough, Football continues to be about the thing those pesky non-northern-NAFTAs do in their spare time. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you find condescension or sanctimony in the statement you quote. It's just a more specific paraphrasing of our guideline. If Ayn Rand's Objectivism is the more common meaning of "Objectivism" worldwide, and evidence supports that, then their mistake can be chalked up to their own, different experience with the word "Objectivism". No need to assume it's "anti-Americanism". -kotra (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: I, an American, wasn't offended. -kotra (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"When you're losing the argument, create a smoke-screen" - in this case, by doing one's best to insure that anybody taking a contrary opinion is so busy doing their best to make sure utterly no offense can be taken at their statement that their points become hazy, and their souls, weary. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "The Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA" is exactly right, with the obvious qualification that if the term is used only in specifically American culture that's how we define it. But that's not the case here. Regardless of his view about Ayn Rand, Cameron was correct about the particular point at issue. DGG (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise on the talk page in question to allow the use of "Objectivism" but with a qualifying note (help on syntax appreciated by the way). I can't say I am happy with it, but if it reduces conflict on a minor page so be it. Kotra, a simple search of Google Scholar on "Objectivism" will show you the degree to which the term is not associated with Rand in the academic world (and this is after all a list of schools of philosophy). As I said when I started this any advice would be appreciated and some engagement on page itself might help. Overall on Rand an RFA has now been raised which looks likely to be accepted so the conduct of individual editors and the general issue of bias may now be addressed. Given that if this can be closed on an acceptable compromise it would be good news. --Snowded TALK 11:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't making any judgment on which usage is more common, I was just saying that if Ayn Rand's is more common, one can still assume good faith. I don't know which is more common, though I don't think the academic usage alone should be considered; the general public needs to be able to find what they want easily too (as per the same guideline I quoted earlier). -kotra (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is this other school of philosophy's article that the disambiguation page so urgently is pointing at? The RfA that Snowded mentions is titled "Ayn Rand Article" but it is about the editors and allegations of POV. It is my hope that Wikipedia can make a solid step forwards in dealing with those whose edits tend to favor a pro or con bias more than they due a neutral truthful article. Rabid fans of a particular ideology, nationalism, sports team or celebrity cause problems, but so do those who are rabid haters in those areas and who cloak their intentions in pretentious WP claims. --Steve (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the disambiguation page for Objectivism Steve, or the previous debate on renaming Objectivism (Ayn Rand), or do a google scholar search on objectivism. You will find that objectivism is used extensively in philosophy of science, ethics and more recently in epistemology and other areas. Also this article is NOT a list of Wikipedia pages, it is a list of schools of Philosophy. The point I am making is simple and supported by other editors with a background in philosophy; calling me a "rabid hater" for making this point is yet another breech of WP:Civil. --Snowded TALK 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

External objectivist web sites are canvassing people to edit this article and also that on Ayn Rand. Post 17 is interesting. Details here. Can we please have some admin involvement. --Snowded TALK 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer states here that he edits on external sites as Ted Keer. Here we see Ted Keer actively canvassing for people to edit WIkipedia in support of his views. Kjaer is one of the active protagonists on the various Ayn Rand disputes and has at least two blocks for edit wars. --Snowded TALK 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This certainly is inappropriate conduct, but it looks like there wasn't a whole lot of impact resulting from it. Thanks for finding this, though, it puts the edit warring into better perspective. -kotra (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit history of the editor reporting the canvassing is interseting I think [23]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I spotted the canvassing, came and made an account specifically to report it. I wasn't sure how to go about it exactly, but the initial canvasser spoke of "several objectivist articles," so I figured I'd just drop a note on the major ones, which I got from the bottom of the Ayn Rand article. That'll most likely be the extent of my editing unless I find more canvassing. (I edit as an IP but I didn't want those people to know where I live.) Hope that clears everything up. If not, ask on my talk, I'll log in a few more times over the next couple days, as I follow the repercussions. (My intent wasn't to create drama, but I'm certainly interested to see how canvassing is dealt with.) --Turnsmoney (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in this. -kotra (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure on the impact Kotra, A quick glance shows new editors coming into play (and two one time IPs) when Kjaer advertises for involvement. This is especially true around the RfC that he called and then closed quickly and used as an excuse to revert to a December version. --Snowded TALK 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA = much higher likelihood of edit warring outside the bounds of WP:UNDUE. Also, the canvassing could call for admin action on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I based my conclusion on the forum post happening on December 30, and only a couple extra editors editing Ayn Rand and List of schools of philosophy (and their talk pages) in the week that followed. I'm not excusing his behavior, I'm just saying it doesn't look to me like it disrupted those two pages much. -kotra (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the only example of a one sided discussion of the dispute on other sites. What is and isn't allowed? If, to pose a hypothetical example, a professor brings up an article issue with colleagues and encourages them to edit is that inappropriate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that's inappropriate too, though it might depend on the circumstances. In this case, I feel it's inappropriate because it was intended to give undue weight to Kjaer's point of view. -kotra (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Violation of wikietiquette, stated "Zenarh, go fuck yourself" "Nazi pig!" [24] PRODUCER ^(TALK) 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Given notice, and final warning. This account has a documented history of gross verbal abuse that will land this editor with a block for future occurrences. Let me know if it occurs again. seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A lucky escape for him - I was filling in the block reason form (having taken a few minutes to find and read the previous ANI episode) when I checked back here to see that Seicer, to whom I am more than happy to defer, had already dealt with it. Bencherlite^Talk 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do when the guy insults me in such awful ways? (LAz17 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Rise above it? Walk away? Raise a Wikiquette query? Certainly not the above. --Rodhullandemu 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly should not respond with the same types of insults that are directed towards you. That action will result in you being blocked, which does nothing to help your situation. The best thing to do if you are insulted is to first remian calm, next try discussing it with the editor in question on their talk page, asking for clarification/refactoring the offensive statement without attacking or insulting them. If that does not produce any results (it IS worth a try though, even if you think it won't work it shows good faith on your part) then you can bring it to a noticeboard such as WP:WQA, WP:RFC, WP:ANI etc. The point is even if the other editor was offensive and baited you, if you rise to the bait you are more likely to be the one blocked, which I assume you don't want considering you are still on Wikipedia and editing the encyclopedia. Whenever you have a conflict the best thing is to walk away and cool down, as editing when you are angry will just land you in trouble, and will make others focus on your behavior, rather than seeing the editor you have a conflict with as the problem. Good luck. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any rules against baiting, so that the baiter can be punished? (LAz17 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Not specifically, but if you really can't ignore such behaviour then you raise a Wikiquette alert or start a User request for comment, where the community will decide whether the actions were indeed baiting and hopefully work out a solution to the situation. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I will just add that even without having been directly involved in any disputes, I think it is a problem that baiting is so often allowed to slip by. In my opinion, in the case of a heated dispute the person who makes a baiting comment should face the same blocks, restrictions, etc. as the user who rises to the bait with "f-off" or some such. However, this is simply my opinion, as I am not even an admin let alone in charge of Wikipedia, and my above comment certainly does not mean I condone incivil comments in response to provocation, just that the provocation should be dealt with as harshly as the incivility. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Baiting another user to provoke a policy violation may be seen as gaming the system (WP:GAME) which I believe is solid evidence of bad faith, which in turn can lead to an indef block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Before we go any further with this, would LAz17 be kind enough to show us the baiting of which s/he is complaining? Reviewing the conversation in question, I see this from LAz17, which is obviously highly inflammatory, to which Zenanarh responded with this, which I'm not condoning, by the way, which earned her this from LAz17. Unless I'm missing something, I see a Serbian user provoking other editors saying that half of Croatia belongs to Italy, to which the response is predictable, to which LAz17 unleashes a foul-mouthed volley of abuse. Exactly the behaviour that the WP:ARBMAC restrictions are designed to eliminate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Again, i bring to your attention highly disruptive editor PASD08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pasd08)

He has been warned, in every language and way, but still continues do remove links, references and other info (loan signs in infobox, pcupdates, etc).

I bring to you two examples of such behaviour: Elias Alves da Silva (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias_Alves_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=265310035), and Pawel Kieszek (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pawe%C5%82_Kieszek&diff=prev&oldid=265304604)

He is active as of NOW, so you can witness more of this examples in "contributing".

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL, - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You should ask him to propose changes at the discussion page — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor has already received dozens of messages (and countless warnings) and never replied to any. His original account has been blocked, so this is a case of sock-puppeting. He's causing a lot of damage and has shown unwilling to engage in any dialog. I urge you to take action. --Waldir ^talk 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pasd08, in his entire career, has never left an edit summary or posted to a Talk page. I've left him a notice of this discussion. If he doesn't respond, I suggest that he be blocked indef for abuse of multiple accounts. If he responds here, or if he posts an understandable unblock request, then we might consider his case in more detail. Though there is no formal WP:Sockpuppet investigations report, the evidence is pretty good. (See the four ANI threads that link to User:Pararubbas for more). EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Update: User:Pasd08 has not responded to the "challenge" provided via talkpage, and has continued to removed LINKS, as seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Second_Division:_Serie_A&diff=prev&oldid=265550228)

Urgent action needed, i believe, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Since he has continued to remove sources from articles on Portuguese football, without responding to this complaint, I have blocked Pasd08 indef as a sock of Pararubbas. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Defaming statements on living person article

User:Hubert Lup keeps adding defaming comments to the article Gesine Schwan. This woman is running for the federal presidency of Germany as the candidate of the labor part (SPD) this year. I warned the user not do so and informed them about the sensitivity of articles related to living persons. Without comment the contentious claims were re-added with a source (that does not back the statements).

The original post claimed that Schwan (the German presidential candidate) was a Polish nationalist. (Admittedly, Schwan enjoys good relations with the Republic of Poland.) Furthermore, the claim is made that Schwan justifies ethnic cleansing. These two statements are, in my opinion, extreme negative POV, and should not be tolerated at a biography. At last, the user claims the Schwan's family was Polish. This is simply wrong and, I can just guess, this claim is made to give more support to the defamation made before.

Here are the two relevant diffs: 1st set of edits and 2nd set of edits.

I would appreciate if an administrator ensured that the article remains free of insults. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well at one point, the editor in question added this German-language reference. Of course, as I cannot understand German, I cannot check exactly what this reference says. Of course, it looks like a blog post, and I doubt it's good enough to support the claims in question as this is a WP:BLP. In any case, considering the user's low edit count both here and at German WP, I don't think it's unreasonable to continue making an assumption of good faith. Particularly as the user hasn't continued to revert. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think we can assume good faith, and indeed they stopped introducing the infamous statements.

With respect to the reference, I would like to add that it is absolutely OK. The source is critical about Schwan, but in the normal way of a political discussion. Not at all does the source claim any of the three statements. It is absurd to think that Schwan justifies genocide, and accordingly the source does not make this claim. Branding a German politician a Polish nationalist is equally infamous, and of course the source does not say so. Likewise, nothing written about her family backgrounds (but this was anyway introduced in a different paragraph).

Anyway, I think we are fine at this point. If this problem resumes, I will let you know. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate userbox

I came across this a few days ago but have waited for the user to respond. Unfortunately they seem to have been away for a while (no edits since 31st December) or alternatively have chosen to ignore me. Either way, I feel this is important enough to bring up somewhere and here seemed best. While I know we don't really have a policy on userboxes and we generally allow people wide latitude to express their opinions in them even if we discourage it, I feel that one of the boxes of User:EmpMac crosses the line. In particular (although I would hope most people noticed it themselves) "This user doesn't enjoy dealing with black people". Whether serious or not, it isn't in any way conducive to building an encylopaedia or user to user interaction and is likely to offend many. (Some of the other boxes aren't perhaps much better but perhaps still borderline acceptable.) I could remove it myself, but making sure I'm doing the right thing first. Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The impression I get from the set of userboxes on display isn't good. WP:NPA implies I shouldn't say more. As to that specific box, I suggest you nominate it for WP:MfD. You may get a good deal of support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the homophobic ones. Yuck. //roux   18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Black people" box and the Albanian unfair box are both user created, hardcoded to that specific page, and not templated so there is nothing to take to MfD. I'm going to be bold and delete both of them. The "black people" one for obvious personal attack, and the Albania unfair one for the sole purpose of advancing a geopolitical ethnic and/or religious conflict. The homophobia ones are actual userboxes that have been MfD before and kept. I do not intend to do anything with those and ask other users to read the past discussion and consider whether another MfD is appropriate or not. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the old mfd Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezkag72/Userboxes/Homophobe. I was going to do exactly what Andrew C is going to do. Be bold and delete them. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept with two votes? Should have been relisted for greater consensus. Discrimination has no place on Wikipedia, and I am accordingly putting up the three homophobic boxes for MfD again, here. //roux   18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. How dare he have an opinion that you don't like. HalfShadow 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of userboxes with opinions I don't agree with. However, most of those don't tell people that their marriages are invalid or that they themselves are immoral. This is supposed to be a collegial environment. Get rid of them. Black Kite 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then get rid of the pro-gay ones too, otherwise you're being unfair. HalfShadow 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the pro-gay ones aren't actually discriminating against anything. Unless, of course, I've missed some out there that say "heterosexual relationships are immoral" or something? --.:Alex:. 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're essentially only allowing one opinion: The opinion you like/won't get us in trouble. That's unfair. HalfShadow 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So we should ban anti-racism userboxes, too? — Jake Wartenberg 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• If I remember the great userbox wars, the litmus test was being divisive and inflammatory, or some such wording. Thus: this user is an atheist would be perfectly acceptable, but "keep your imaginary friends to yourself" is gratuitously offensive to those of faith. I also fail to see why he needs quite so many boxes telling us that he is a bigot. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  Arguably, one would do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  (Ahem) {{User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend}} Black Kite 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would argue that this user is going after shock tactics to get their views across. --.:Alex:. 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EmpMac doesn't seem to be here to cooperate with other users. AnyPerson (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

EmpMac was blocked for a short time for edit warring and was also guilty of personal attacks (well directed towards a specific user I mean). However the good news is he/she hasn't been back since late last year. Let's hope it stays that way. Of course, if they do come back, I would suggest a short leash. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

Am I getting too big for my britches, unilaterally banning people from talk pages for a day, at User talk:Andrew Parodi#Please knock it off and User talk:Pigsonthewing#Please knock it off? Seemed like a rational thing to do, but also felt I was pushing the envelope a little, so bringing it here for review and modification if necessary. --barneca (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

← (e/c)

Barneca writes on my talk page:

posted to User talk:Pigsonthewing and User talk:Andrew Parodi

I don’t suppose there’s any way to get you two to stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like? Having watched this mutual sniping for several days now, all I can think of is this, so consider this "official", whatever that means:

Andy Mabbett and Andrew Parodi are both banned from editing Talk:Eva Perón, Eva Perón, and each other’s talk pages, for a period of 24 hours. That should be enough to regain perspective. If this ban is violated, I’ll block for 24 hours. If disruption resumes after 24 hours, I’ll also block with no further warnings. When the ban expires, both of you need to make a very careful effort to avoid attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names, or indeed any immature behavior. Believe it or not, the best course forward will be to assume that you’re both trying to improve the article, and that some kind of compromise is going to be necessary.

Further, when the ban expires, Andy Mabbett will stop indenting Andrew's comments (it's hurting more than it's helping, and appears designed to cause offense), and will respect Andrew's request to keep all further comments on the article talk page, rather than Andrew's user talk. If Andy truly believes "warnings" to Andrew are necessary, he will do so thru an admin or WP:ANI.

Both of you are being disruptive, both are unacceptably abusing the other, both are acting like [preemptively redacted].

If you disagree with this ban, I suggest you take it up at WP:ANI before making another edit to the above pages; it will be easier to lobby for overruling me at WP:ANI, than from inside an unblock template.

I can't "stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like" because I've not started so doing. You will find only one editor attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names; also repeatedly making false accusations of nationalist bias, exhibiting clear-cut ownership, making personal attacks and falsely claiming to have been the target of personal attacks; and already reprimanded at ANI for improper behaviour in this matter; "reverting without discussion", or "edit warring with a variable IP address to avoid scrutiny" (Barneca's description). That editor is not me. (I can supply diffs as evidence for each the aforesaid, but it will be tiresome to have to do so). Andrew Parodi's improper indentation makes others replies to earlier comments appear to be replies to him. The last time I corrected this, I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi. How else does Barneca propose that be remedied? I note that despite having "watched this … for several days now" Barneca has not posted there, nor to either talk page, before the above.

Talk:Evita is also pertinent. Somebody should put a link to this discussion on Talk:Eva Perón, since I'll apparenlty be blocked if I do so, or refute the latest false allegations made against me there (example: "the fact that your nationality influences your view of Eva Peron's greatest significance as derived from the fact that two English men wrote a musical about her"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a WP:BOLD and fundamentally correct action by Barneca, there was no progress being made by the adversarial editing of the article talkpage and quite possibly the tone that had developed was impinging on the likelihood of other parties attempting to resolve the matter by reasoned discussion - the few that joined in had appeared to simply aligned themselves with one or the other faction. To respond to Andy Mabbett, this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong but a case of allowing the article to be improved by editors without such an investment of emotional baggage. I think the two parties should honourably withdraw and allow others to discuss what is best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) "this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong" In the oft-surreal world of Wikipedia administration, you may be right. After all, I've been scrupulous in using edit sumamries and talk pages, involving WP:THIRD and even, when appropriate WP:ANI, in the face of increasingly hysterical accusations such as those listed above; so why shouldn't I be tarred with the same brush as the person making them? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the first time that Andy Mabbet has been brought here for modifying the style of other people's comments. The simple solution is to stop doing it, which would then make threads like this unnecessary. We are, however, completely wasting our time if we try to get Andy to admit fault. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (EC) Barneca's actions, and Guy's assessment of the reactions (as evidenced above). ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with 3 or 4 people) Andrew Parodi's latest rant is, indeed, worse than Andy Mabbett's behavior, and I'll go take a closer look at it now. possibly deleting any attacks. Over the top behavior is not excused by less eggregious behavior from one's "opponent", but neither should it be viewed in a vacuum.

The reason I included Pigsonthewing in the ban is twofold:

1. My take is that Andy, while often right about something, often makes a concerted effort to condescend and belittle those who disagree. This is not good in a collaborative editing environment. I really want other editors to look thru the talk page, and see if you agree. If I’m imagining things, I’d be happy to retract this, but it’s definitely my feeling.
2. I recall (will have to sort thru history if this is disputed) Andy’s fascination with adding a user page link to User:Docu’s signatures, claiming it was for other editors’ benefit. Same thing here with the indents; while there might possibly be a benefit to readability, it is outweighed by its annoyance to the person being “corrected”. I have a feeling this is intentional, although I could probably be chided for a lack of good faith in this regard.

Thanks in advance for any outside views. --barneca (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is thank you very much for intervening. I will not edit the article or the talk page for the next 24 hours. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked my comment above: "The last time I corrected [his indentation], I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi" and "How else does Barneca propose that be remedied?" . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: that was not a serious invitation. I was dramatizing the fact that I found your indentations of my comments to be offensive and patronizing. At any rate, this isssue is immaterial because you had already indented my comments without any invitation to do so. You need to learn to keep your hands off of the comments of other people. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

it's almost always best in situations like this when dealing with a particular article or group of articles to give a short block or topic ban both parties--its exactly like protection to stop a revert war, or 3RR. It shouldn't be seen as judgment on the merits. DGG (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Barneca still sane: check. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing pattern.

Over at Barack Obama, which I watchlisted after a reuqest either at AN or AN/I, I noticed user:Linda_Mancia was involved in the old and annoying editing conflict about if Obama's a sekrit muzlin terarismist. Inspecting her contribs, I found that her only contribs are to user talks and to this issue. If not for the familiar way she introduces herself to some editors, I'd call her out as a SPA, and a tendentious one at that, but I'm not sure what to make of it. contribs in question. Admins, is this a problem or not? ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closely at her Talk page, her biggest issue has been the attempt to create articles about characters in an unknown series of books, by an unknown artist, all of which have been deleted. AnyPerson (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad I asked. I'll let her dig her own hole over at the BO page, then. thansk, and mark it resolved, i guess. ThuranX (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To my slightly jaundiced eye, this is a problem editor in the early stages. On her user page there is a long discussion in which she twists and turns and twists again to avoid providing ISBNs for some allegedly notable books about which she has a conflict of interest (claims to be the author's editor), in spite of the truly spectacular efforts of a number of editors to help her, assuming good faith all the while. Then, giving up on that, she came to the Barack Obama page to push the Barack-is-hiding-something-about-his-origins conspiracy stuff that spreads like kudzu every time we have a presidential election. These kinds of editors waste a lot of our time. Just my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now notified Mancia of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

She has also repeatedly added unsourced, inflammatory information about Obama on Talk:Barack Obama in violation of WP:BLP. When asked to stop, she dredges up even more inflammatory information and adds it. Some of it is still on the page (apparently permanently because it was archived). As Mendaliv says, this clearly is a problematic, POV-pushing editor in the early stages. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty concerned about the tone of all of her posts. She has so far proved that she is unwilling to read or understand many of our policies, even when they have been explained ad nauseum by some pretty patient people. I think she needs to be kept on a very short leash. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Help. An editor Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in clear violation of editwarring, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Refusal to get the point and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. This boils down to arguing against obvious facts, citing a book that says he is wrong, and asserting that it actually supports his view. He refuses to recognize the obviously or is just being stubborn, or isn’t even reading what he is citing.

As of this writing, the article g-force, properly says that accelerometers can not distinguish between gravitational acceleration and inertial acceleration. Specifically the article properly says

It [an accelerometer] responds to both gravitational and inertial acceleration.

The book he is trying to cite here says the very same thing:

[An accelerometer] cannot distinguish between inertial acceleration [a-bar] and gravitational acceleration

Yet Wolfkeeper twists the logic of a formula on the page and asserts that the book supports his contention that accelerometers can not measure gravitational acceleration—which is just beyond absurd because that’s the first thing accelerometers do when you turn them on. The hard part for designers of inertial measurement units is trying to subtract the gravity signal from the readings. Wolfkeeper has held onto this incorrect view since the beginning of the article three years ago and just will not go of it.

Further, he doesn’t even care that his citation is completely broken and leaves a big red Cite error: Invalid alert (here). Even after I warned him [25] that his citation doesn’t even work, he puts it back twice again (#2 and #3). This is just disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and refusal to get the point.

This is what the article looked like before I started fixing it. And this is where I’m trying to take it. I’ve got 15 patents to my name and am an R&D engineer. Accelerometers are simple devices and are not at all hard to understand. It shouldn’t be this hard. Wolkeeper is simply exhibiting WP:OWN issues since he is the one who first wrote several utterly false things in the article and (of course) didn’t cite any of it simply because there is no way to cite falsehoods. Now he wading back in and is citing stuff that says he is wrong and he cites it anyway and claims that black is white.

I can not prove that he is lying. It may simply be that he is colossally mistaken on things. But a few days ago, he cited a “Canadian Government manual of style (Dundham press)” (here) as a citation purporting to support his long-held notion (long un-cited) of how the unit symbol is supposed to be italicized. Then another editor found the Google Book evidence that it said no such thing. This sort of stuff, whether intentional or not, just can’t go on here on Wikipedia. When Wolfkeeper asserts things that are wildly contrary to world-wide practices, and he then cites a book that doesn’t even address the issue he says it does, it makes it *look* like he fabricates things on purpose. At the very least, it is awfully sloppy work and does Wikipedia a great disservice.

Can I please get some help. The facts are absolutely indisputable on this point of fact. Wolfkeeper refuses to accept the obvious and doesn’t seem to care if he messes Wikipiedia up. It is simply wrong to leave the article so broken like that. Greg L (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg_L is simply edit warring and repeatedly removing reliably sourced material that disagrees with his completely unsourced OR position. My material is well sourced, and is added in good faith. I have even verified it with domain-specific experts off wiki, and I have found several other sources that say the same thing. I hope it doesn't take many seconds of reading Greg_L's screed above to see that he is not editing in good faith, and brings up many irrelevancies, and I believe that overall he is simply wasting admins and editors time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a few people likely to be capable of understanding the source to look it over, but they haven't commented yet.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, that is not at all true. You have a chronic problem citing material that says no such thing. Your material is NOT well sourced. The last source didn’t even discuss what you said it discussed (let alone say what you wanted it to say). Even worse, this new citation says the truth and then you say it says something else. This is unacceptable. Greg L (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked several editors to comment, including User:Georgewilliamherbert who is an admin here and a professional aerospace engineer. I'm very confident indeed that they will agree with my position, and I see no point in further discussion in this venue about what is simply a content dispute.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• That’s nice. And the first editor, Georgewilliamherbert, came back to say this [26]: In clear terms: There is no difference between a gravitational and an inertial acceleration, per Einstein. We're sitting in a 1-G static gravitational field. This is just what I wrote in the g-force article. This is just what I wrote over and over on the Talk:g-force page.

  And I finally found this little, very simple citation that no one but no one could misconstrue. The hard part is finding a Web site that explains the drop-dead obvious, since most accelerometer manufacturers assume people understand that all accelerometers respond to gravity, just like inertial accelerations. This is from MEMSIC.com. They make sensors for “consumer, automotive, medical or industrial product applications”. It is titled, not surprisingly, ACCELEROMETER PRIMER. And it begins with this:

Accelerometers are used to convert an acceleration from gravity or motion into an electrical signal.

(My emphasis). I really do hope this is clear enough. You owe me for dragging this out for so long. And please stop messing up Accelerometer with your wild notions. That article had been correct all along for years (without any of my help whatsoever), it got all screwed up this evening with your notions (entirely your doing), and has now been restored (my doing). And since it didn’t previously cite the drop-dead obvious, I cited it to the aforementioned “primer”. We shouldn’t have to cite the obvious. Greg L (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, as it says in verifiability: As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.. That cartoonlike advertising material would not be especially reliable. On the other hand the source that you have repeatedly removing for dubious reasons is a published textbook on the use of accelerometers. Additionally, JRSpriggs has just confirmed that what I wrote was confirmed by the source I used.[27][28].- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So you've been repeatedly been removing verifiable, and now verified material, and replacing it with unsourced OR and then claiming that I've been 'disruptive'!!!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On the content issue I agree with George that we are in danger of "tak[ing] articles off into long pedantic fights" with this dispute. As I have said in talk the two of you have over-personalized this dispute. With George, I think "Wikipedia articles are part of a general encyclopedia. They have to explain things so that normal people have some chance of understanding." --John (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a content dispute and belongs either at WP:DR, talk page, WP:RfC, or WP:EA. Also, you can always file a 3RR report. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, etc., at John G. Roberts‎

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

Is at least 10RR violation and against consensus on the notion that Roberts' flub of the Obama oath of office will somehow stain his career and thus belongs in the lead. I already reported him at the 3RR page, but maybe someone will see it here first. He's also now accusing us all of being meatpuppets, and worse yet, of being REPUBLICANS!!! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for 12 hours, if only to reinforce the vast right wing conspiracy. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's roughly 1 hour for each of his reverts. I'll leave the edit-warring item open unless you or another admin decides to close it. But the guy is either a troll or is clueless, so I suspect he'll be right back after the block is up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you want a good laugh, check out his unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he should teach a seminar on unblock requests. That's nice, sanity-reaffirming work. Dayewalker (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And since he himself brought up the subject of puppets, check this guy out:

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

-- Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fangz doesn't quite quack for me. He's was rather persistant in trying to get the flub into the lede earlier today, but he's been much more reasonable since. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 09:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, and there doesn't seem to be any other crossover. Farang also appears to be a high schooler, while Fangz has been on here 4 or 5 years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that these two are obviously related, either.  Sandstein  12:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, user is a few hours away from unblock and demonstrates no likelihood of any improvement in behavior: [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He'll have the opportunity to try again, as I've issued another 24h block for this.  Sandstein  12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

His talk page has been protected. seicer | talk | contribs 12:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre warning from IP

"Art, I'll take the Daily Double Play for 1.000" Baseball Bugs is in Jeopardy! from this moderator: "What is a Smart Alex?"

Some things are unexplainable: [30] I'm not sure if the "all five of us" he refers to are five user ID's, or simply a multiple-personality disorder. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No big deal - he's got the wrong end of the stick and hasn't been reading the time stamps. Remove the warning from your talk page and I'll have a chat with the IP. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit suggests to me that the IP believes s/he is Doctor Who. Or maybe Doctor WTF? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Dr. Who all that well, so I'll take your word for it. The odd thing is that the tone of that IP's so-called warning does have a familiar ring to it, from some weeks or months ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bugs, can't talk to you now that you've been reported. Good luck evading the "moderators". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG run for it, the "moderators" are coming after you! :D Brothejr (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, it's the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland! Hide! Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I hear "moderator", I think of something close to "game show host". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me were dealing with either a troll, or a mentally unstable person. I think it's the latter, a 24 hour block seems in order. Elbutler (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, he/she's already been blocked for 31 hours. Elbutler (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user granting himself unblocks

Resolved

 – It is not unlikely that other issues will arise with this editor but this particular issue is resolved; marking the discussion as such.

Pretty self-explanatory.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, does that really work? I think I'll grant myself adminship, and shrink any wikipedia evildoers down to little tiny gnomes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Barneca has it handled. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) If he screws around again, I'll protect the page. If he resumes edit warring when the block expires, he should be blocked 2 weeks. Or a month. Or indef. --barneca (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor might have been hoping the template would trigger the software to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's called faith-based editing. You could mess with him a little bit. If he tries it again, extend it again. If he tries to BLOCK himself, shorten it a bit. He'll think HE's doing it through reverse wiki-psycholoy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of filing a WP:SSP case against the editor in question since I strongly believe him to be a sockpuppet of banned editor Brexx. Brexx has previously placed unblock notices on his own talk page, see this. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that you are right. I knew this all seemed familiar.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) New unblock request reverted, talk page protected. Jesus, he just needs to keep his pants on for 2 stupid hours. Part of me wants to extend the block for disruption and general lack of clue, but... meh. I have grave doubts about his editing behavior when the block expires, tho. --barneca (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barneca seems to be away from his desk. He protected Away From Home's talk page until December 21, when I'm sure that he meant for the talk page protection to expire on January 21 as the same time as Anywhere But Home's block. I tried to leave ABH a message, and could not.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it now, sorry, I'm an idiot. --barneca (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that you could do that. Thats funny.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And it starts again. Series of edits by ABH with bad punctuation and spacing, I caution ABH about punctuation, HalfShadow removes the bad edits, and ABH reverts the edits without making fixes.—Kww(talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is a separate topic from a blocked user using his talk page inapropriately. Also, HalfShadow's rollback was an improper use of the tool — ABH's preceding edits might not have been very useful to the article but they're not blatant vandalism. The original issue in this report is resolved, I suggest this discussion be marked as such. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

True. I also fail to see how this merits inclusion in ANI. So the user has a problem with periods at the ends of sentences. Fix them and move on, It might have saved time, but I don't know why the entire edit was reverted.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue with behaviour is edit-warring: restoring changes you have made that other editors have objected to without discussion or correction. Perhaps tangential to the report title, but not tangential to the behaviour that lead to the original blocks.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit warring and proving to others that you are a difficult editor to work with -- by continuously making typographical errors, misspellings and so forth -- results in a diminished working environment for others. We are not cleanup crews; if the user cannot spell or even adhere to basic English grammar and punctuation, then by all means, play in a sandbox until that user can comprehend what we are driving home here. seicer | talk | contribs 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec to Kww)Well, let's make sure we carefully pick our battles here so that we're not marginalizing real concerns in the process of accusing him of anything and everything. HalfShadow's rollback was inapropriate and ABH (regardless of whether or not he proves to be who I believe him to be and regardless of any other editing concerns) has full rights to revert that rollback since his edits were not vandalism. Furthermore, the onus is not on ABH to start discussion about the reverted rollback, it is on HalfShadow to explain his use of the automated tool to undo multiple edits without discussion. ABH may be doing 1000 things wrong but this is not one of those things, he had every right to revert that rollback. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I had thought he'd since been blocked. Given his antics thusfar, I thought I was helping to clean up: RBI and all that. My mistake. HalfShadow 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Chiropractic

This article needs work, yes. However, there has been no AfD approved and yet editor QuackGuru (talk · contribs) keeps deleting/redirecting the article [31] [32] despite ongoing conversations on how to improve the article. I have already reverted twice, and in the interest of not fostering an edit war, I am here requesting that the article be restored by an admin so that discussions on article improvement can continue. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Undid the redirect, and gave notice to QuackGuru of this discussion. Quite frankly, I see no reason for the redirect. IF he doesn't like the article, either improve upon it (i.e. do not redirect), or nominate it for deletion if it is that bad. I'm not judging on the article itself, but you don't redirect, then state there is a consensus elsewhere when there is none. seicer | talk | contribs 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Seicer. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this reported to ANI when this is a content dispute? This seems like forum shopping by Levine2112 which is a violation of WP:GAME. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping unless he asked for relief elsewhere, was denied and sought it here afterwards. Forum shopping is "if mom says no, ask dad" in a nutshell. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(update) Ioeth has blocked QuackGuru for 2 weeks. I recommend that this thread be closed as resolved. --Elonka 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree QuackGuru was disruptive, 2 weeks may be a bit much, unless there's a history I'm unaware of. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I was just about to say the same thing myself. As to this article, there are two sides to a content dispute, and the other reasons given for the block appear to be "making up the numbers", to be honest. Black Kite 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was QuackGuru blocked for 2 weeks? Is that not excessive? It's a content dispute, where both sides were pushing the limits of the law. I think Seicer, whom most science editors respect, giving a warning to QG should be allowed to "set in" for a bit of time. If QuackGuru still pushes the limits, then maybe a long block is justified. This is unfair. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Elonka's activities in this whole issue is now under discussion at ArbCom. Since her one-person enforcement of restrictions against QuackGuru is one of the reasons given for the block, I think the block should be overturned. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never blocked QuackGuru.[33] I do support Ioeth's block though. --Elonka 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru was disruptive, and a block was reasonable. However, blocks are preventative, not punitive, amd 2, 3 days would have been ample. Two weeks seems a bit much, unless there's history I don't know, which probably should be mentioned. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Small correction: Most blocks are preventative. ArbCom enforcement blocks, however, are a different beast, as they are intended to be coercive, not preventative. They're also blocks that can't be overturned unless either by written authorization of the Arbitration Committee, or by massive community consensus. --Elonka 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where the hell did I say you made the block? This diff will be useful in the future in your constant harassment of me and others. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've been emailed to look at this. QuackGuru was being disruptive. They were previously blocked for one week and have a lengthy block log. However, I recommend that the block be shortened if QuackGuru promises to behave. Blocks are loathsome and should be removed as soon as they are no longer necessary to keep the peace. Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely Elonka meant a better word than coercive. I hope. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• QuackGuru has had a long history of disruption and questionable editing behavior on this article; he's been cautioned and warned several times by a variety of admins. Heck, Tim Vickers read him the riot act pretty specifically a few months ago ([34]), though that did get him to shape up temporarily ([35]). In that context, and in the context of his previous blocks, this seems like a reasonable enforcement of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe. But maybe someone should read WP:BAIT with regards to how he responds to things. I think there are two sides to this story, similar to the old SA/Martin battles. QG and Levine bait each other all day long, and it has to stop on both sides. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• QG's edits involved User:Landed little marsdon. Elonka suspected that LLM was a sockpuppet, but has said that so far checkuser has proved inconclusive. Mathsci (talk)

• I agree with MastCell, this was WP:BOLD and good editing, but this was unwise but borderline, and this was unacceptable. QuackGuru is too experienced an editor not to be aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Edit warring for your preferred version whilst instructing other people to discuss the change isn't co-operative editing. As to the length of the block, I think that reflects his previous warnings on this general topic, not this specific article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell and Tim Vickers. The cumulative effects of an editing career involving much disruption, edit warring, and constant obtuseness gets to a point where the cup flows over and a longer block is warranted. Good call, Ioeth. QG is experienced enough to know that the BRD cycle becomes active and deliberate edit warring when the one making the Bold edit restores their version after the next editor has reverted them. That's an aggressive act of edit warring and deserves an immediate block. BRD should only go through one cycle, if at all, and on controversial articles it's often (with a few exceptions) a bad idea to use BRD at all.-- Fyslee (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping/Sockpuppet

A case of edit war was presented at WikiProject Football (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Dagoberto) and, as i, upon a careful look, saw a familiar "face" emerging, added some info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#DAGOBERTO_-_Adendum).

That edit war between user PauloZin (User:Paulozin) and an anonymous user is not new to me, because the anonymous user is none other than BRUNO P.DORI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori), banned for disruptive editing, which consisted in enlarging football players' infoboxes needlessly, only working in that area. He was duly warned (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruno_P._Dori) and finally indefinitely blocked.

I recognized, before and after his ban, more than 30 (!!) anonymous IP with the same disruptive pattern. Here is a sockpuppet list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bruno_P._Dori). Another pattern is that he engages in no talkpage discussions, does not respond to messages and, in over 1000 contributions (all IP added), has not written one single edit summary, none, immediately re-reverting actions that have been reverted (Three-revert rule constantly violated), inclusively leading to some articles being protected (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergi_Busquets&diff=260741413&oldid=260737132). As stated initially, when i referred to the edit war between Zin and Dori, see these examples retrieved from Dagoberto Pelentier's (football player) edit history (continuous reverting of article, no edit summaries whatsoever, with lots of the aforementioned anonymous IP from BRUNO P.DORI appearing, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dagoberto&action=history). Finally, that article had to be protected too (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dagoberto&diff=265109211&oldid=265090772).

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any activity in the past two weeks by any of those listed IPs? The last date I see is January 5th. Tan | 39 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nurse practitioner, ongoing sockpuppetry

G'day. As a relatively new editor I'm requesting assistance with Nurse practitioner which is being targeted by a very persistent user via various socks. Recently some were blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrse. Two more suspected socks popped up and I reported them, though it seems I may have done so incorrectly by clicking a link on the archived investigation case which added a section. I would be grateful if someone could keep the page watchlisted for a few days as I suspect my inexperience may just make matters worse. Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected the article, which will at least slow things down and increase the work cost of creating more socks. I also went ahead and blocked Ewalsh842477 (talk · contribs) as a pretty obvious sock of Nrse (talk · contribs). I'll try to keep an eye on the article as well. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a weight off my mind. The user counter-accused me of being a sockpuppet, which even though obviously spurious makes it a bit dodgy for me to continue to revert them. Cheers, Basie (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that. :) MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another PoliticianTexas sock: DianaRuiz

Resolved

 – blocked by Protonk. --barneca (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DianaRuiz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is probably a sock puppet of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short). PolTx has generated several dozen known sock puppets; the last was TrentZee (talk · contribs) who was blocked 04:35, 19 Jan; the DianaRuiz account was created 00:30, 21 Jan, and over a period of 6 hours edited 10 pages, many of which have also been edited by PolTx. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Some more specifics:

• most of the DianaRuiz edits involved tinkering with the colors in the infoboxes of northern New Mexico high schools, also a favorite PolTx occupation; for example:
  • in Albuquerque High School, DianaRuiz diff, Thomasalazar diff (Thomasalazar (talk · contribs) is a known PolTx sock)
  • in Rio Rancho High School, DianaRuiz diff, JosephTatum diff (JosephTatum (talk · contribs) is a known PolTx sock)
• made a comment at TfD on Template:NNAA 4A, a very obscure template edited primarily by the PolTx socks Thomasalazar (talk · contribs), Martinez07 (talk · contribs), BradlyRM (talk · contribs): DianaRuiz diff
• characteristic misspelling "Unica" (for Uncia): DianaRuiz diff, 76.113.50.208 diff (see edit summary) (76.113.50.208 (talk) is a suspect PolTx sock)
• charateristic capitalization "Fix" in edit summary: DianaRuiz diff, DianaRuiz diff, Joseph Tatum diff
• DianaRuiz has expressed a desire to write an article about Espanola Valley Mariachi Band (diff). PolTx's activity has been concentrated in Albuquerque and Espanola, New Mexico; for example Española Valley High School is written almost completely by PolTx socks.

How about a block on this editor? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:DUCK I'd say.--Atlan (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicely laid out info; I'll go block now, if it hasn't been done already. --barneca (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, would have posted here earlier but I was called away from the computer right after blocking the account. I've seen a few PolTx socks around and this fits the editing patterns pretty well. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping/Sockpuppet - UPDATE

(Before anything, please check item #26 in this page)

Also before starting my commentary, i would like to make it clear i am almost sure this is not the right place to insert it, it is just where i last reported.

It is clear i am treated with absolutely zero respect by people dealing with these matters of reporting (before i could understand it, since i "sent" 2 or 3 reports without having registered; now i have an account). It's about the 3rd or 4th time i report vandals and receive absolutely no commentaries whatsoever. Not even constructive stuff like "please address this or that area, this is not the right place, or construct your sentences better, with this or that input", nothing. I know what i am saying because most reports are addressed within minutes of being inserted. This last one as only been "sent" yesterday, but my last three have been in their respective (hopefully, i am not sure) fields for over a week, and have not been worthy of one single commentary.

Ok, rest assured yours truly will not bother you anymore. I have a couple of wiki-mates (including one admin, whom has incredibly helped me in the past in reporting/blocking vandals, SATORI SON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Satori_Son)), and will thus try to deal with vandals in my own meager means, contacting with these people when it is in order.

Sorry for any incovenience (obvious there were plenty), keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. Here is the feedback you asked for. You must have noticed that Pasd08 has been indef blocked as a result of your report, so you are getting some results. A few points:

1. Please don't refer to ANI cases by number (as in 'check item #26 on this page') since the numbers change every time a section is archived.
2. Complex sock cases are not quick to resolve, and in your last complaint about Bruno Dori, you did not even give the IP address that you suspected was him.
3. You left one complaint about Dori at the *Talk* page of WP:AN3, where it doesn't belong.
4. If an alleged sock is edit-warring, and you are willing to tabulate all the diffs to prove it, you can submit at WP:AN3. This is quick if the case meets the requirements.
5. You should get familiar with submitting at WP:Sockpuppet investigations, which is the best place to handle things like the Dori case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on suitability for speedy deletion

Cheetah255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have several articles under construction in his or her userspace sandbox. Earlier today, Justiceiscoming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Caitlin's Way (video game) as a crude copy-paste of the visible text at User:Cheetah255/Sandbox/Caitlin's Way (video game).
Cheetah255 indicated to me that he or she did not desire that that subpage be released into article space at this time, and expressed a wish to more or less re-userify the article. Since cross-namespace redirects are out, that's more or less tantamount to requesting the deletion of the article. Would this article qualify for a {{db-author}} from Cheetah255, even though he or she wasn't technically the "creator" of the article space article, or should the article just be PROD'ed or taken to AfD? --Dynaflow babble 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as a copyright violation, since there was no credit given by Justiceiscoming to the original author (which is needed for GFDL purposes). Bencherlite^Talk 01:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its source in the other user's userspace was attributed in the original copy and paste version, so it wouldn't really be a CSD G12 case, but I guess it's all the same in the end, as long as this deletion doesn't unfairly prejudice the article's chances once the real author decides to recreate the page to float his or her final version in article space. --Dynaflow babble 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I came in too late, but assuming GFDL requirements had been met, here's what I would have recommended:

Politely explain the situation and ask Justiceiscoming to db-author the article. If he does not, there's not much that can be done: The article must be treated on its own merits and AFD with a recommendation to merge its edit history into User:Cheetah255/Sandbox/Caitlin's Way (video game)'s is probably the way to go. If it's a "pure" copy and paste then there's no need to merge edit histories, just recommend deletion. If the outcome is "keep" then merge the edit histories anyway, but leave it in article space. By the way, if all editors making non-trivial contributions agree to an outcome - delete outright, merge to userspace, merge to articlespace, keep both, or whatever, then IAR/CONSENSUS overrides the need to do AFD. I think this is called WP:COOPERATION. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think Justiceiscoming should be told this is not done. People keep drafts in their userspace for a reason. Unless you've contacted them and they agreed to make the article live, it's best to assume the article is not yet ready. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hhhhhahaha

Hhhhhahaha (talk · contribs) is loading loads of copyrighted images without appropriate copyright, they're getting lots of bot warnings, but a person hasn't warned them about copyright. Would it be appropriate for an admin to do it? AnyPerson (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that user is a piece of shit. I am woriking my ass all day reverting crap from WIkipedia. Im so tired of Vandals who just come around and trying to ruin everything up for the fun's sake Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't go turning his userpage into cusses then. --( fi ) 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The next time you make a personal attack, such as the one I deleted at User:Hhhhhahaha, you will be blocked. Kevin (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyperson, I stumbled onto these uploads via a search for new-account contributions. I have warned about uploading copyright images and deleted all the images today, as they were found to have been copied from various other sites. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. AnyPerson (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights source alerts

{{LGBT rights source alerts}} has been placed on a large number of talk pages of articles relating to LGBT issues. I consider this inappropriate, since the template is not relevant to the articles concerned but is an attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics. Is it appropriate for me to roll back the addition of the template?-gadfium 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

good grief. cross-posting this here (posted to user's talk page before received message he/she posted this here):

following message posted to User:gadfium's talk: "not sure which talk page you are objecting to its placement on, but other than Socialism and LGBT rights, it only is on LGBT rights in (country) article talk pages (mainly to discourage the use of sodomylaws, which had been heavily used - and provide a way for editors to warn about outdated sources (if source #1 is out of date for countries A, B, and C, then it might be outdated for countries G, Q, and Z. This way alerts can be easily and briefly placed on all LGBT in (country) talk pages A-Z. If you think it is disruptive on a certain talk, feel free to remove or cmt it out"

This source template was posted to Asia and Africa articles earlier this month without incident, in light of another editor proposing deletion of LGBT rights in Benin, finished rolling out the template to Europe, Americas (to facilitate updating/fixing of LGBT rights in (country) articles. The only article talks this has been placed on are: LGBT rights table (continent), LGBT rights in (Continent), LGBT rights in (country), and Socialism and LGBT rights.

"I consider this inappropriate, since the template is not relevant to the articles concerned but is an attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics. "

attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics?????? it is on the talk page (not the article page), and is a warning not to use a certain source which previously was used. presumably if someone goes to the talk page of an LGBT rights article, this template is relevent.

Thanks, Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Which of the pages on which you have placed the template contain references from the source that you are warning about, and in which of those cases is this source considered unreliable? Those are the pages for which this template might be relevant. That might be talk:LGBT rights in Nepal and Talk:LGBT rights in the Marshall Islands (which is a redlink, perhaps the article doesn't fit the naming scheme). If you want to broadcast a message to all editors interested in LGBT issues/sources, please use the relevant wikiproject.-gadfium 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• If a certain source is wrong for 2-3 countries, then it shouldn't be used on any countries without additional sourcing. This is about human rights law, not whether buffy the vampire slayer says x or y in episode ##.
• Any thread not replied to within 7 days on WT:LGBT is automatically archived by the bot. Additionally, not all editors of LGBT rights articles are members of WP:LGBT, and even most members of WP:LGBT do not monitor all of the project's pages. If consensus is against using this good-faith method to efficiently (and un-obtrusively, since it is on a talk page, not the article page) warn against certain sources, then the tribe has spoken. but accusations of evangelistic spamming are a) incorrect and b) not in keeping with WP:AGF. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What the $%^$%^$ is this template suppose to do that actually requires it existing? Don't we already have enough warnings and templates to do almost ... anything! This one just wants us to not use one website or what is this about? aaaaahhhhhhh! attack of the templates!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.13.230 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin impersonator

Resolved

 – Blocked. —kurykh 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not technically vandalism, but Your Principal (talk · contribs) is claiming to be an admin on his user page. I removed it once, he replaced it and called my edit vandalism. It seems that all of his edits are personal attacks on other users in notice board discussions. Very strange, an admin should probably have a look. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This one sent my spidey senses tingling. Checkuser showed Your Principal was the latest in a string of sockpuppets from JIM ME BOY. Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch, Raul. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

More users violating WP:Myspace & legal threat by sockpuppet

The original issue was marked resolved and I'm not sure if I reopen it or, as I'm doing now, start a new one. AuntEntropy found some more: Donnawood123 (talk · contribs), Laneyboi (talk · contribs), DANHOWARD2K9 (talk · contribs) and Geezer1003 (talk · contribs) who seems to be Geezer1022 that I blocked -- see his talk page. Blocking him indef for legal threats. dougweller (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Socialism2009

• Socialism2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Socialism20091011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user creation log

I don't know what this user's aim is, by creating two accounts, but most of his posts are discounting legalities created by a capitalist government, and his contributions only consist of articles relating to that. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I do not see a constructive contributor here. He is also using wikipedia as a forum to note, or discuss how a capitalist government, such as of America, is bad, re: But since most people live paycheck to paycheck, if they lose their job they're "starving", especially if it takes months or years to find another job, if ever. And don't argue that there is welfare, soup kitchens, etc to help feed them, because that's not the right way to keep people from starving. There is such a thing as lying through omission of such data because someone doesn't want too many people or nations to think that anyone in America has ever starved to death. Most people in other nations would be shocked to hear that America has ever had one homeless person, much less millions, & especially children sent west on the Orphan Trains.

Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One edit per account outside talk-space, and both edits seem OK-ish (adding a link to The Landlord's Game to Renting and adding a link to Hooverville to Ghetto. I'm not necessarily seeing an unconstructive editor - possibly they just need tickling with a clue-stick? I've not looked at their talk-page comments; I'll take it on trust that they're soap-boxing and agree that this needs reined in. [Disclaimer: not an admin, politically biased towards this editor (even if they to my right ;-) )] Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Both now welcomed (thanks, Dougweller); I'll continue to monitor their contribs. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

An old "friend"?

Resolved

Might want to check out Chris G molests young kids. (talk · contribs)--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 09:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleepers and IP address have been blocked. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)