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

Off-wiki (email) legal threat

I have received an off-wiki legal threat in an email from a user; the threat is against a third user whom xe is having a dispute. The relevant quote is, "What I can assure you is this, I have made copies of the screens and ongoing acts by <username redacted> will simply be sent to my attorney. I personally have better things to do with my life than to be cyber attacked and threaten with arbitrary and capricious standards." I am unclear how I can proceed; the LT should result in an immediate block, but I'm not sure that I can send/post the e-mail per privacy issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When I think about it more, I guess that technically WP:NLT doesn't apply, since the user didn't actually attempt to "chill" discussions, since it was made strictly off-wiki, unless the user also sent the same email to the third user as they sent to me. Still, this does seem like a problem that should be dealt with. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be actionable, as threatening you with a lawsuit anywhere still chills discussion. (Why'd you want to discuss it if you might be sued?) However, if I were the blocking admin, I'd probably ask for some proof in private of the email in question, to prevent a block solely on word-of-mouth.

This is all just me speculating, of course. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I'm not the one being threatened with a lawsuit, it's a third editor. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if I'm next on the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's off-wiki I'm not sure what you expect an admin to do about it. Admins have no jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

NLT states: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing". The legal threats in question need not be on Wikipedia itself, so long as the dispute is related to Wikipedia. We've blocked for off-wiki activities plenty of times, in particular harrassment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, would you like to fwd the email on to me. As thumperward says, it is probably something we would block for. I do not think there is a privacy issue here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a bit of an over-reaction, and I'd like to make sure it doesn't jump up and bite us. "I'm going to contact my attorney" sounds like bluster, but I don't view it as a legal threat. "I'm going to sue" does qualify, but that isn't what was said. Access to legal counsel is an important right; suggesting that someone can be blocked simply for contacting an attorney might be construed as an unreasonable threat by us. I don't have a problem with the notion that we block is someone actually takes a legal threat, the theory being that the legal remedies should be pursued but not on wiki, however, I think we should take at face value that a statement about contacting an attorney is an attempt to determine if there is a need to pursue a legal course, not the start of a legal course. I really think it is bluster, and I'll bet that any decent attorney will respond that the editor has nothing actionable, but absent an actual intent to start legal proceed sings, I'd prefer not to inadvertently provide fuel to a fire by blocking for merely indicating an intention to talk to an attorney.

I'll go further. An indication that someone plans to talk to an attorney should receive a response like "Please do, they are likely to let you know that this isn't a legal matter. In the case that they do tell you there is an actionable claim, and you choose to pursue it, then it must be done off-wiki. Let us know if you plan to pursue a legal action, in which case you will be blocked per policy so that the resolution can continue off-wiki."--SPhilbrickT 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't immediately explain the consequences of what would happen if such a pursuit is made (otherwise he'll obviously say he's not pursuing anything and could be hiding behind the truth). I'd indicate that if it is stated that he is pursuing legal matters. Also, regarding the jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia comment: it IS within Wikipedia. It was done using Wikipedia e-mail functions sent to an e-mail address of a registered user on Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Everyone has the right to consult a lawyer if they believe they have the need to, but no one has the right to tell others they are doing so, and continue to edit here, since the only possible purpose in doing so is to attempt to gain some sort of advantage over another editor, typically in some kind of dispute. We just don't allow it, it's a fairly bright-line offense. Talk to a lawyer if one must, but don't broadcast the fact on-wiki (or thru-wiki), because a block will be forthcoming (or should be). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I second this interpretation. A block for violating WP:NLT is in order, along with a well-worded explanation by an uninvolved editor (I'd do it myself but I do not have access to the email in question; feel free to forward it to me if you'd like me to take care of it.) -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Their response to the block appears to be a legal threat against the blocking admin. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Have we ever determined who the user was? I don't see it here. CycloneGU (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Found it. So now it's documented here. CycloneGU (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond my Ken I am not yet convinced. You called it a bright-line offense, so I reread WP:NLT and I don't see the clear wording. The policy says if one makes a legal threat, one will be blocked. That policy doesn't define "legal threat" but it does link to Legal threat. At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, that's a link to an unreliable source. Seriously, I don't think we should have a rule with the status of policy that doesn't define the most critical term on its own page, and instead, refers to a page anyone can edit. But let's skip that for now. The definition is: A legal threat is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party. Saying that information will "simply be sent to my attorney" is not a bright line violation of that sentence. In fact, I don't think it is a violation, but at best it is gray. The article does go on to say that "will refer the matter to legal counsel." constitutes a legal threat, but:

1. It is not perfectly clear that this statement meets the definition
2. It can be argued that "refer to legal counsel" is clear shorthand for "I'm going to sue" but asserting one will send information to an attorney isn't quite the same.

After seeing the "will refer the matter to legal counsel." I concede the issue is grayer than I originally thought, but I had read WP:NLT several times and not seen it (because it isn't there.) As a community, we might decide that telling someone you've talked to an attorney is a legal threat, but if we do, we should clearly spell it out. It isn't obvious, and it is most definitely not a bright line violation.--SPhilbrickT 00:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A legal threat is an attempt to intimidate. If the OP is feeling intimidated, then it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, that is not an acceptable rule. Some people get the vapors if you use a strong word. One cannot have a policy that allows blocks to be given solely on the feelings of the recipient of a message. We need rules that impartial editors could enforce based upon observable evidence.--SPhilbrickT 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• His intent was obvious. Even without saying "I'm going to take legal action", the implication was very clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Even if he didn't intend to make a legal threat, even if he thought he was only venting, saying anything that resembles "I am talking to my lawyers" is an implicit legal threat, de facto. I see no other way to interpret it. Sphilbrick's interpretation is untenable, as it provides unwarranted wiggle-room and defangs the policy entirely. Anyone who did not intend to make a legal threat can simply retract their words, and their block (in the vast majority of cases) is lifted. Given that, a bright line is entirely justified to protect the community from cohersion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Support blocking. It is a thinly-veiled legal threat, plain and simple, meant to chill editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again to see if I can make my point clear. I support the idea of a bright line. All policies ought to be a clear as possible, but the NLT policy is one where a bright line is especially important. However, we do not have a bright line. We have a policy about legal threats that doesn't define legal threats. That's about as gray as you can get. On the merits of the particular case, I don't see the statement as a threat, and would prefer a warning, and an insistence that the editor clarify, but if the community wants to draw the line differently, and call that statement a legal threat, I can accept that. What I do not accept is the notion that the present policy is clear. The community should make it clear, by improving the wording. At a minimum, can we define the term "legal threat" in the policy? If not, why not?--SPhilbrickT 10:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If the bright line were "any mention of consulting one's legal counsel", which seems like a bare minimum, then the editor in question would have overstepped it. So I don't see why we're discussing this right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because the phrase "any mention of consulting one's legal counsel" does not appear in No legal threats. If we reach the conclusion, as a community, to include that phrase, then we have a bright line and future incidents like this would qualify.--SPhilbrickT 12:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things... It is off-wiki *and* it isn't a clear threat. Let it drop. Move on and find something more fun to do. -- Avanu (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki doesn't matter. We block for legal threats made to OTRS, because the action of making a legal threat, and the privilege of editing Wikipedia are fundamentally incompatible. As long as the threat remains in existence, regardless of whether it is on-wiki or off, continued editing is disallowed for a number of reasons -- the chilling effect, potential evidentiary issues, potential issues of communications with a represented party, etc. This is a pretty clear-cut case -- there is no other reason to point out that one is going to be forwarding this to one's attorney unless one intends to imply that they will sue the other person. The intent was quite clear to intimidate the other user. This is why we block for such things. Support the block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Support the block per Elle and Beyond My Ken. I don't see how that could reasonably be interpreted as anything other than a legal threat. Kcowolf (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support the block. Implied legal threats are just as prevented as explictly stated legal threats. Telling someone that you've contacted an attorney regarding their actions is a blantant implication that you're considering legal action. Let's keep in mind that according to the policy, "statements made in anger or misjudgment should not always be held against people for the rest of their lives once genuinely and credibly withdrawn." If this user apologizes and retracts their comment, they can be unblocked, but we don't play these "I'm gonna tell my lawyer!" games on Wikipedia. Swarm ^X 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Depends If wiki cares about the letter of the law, then I understand "legal action" to be that formal process which starts with service of a summons and complaint which has not occurred in this example. If wiki cares about the spirit of the law, then WP:NLT sums that up pretty well right at the very top where it says "This page in a nutshell: If you have a dispute with the community or its members, use dispute resolution" If this is still pending, I'd first contact the alleged recipient to first see if there is a real issue to be pressed. If confirmed, I'd contact the editor who sent the email, inviting them to either retract the email or else start the dispute resolution process, and if they refuse block and invite them to seek unblocking when they think they qualifyNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rambling editor User:&Delta

Has WP:COMPETENCE issues, in any field. I won't say anything more because it will probably be a civility violation. Check his contributions if his user page is not convincing enough. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User notified.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• His contributions list is at Special:Contributions/&Delta. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is competence issues - has anyone ever given him a Welcome message with links to understand what and how to edit Wikipedia? Does he have a clue what belongs and what doesn't? Has anyone really tried to help? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• He has been editing for several years and has been on the receiving end of 3 AfDs. His only interest in WP is promoting his ideas and correcting other editors who in his opinion lack the expertise that he believes he has (I think that this diff sums it up well). He has often been advised about how we do things here but I can't see that he's ever addressed the issues directly. "Rambling" is indeed the correct term and "disruptive" might not be too wide of the mark either. andy (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm seeing discussion added to article [1], addition sourced only to a blog entry he wrote himself (and signed in an article) [2] (though I don't think it should have been reverted as "vandalism"), apparent opposition to reliable sources policy [3], pushing personal ideas [4] [5] (and many more), creation of articles that have been deleted as OR, SYNTH, etc, inc Micheal space, Quantum realism. All that, together with a look at his Talk page, suggests to me someone who doesn't have much clue what Wikipedia is for and isn't listening to people explaining it to him - and who has been trying to use it for several years to push his own rambling ideas on all sorts of topics. And he's clearly not the multidisciplinary expert he thinks he is. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Having looked at the Quantum Realism article (now deleted) and the interactions with other users, I would agree with B!sZ. There doesn't seem to be any prospect of a change. Mathsci (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

multiple (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) What administrator intervention is required here? What outcome is being sought? "You have been blocked for having unorthodox views and a somewhat difficult to understand prose style". That would apply to a lot of editors. And as for "disruptive" - 11 or so edits in the whole of 2011. Vandals and POV pushers can do 11 edits in a minute. I see only unnecessary WP:DRAMA here. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally in cases like this, topic bans can be imposed. That was the case for example with User:Terra Novus, who created similarly problematic articles. Mathsci (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some journal started where people could publish new ideas for consideration? Perhaps he could be directed there.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's not about just "having unorthodox views", it's about using Wikipedia to push them - and the latest deleted article was just this month (and for non-admins who can't see it, it was rambling, unsourced, and blatantly OR). This editor is clearly not listening, even after several years - there may not be many edits in 2011 (20 including deleted ones), but they accounted for a lot of words and took up a fair bit of other people's time at AfD. And yes, topic bans can be imposed on editors who won't stop pushing their own personal theories - so perhaps something like a topic ban on theoretical physics? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This editor appears to have a fundamental, all be it benign, misunderstanding of Wikipedia's nature and purpose. The rambling is not so much the point as the belief that one of wiki's functions should be to host his ideas. I see nothing wrong in seeking admin intervention here. It is problematical that after all this time and all the friendly advice he has recieved he still edits like this and this, putting his OR into articles, signed by himself and referenced to his own blogs. Subject to anything he has to say here, either a topic ban on theoretical physics, or at least a ban on creating or editing theoretical physics articles would be in order.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

.. i beg to differ .. i DO know the purpose of Wikipedia .. as i understand the purpose of ANY encyclopedia.. but since you have already dismissed me as 'fringe'/'crackpot' and will delete any contributions i may have to offer,.. what's the point in contributing - even if they're valid? (when they'll be auto-deleted) it's very easy in our so-called 'modern society' to label and dismiss when we feel threatened.. as i've argued before, Wikipedia is a kind of 'front man' for convention (among many things) all these personal attacks against me and 'my ideas' (not really my ideas - they've been around a long time) could be seen as simply convention's inability to allow competing perspectives - today, science is VERY intolerant.. for several reasons.. one is funding: science will not get funded if they're seen as incompetent (just as Wikipedia will not get funded without being perceived as fulfilling a needed function) another is prestige which is tied to the former .. if scientists are seen as incompetent (they cannot provide evidence for Higgs - as an example), prestige is lost, funding is lost,.. it becomes a desperate spiral.. so these things are core to 'the politics of science' but largely unnoticed/unrecognized in 'circles of modern life' (except by those who don't get funding or conventional support) in regards to interactions with me 'and my ideas', Wikipedia has been a: label machine (label me and dismiss me),.. a very condescending and explicitly NON-respectful tone/attitude.. this is not objectivity (and so is not really part of science) but more the 'politics of science'.. and so, in regards to me and 'my ideas', Wikipedia is merely 'front man' for convention who wants: funding, prestige,.. ad nauseum am i surprised? no.. but i am a little disappointed in Wikipedia editors who cannot be a 'little bit' more objective, respectful, and open-minded .. i won't argue again why i think articles like these should 'stay up'.. i think everyone here understands my position on the purposes of encyclopedias.. if this above seems 'rambling' (another label editors seem to prefer to 'throw on me'), i believe that's just more of the same.. a kind of meaningless label/dismiss people do when they feel threatened/insecure.. if i get banned from posting anything on Wikipedia, i won't 'feel bad' .. again, just a little disappointed in Wikipedia and its editors who seem to prefer not to participate in science (or progress in science) .. this likely will be my last post .. ban at your convenience, sam micheal&Delta (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here calling you 'fringe' or 'crackpot', and that's not what this report is about. And no, if you think an encyclopedia is for pushing progress in science, you are simply wrong - that is what scientific journals and other media that publish primary research are for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and only includes material that is covered in some depth by reliable secondary sources, sufficient to demonstrate notability. It does not publish novel ideas, ideas sourced only to personal blogs, or material which is not supported by multiple reliable sources. If you want an outlet for furthering scientific progress or promoting your own ideas, you really will have to look elsewhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to link to Wikipedia:No original research - please do try to gain an understanding of that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ, do we really have to keep putting up with this shit? This guy is a giant time-suck who's never made a constructive edit and is obviously never going to because he doesn't have the brains to figure out how. If he were really a scientist doing cutting-edge work in advanced theoretical physics, he'd know how to take that work to a legitimate goddamn scientific journal and get it published. He'd never waste his time trying to push it on Wikipedia. He'd also know how to compose a simple declarative English sentence with a capital letter at the beginning and a period at the end. Believe it or not, scientists have college degrees and do that all the time. How long are we going to let ourselves be jerked around by this loon.? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • What he said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I take that as support for the suggested topic ban?Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried explaining the purpose of WP etc to &delta in 2009, and it did not change his method of editing. However, in the years he's been here, he's made fewer than 100 edits total. 51 not deleted and fewer than 50 that have been deleted. I know of other editors who have created many more articles which - imo - don't meet WP standards, editors who refuse to take onboard constructive criticism, and who have thousands of edits. They're still here. I agree that he's mildly disruptive, but disruptive enough for a topic ban? Karanacs (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Partial topic ban proposal

Propose indefinite topic ban on editing or creating articles on theoretical physics, broadly construed. To be reviewed if User:&Delta demonstrates an understanding of the relevent policies for contributing to and creating science articles on the encyclopedia.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A minimally reasonable outcome. His edits to existing articles were not much better though: [6] [7]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It says editing too.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, user has only made 4 article space edits in the last 3 years, of which this revert of his edit appears to have mislabeled it as vandalism, this was (by AGF) a misplaced talk page comment, this EL remained in the article for 6 months until recently removed, and this EL was removed through normal processes. In none of the above cases did the user in question edit-war or otherwise try to break any rules to reinsert their material.

The user appears to be ignorant of the specific processes and mechanics of working with Wikipedia, but does not seem to show any malicious editing of article space. A topic ban here seems excessive; this user has an extremely low rate of contribution and the normal Wikipedia processes are working fine. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - 13 edits in 2011 - this section is monumental waste of time Bulwersator (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, next time he creates a rubbish article, I'll let you waste time AfD-ing it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think Bulwersator or TechnioSymbiosis have taken into account (a) deleted edits or (b) deleted articles. Perhaps an administrator can give the details. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

All of his deleted edits relate to deleted articles, the most recent being Quantum realism in 2011. Before that, in earlier years there was Micheal space and an article on a person.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Specifically, he has been the author of three AfD'd articles, all of which are about his fringe theories: Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature (see here for a flavour), Micheal space and Quantum realism, while the deleted article about a person, Caroline h thompson refers to another fringe "scientist" (see here for her views on neutrality in wikipedia). IMHO the guy is a lost cause but it's not AfDs that are the problem, it's disruptive edits to "real" articles. andy (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed I didn't take into account edits to deleted articles, since I can't view those, but really, let's keep things in perspective here. 3 deleted articles (and associated edits), and 4 edits in mainspace to other articles in the last 3 years, none of which appear malicious, and you're considering an indefinite topic ban? As causa sui says below, this is so minimal it could be cleaned up (including AFDs) in less time than it has taken to debate this. I agree that it's disruptive, but it's disruptive on such a miniscule scale and to such a miniscule severity as to be irrelevant. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• We're not considering this to punish "a lot of disruption" or "malicious" actions. It has been a small amount of disruption, but its large enough that we know it's going to continue in the future unless we put the brakes on it. The proposed ban isn't some draconian measure like you apparently perceive it to be, it just means that they would no longer allowed to create articles about "theoretical physics". It's a minor restriction for a minor problem. Swarm ^X 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• The proposal relates to editing theoretical physics articles, not just creating them. Regardless, it remains in my mind a disproportionate response to a small problem. Even reading the AFD for Quantum Realism, it strikes me that Delta has been quite polite despite his writing being called 'incoherent' and 'bullshittism'. No blow-ups, no name-calling, no cursing, no edit-warring, no aggressive arguing; just one mild case of potential incivility that I can see by suggesting another editor wasn't qualified to review his efforts. This is hardly the hallmark of a disruptive editor in need of a topic ban. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• The thinking behind it was that not only has he made virtually no constructive edits to articles but the edits he does make are really talkpage edits, commentary signed by him, including argument directed at another editor.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, per discussion in this and the previous section. Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- no need. As Karanacs notes, ~50 dubious (but not really disruptive) edits over several years does not seem to be something worth banning &Delta over. &Delta seems to be editing in good faith, doesn't edit war or make himself objectionable. I imagine there might be times when we'd need to block or ban a good-faith editor- such as if they're breaking things on a large scale- but IMO it would set a bad precedent to do it for something like this. Also a huge waste of time, like Bulwersator says.Reyk _YO! 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• But as I mentioned earlier, pretty much every one of his edits has been pushing his agenda so someone needs to be monitoring him on a regular basis and reverting almost everything he does. Check out his contributions for List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, for example, where he says that people who "present alternative views of quantum mechanics" are marginalized; Frame-dragging where, using an anon IP address, he abuses another editor in the body of the article; Gravitation, where he plugs his theories; Bell's theorem - POV pushing; and so on... This is someone who is not suitable to be editing wikipedia. andy (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I could have reverted all of those edits in Huggle in half the time we would spend discussing this. --causa sui (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Really? Huggle deletes articles? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How fast it takes to revert is beside the point. Someone has to constantly monitor and check every edit he makes.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support user is wholly incompetent and unconstructive and a waste of time for other editors and a serious net negative to the project. To answer Reyk, this isn't about good faith; we have a longstanding principle here that WP:Competence is required to be an editor. Just a basic, basic, level of competence. Delta lacks this basic level of competence, and banning him from creating articles is going to prevent him from disrupting Wikipedia. Also, frankly, Steven J. Anderson is spot on above. Swarm ^X 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although the user could have benefited from a clearer exposition of No Original Research, but I think working away from physics would be a better approach than continuing the present trajectory of editing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The user does not appear to want to comply with or acknowledge that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for original research. The user has repeatedly been instructed to read Wikipedia guidelines. Regardless of whether the user has done so or not, the user does not appear to care much for these policies and has substituted the reality of this policy with their own. Unfortunately, this is not at all the correct way to use "ignore all rules". This speaks to the lack of competence for the user to be a good faith editor. This AfD for quantum realism is an excellent example of the user's conduct. The user demands wikipedians be "qualified" to review his articles (not English majors apparently), seems to think "original research" is a compliment to their article, and assumes bad faith in other editors (i.e. that authors are somehow after him and his work specifically). A topic ban is appropriate to prevent the user from imposing more original research on WP and forcing inane, long and plodding AfDs. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I don't like it, but AfDs such as the one linked above are a giant waste of time for the editors involved--I'm reminded of Superbradyons--and have the potential to be far more irritating and convoluted than that one was. Given that no productive edits seem to be coming from the editor, and given the ubiquitousness of the Wikipedia cover up you don't even know half of it you're not qualified etc. accusations generally found among such fringe editors (a general rule proven correct in this case), I think this is a good solution. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, since the editor was still this month posting his original research, despite all the people telling him that it's not OK. In the latest AfD he was putting WP:FRINGE on its head; either he doesn't understand it at all, or he refuses to understand. Basically, wasting the time of editors who are knowledgeable in physics. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:COMPETENCE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Drmies. bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The disruption isn't major, but it demonstrates a consistent inability or unwillingness to abide by WP policies, and the topic ban is pretty limited in scope. Showing the they could properly edit other articles could get this sanction lifted later. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support until such time as the editor can be shown to satisfy WP:CIR. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Range block request

Resolved

 – IP range blocked for 2 wks. --Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• 98.85.0.22 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.11.45 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.4.137 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.6.22 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

The above IPs (these are just the ones I know about) are all part of a Bell South range. They all make similar edits to film articles, usually intentionally altering runtimes and grosses. They get blocked, but they keep coming back. The most recent block was for 11.145, imposed by Edgar181. Edgar's rationale made it clear that he understood there are multiple IPs involved. The damage these IPs do to the encyclopedia is considerable, and it would be useful to find a more efficient way of blocking them. However, I realize that a range block is a significant intrusion on any IPs in the range that might want to edit constructively. Thus, my request is a tentative one, to see if there are any options that are palatable and yet more effective than the current single blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A range block is not an unreasonable request. Anyone who wants to edit within the range can register an account and thus avoid being a part of the block. Also, I see 98.85.11.45 is currently blocked. I've looked at some diffs. as well and they are mostly vandalism. One or two might be legit., but it's so little and with all the vandalism who knows what is actually true without references. CycloneGU (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the edits are actually removing references. Pretty much all the edits coming from that range for the last month are unsourced changes or outright vandalism. I am gonna range block 98.85.0.0/20 for two weeks and we'll see if that's long enough for them to tire of the game. --Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a place where range blocks are listed?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A list of all rangblocks can be found at Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks, which is updated once per week. This particular rangeblock can be seen here. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't you think it would be helpful if WP:RANGE had a link to the list of blocks?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Link added. --Diannaa (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! One hopefully last question. I'm not sure I understand the range of the block. As I read it, it's blocking 98.85.0.0 through 98.85.0.19 or 98.85.0.20 (not sure which). Maybe I'm reading the notation in the block ("0/20") incorrectly? The size column also says 20, which I interpret as 20 addresses. Anyway, if my understanding is correct, then it wouldn't block any of the four IP addresses listed at the beginning of this request, let alone additional ones in the Bell South range. Am I misinterpreting the block or misunderstanding how this works?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Calculating rangeblocks goes into some fairly detailed maths, and this noticeboard gets crowded enough without a lengthy explanation with examples. Suffice to say that the CIDR notation of 98.85.0.0/20 covers the IP range from 98.85.0.1 to 98.85.15.254, so all four addresses listed are within the block. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can figure it out on my own or ask somewhere else - not that a long technical explanation wouldn't be refreshing here compared to some of the long contentious discussions. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The slash notation is explained here. It's a slightly obscure geeky subject, sorry. A lower number covers a larger range, stepping by a factor of two (so "/24" covers 256 IP addresses, "/23" covers 512 IP addresses, and so on). This explanation is, alas, a simplification but there's plenty more detail in the articles. bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin conduct review requested

Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'm requesting a review of Fæ's recent poor conduct, and request that steps be taken to prevent more of the same or further escalation. Hopefully that means just a cautionary word from someone uninvolved; I'm not out for blood, just a less hostile editing environment. The poor behavior falls into three categories:

• constant personal attacks and comments about editors;
• disruptive editing;
• inappropriate templating and warning of editors;

Full disclosure: we're presently in a content dispute on a controversial BLP article, and the rhetoric and tempers have risen a bit on all sides, but never to this level; review of my own actions is welcome, especially with regard to Fæ's many unsubstantiated mischaracterizations of my motivations.

• Onslaught of unwarranted personal attacks and mischaracterizations:

"...you seem to be on a mission to disrupt ... You have made no positive steps ... Your polemic is tiresome ... your blanking of sourced material without clear explanation ... Your question appears so trivial ... nitpicking here to stop any progress ... look like trolling to me ... forget how to use Google? ... your opinion is starting to look rather irrelevant ... you do realize that nobody put you in charge here don't you? ... repeatedly saying the equivalent of "I don't like it" to everyone else's suggestions ... Nobody died and put you in charge ... Your problem with ownership of this article has been blatantly apparent ... after it was tampered with by Xenophrenic by being misleadingly indented ... your recent contribution to this article appears to introduce nothing but promotional bias to this article and is disruptive ... You appear to be keen to edit war ... your question appears trollish ... it is apparent that you have a problem with ownership of the article ... your continued off-putting and trivial challenges to other potential contributors ... it would help if rather than trolling other editors, you could positively propose text ... you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations ... persistently introducing bias to Wikipedia articles or disrupting a consensus building process ... worryingly stalker-ish and rather threatening.

• Disruptive editing:

After declaring "...I'm not terribly interested in proposing new content...", and, "I have no intention of wasting my time proposing detailed alternative text for this article if it is likely to be endlessly nitpicked over", s/he threatened to correct a perceived "imbalance" in the article through massive deletions. S/he then carried out that threat, making 16 edits over a 30 minute period starting with this one, that deleted considerable content and tagged even more content with various citation-needed tags. S/he then went to related articles and stuck 'PROD' tags on them (here); requested deletion of image files from the article (here). Deleting and tagging is not a problem in itself, when justified, but most of these edits were not justified -- sources were already cited in the article; articles about best selling books don't need to be deleted, etc. Not a single addition of new content, so it all seemed to me to be more pointy than productive. When I asked for an explanation of some of the edits, I was told I wasn't getting an explanation here.

• Inappropriate templating/warning of experienced editors for:

Removing templates (here); Tampering with comments (here); Violating 3RR (here); and then when I delete the warning templates, referring to them as "possible harassment", I get yet another admonition to use a "recognized process" rather than edit summaries (here), referring me to the Help Desk(!). Looking for a bit of help to put the brakes on this mess before it becomes serious. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you for a well-formatted post with links to the issues you're concerned about. It's a refreshing change from the all-too-frequent vauge and hand-wavy complaints. (Here comes the but.) But... What admininistrative action are you looking for? If "a good talking to" is it, then this board might be a good place for it. Beyond that, it's the other dispute channels, I think. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He is "requesting a review of Fæ's recent poor conduct, and request that steps be taken to prevent more of the same or further escalation". Sounds like a review of the administrator in question involving discussion here. But I agree that other channels could be involved for specifics. CycloneGU (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the user was notified, so I went ahead and notified Fæ of this discussion. - SudoGhost™ 03:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The user was notified with this template, but your additional notification certainly won't hurt! Thank you for the assist. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I missed it, being tagged to the end of the edit war section. - SudoGhost™ 04:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaron, I was certain the inevitable "but..." was going to be a comment about the length, as it is a bit "wall-of-text"-y. The reason I'm requesting admin action is because I've already tried resolving it myself, and any further attempts from me will likely be viewed as "harassment", "badgering" or "trolling" -- all claims recently used against me. As far as dispute resolution regarding the article, we already have an RfC active, a request at the RS-Noticeboard, and are considering mediation. The specific concern I bring here, however, is what I see as unwarranted and inappropriately hostile interaction. I'm hopeful that "a good talking to" is all that is required to have things dialed back. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making that more clear, best to set expectations early. I've looked at the talk page in question, and, yeah, Xeno's concerns about the manner in which F has handled this appear to me to be well supported. Having looked a bit more, though... it's my but again. I do not believe that F would stand the slightest chance of gaining administrator status if that page was highlighted early in an RfA. There's be a probable landslide of "civility, oppose" !votes. But once you have the bit, just acting generally douche has no sting. Unless we get community deadminning up, there's very little actionable here. Even in the "good talking to" department, as I don't see enough of a middle ground here for productive discussion to get started. Unsatisfying. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh, best to expand on that: I haven't looked at the rest of F's contributions, and I'm not suggesting anything about those edits that I haven't looked at. We all have bad days, perhaps this is F's. The above is a commentary on how RfA actually works, not how it should work. -

(nudent) Ok, I've now looked beyond that talk page and I'm mostly seeing mechanichal admin actions (not that that's a bad thing) but my cursory examination hasn't shown that this person is like this all the time. I've left a message on their talk suggesting that they reconsider the way they are approaching this. (I'm terrible at knowing how my messages are perceived, by the way, so if anyone else feels it unhelpful, blank with my permission.) I'm going to do a small amount more looking, but unless there is more to be found, it's unlikely that any further action will arise from this, with the possible exception of more eyes on the matter. *shrug* It's also worth noting that Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fæ wasn't that long ago. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this exchange seems quite out of character. But I think this is probably as "resolved" as it's going to be, unless any thinks otherwise? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you taking the time to look into the matter, and for your input. After reading Fæ's response to you, I guess we don't need to guess "how your message was perceived". You didn't deserve the response you got, and now I've been further accused of threatening Fæ off-wiki? Forgive me if I suggest that this matter is far from resolved. By the way, not once have I mentioned or questioned Fæ's use of "sysop privileges". Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. This whole affair, including how they've responded to me, seems to be out of character when apposed to the earlier interactions that I saw. Self-deprecation aside, people normally take a lot longer than that to get sick of me. The sourcing discussion is simply appalling, though. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• "This would torpedo an RfA, but now that he's an admin there's nothing we can do" is not the attitude that should be taken. Call me naive, but I happen to be of the opinion that being trusted to enforce the rules means being held to a higher standard than most users. If Fae has acted inappropriately, he needs to either apologise or step back. Ironholds (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Knowing Ironholds personally, I feel obliged to say something at this point. There is general agreement that this is not the right forum for Xenophrenic's perceived civility issue and Aaron Brenneman's attempted intervention appeared inflammatory to me (terms such as "troll meat" can hardly be expected to be helpful when thrown into an already heated discussion). If anyone wants me to respond to specific points I would be happy to do so but ANI is not the forum for this and as nothing here involves sysop privileges then the title of this notice is itself misleading. It should be noted that there are more than two parties involved in the discussion. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you explain what "Knowing Ironholds personally, I feel obliged to say something at this point" means? And reading up, Fae, you will see that an entire one user thinks this forum is not appropriate; another two think it is/that it is perfectly fine, but that other channels might be good to discuss specifics. Would you mind addressing the substance of the issue now, if you're done with sophistry? Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
      • To reiterate more clearly, this noticeboard is for incidents that require the intervention of administrators and notices should be raised after there has been an attempt to discuss issues with the user in question. There is nothing here that requires administrator action and a number of points were put forward that have not previously been correctly raised with me for discussion, this is also in the context of other related points that were previously raised by me on Xenophrenic's user talk page were blanked by them with edit comments claiming harassment rather than welcoming further discussion. Ironholds, I am unclear what about my statement you would define as "clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving" (using the OED definition of sophistry). At this point you appear to be accusing me of intentionally deceiving, I think this conversation should end, as I feel my words will be continually misread and I have no intention of entering into a wikilawyerish debate about every word. Thanks for your interest. Fæ (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Fæ, I think it would be more helpful to engage the concerns directly rather than arguing over the venue. I too was disappointed in your response to Aaron. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
          • FWIW, I think concerns about venue ought to be taken seriously. User conduct disputes need to be handled in an orderly and civil way, and we have a procedure for that at WP:RFC/U that ensures that all voices are heard equally. That's not to say that this ANI is out of control, or that it's inappropriate to raise these kinds of issues here at all, but users who have found themselves accused of inappropriate behavior have the right to be worried about their conduct being reviewed on a forum where editors have found themselves subjected to severe sanctions in spite of its being uncontrolled discussion. --causa sui (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Yes, if Fæ is unwilling to engage here, I suppose WP:RFC/U would be the next step. I think it would be to everyone's benefit if that could be avoided, though. 28bytes (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've posted this request here to have "conduct", a broad term, reviewed by administrators. Oh sure, I could complain about the many incivilities at WP:WQA — then I could stop by WP:AN3 and complain about the disruptive, pointy edit-warring — then I could swing by WP:ANI and drop a note about the more serious accusations of stalking and threats. I instead posted the whole combined mess here, and hoped that with a little neutral input from Fæ's Admin-peers we might achieve a low-drama meeting of the minds. What was I thinking?

Specifically addressing Fæ's points: 1) There has been attempts to address the issues, on your talk page, but you challenged me to "report me to a notice board, please knock yourself out" instead of discuss them. 2) Your claim that you raised points on my talk page that were deleted as harassment rather than discussed is misleading; you repeatedly templated my personal talk page while we were holding discussions on the article talk page. That is not "raising a point for discussion". Now with many of my unaddressed concerns listed above, you would prefer that "this conversation should end"? That doesn't sound encouraging. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Truth be told, ANI is a genuinely lousy venue for civility infringements, whether the alleged perp is an admin or not. That said, Fae's casual dismissal based on the choice of venue speaks for itself to an extent. If you want to take it to WQA for the sake of getting input there then go ahead, but at least this will remain in the archives for future reference should the same problem happen again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late in the discussion here, but I must add that I was not happy at all when Fae called my CSD tagging "disruptive editing" and threatened me with a block. I admit that not all of my CSD tags were the correct tag, but the user did not AGF at all. I have since not made many CSD tags at all. --BigDwiki (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

at least 10 other admins besides her have left notes indicating problems with your speedy tagging, & Fae was not the only one who warned you that you might be blocked if you continued. As for her tone, I think what she said was commendably patient, especially considering your replies. The long discussion with her is visible at [8], By that point she declined at least two of your speedies, and so had several other editors. You continued the same pattern for another 2 days after her warning, and only stopped deletion tagging after I had a long discussion with you as well, with my comment endorsed by other editors. I'm glad you came here about this, and expressed above your willingness to stop, because otherwise your editing would likely have been brought here, if only to get confirmation of a block.. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, Fae's a chap - he not she ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why we should be cautious about using gendered pronouns around here; we can't be sure that we're using the right one, and getting it wrong is likely to make the subject unhappy. It's not hard to use a neutral pronoun, or just rearrange your sentences to avoid the issue completely. bobrayner (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Dodgechris

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

Although I have !voted here, I'm closing this while I think about it. The discussion has gone on for 2 days now and there is absolutely clear consensus to unblock Chris with an express limit to one account. As I said; I have !voted, but I think this decision is not very controversial and waiting around for the sake of process is pointless. I intended to unblock Chris based on discussions on the 17/18th July and only stayed my hand because this discussion cropped up, I think it has vindicated my gut feeling and so I am unblocking him. Happy to take his subsequent activity on my own head :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

In 2008 I was indefinately blocked for abuse of multiple accounts/sockpuppetry. My talk page was protected indefinately as well to prevent me from abusing unblock requests. I understand that my actions were wrong and I have changed and grown up a lot in the 3 years that have passed. If I am unblocked I will never behave in that way again or repeat my actions. I will accept any restrictions and/or mentoring that are required if I am to be unblocked. Recently, I created this account (User:Wuzzupbob), not to evade my block, but to apologise to the users that I caused harassment to and to look for a way forward. Wuzzupbob (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you stated on Demiurge1000's talk page that you still have access to the User:Dodgechris account, I will unprotect that page to allow you to make a proper unblock appeal there from that account, unless another admin objects within the next hour or so. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Once bitten, twice shy. In this edit, you stated that some of the accounts proven to belong to you weren't yours - lying in the face of evidence isn't a quality that just disappears overnight. I'm willing to assume good faith, but you'll have to give us good reason to believe you in your unblock request. Best of luck, m.o.p 21:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've unprotected User talk:Dodgechris so that you can make a proper unblock request from the User:Dodgechris account. I'm blocking the User:Wuzzupbob account, as you'll need to edit from only the User:Dodgechris account going forward. I will leave it to other admins to consider whether and under what circumstances you should be unblocked. 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

...and declined by TNXMan due to yet another sock account active as we speak. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock Actually, it seems that the "active sock account" had been previously disclosed to another editor via email, and all that Dodgechris had done with it recently was to blank the user & talk pages and remove it from Wikiproject participant lists in preparation for not using the account again. (see: User_talk:Dodgechris#SpideyFan09_and_Wuzzupbob). Three years is quite a long time, the editor seems to be demonstrating considerable patience and civility in his current unblock requests, and I think we should give the editor another chance to help build an encyclopedia. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - yes, I'm aware of comments and the sock issue. Dodgechris should be unblocked, but should this should be on condition on being restricted to one, and only one, account. Further socking will lead to an indef being reimposed. As he says, 3 years is time of someone to mature greatly. Let's give him the chance to prove that he can be a net asset to the project. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not familiar with the history of this editor, but barring major redflags I'm inclined to think that an unblock with some conditions may be a good way to go here; alternatively, the editor should be directed to contact WP:BASC. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Good luck to you, Dodgechris, and please keep the faith rather than betray it. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. This editor seems to have been a considerable troublemaker three years ago, and still has some issues with patience and with actually paying attention to the letter of what the rules say. I can well understand there being considerable scepticism about his behaviour. However, the big difference between the issues three years ago, and the issues now, is that the editor is approaching things with honesty now (in fact, some might say too much honesty). I don't think we want to encourage the idea that if a blocked sockmaster creates a new account then quietly edits away uncontroversially he can get away with it, but if he's honest enough to apologise for his past misdeeds years later then he's back to an indef block with no way forward. Despite the slightly haphazard approach, there does indeed seem to be a big change, and I think we can be hopeful of no further disruption. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock; three years is enough time to change and deserve a fresh start. I see no major red flags in the recent activity - except perhaps a little eagerness (meh) and a slight lack of understanding of process. This guy did email an unblock request (after the apology account, sure) and appears to be working in good faith to return to editing. Thumbs up. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apologies for declining the unblock request; I was not aware of a discussion here. I'm obviously missing something here; the editor was re-blocked after blowing a second chance for sockpuppeting and was operating a block evading account during the entire intervening three years. It would have been an excellent idea to have include the "SpideyFan09" sock in his recent request for unblock, but it took a checkuser sweep to reveal it; I'm disappointed that this advice was not offered to him when it would have been useful. When you're trying to win back the trust of people you've burned in the past, the very last thing you want to do is deceive them. If he would show some understanding of why it was inappropriate to edit mainspace with both known recent socks and agree to limit himself to a single account, it would go a long way. Kuru (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I should have advised him to discuss the Spideyfan account as well, and that's my mistake - unfortunately in the mess of emails back and forth (there are thirty-nine emails to and from Dodgechris in my email account, including apologies from him for emailing me so much) and the relatively short time period involved, it didn't occur to me. The two unblock declines were entirely reasonable, however it's not true that he continued to create socks for years; the SpideyFan account was created in 2008 as well. It's true that he has edited from a pre-existing sock intermittently in some of the intervening time, but my understanding is that he genuinely plans to put that behind him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Dodgechris edited from his sock yesterday. While this user may be genuinely committed to participating within the project's policies, his actions show an inability to do so. Tiderolls 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I comment respecting the opinions offered by all participants here. "Socking:Don't do it." is neither draconian, ambiguous nor bureaucratic in design or foundation. Tiderolls 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock as per WP:OFFER with the condition (proposed my Mjroots) that Dodgechris agrees to edit using one, and only one, account. WP:AGF and the fact that the account "SpideyFan09" was disclosed to Demiurge1000 and Demiurge1000 comments above has to lead me to the concision that the edits yesterday were not an attempt to evade any block and were a misunderstanding, edits before that are of concern but we should give him a chance to show he is a reformed editor. Mtking ^(edits) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock on the "one account" condition. Three years is a long time, and he sounds genuine enough to be given another chance - and this isn't the Spanish Inquisition -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose One of the key concepts around being unblocked is understanding why you were blocked in the first place. This guy most certainly does not - creating a new sock account in order to request unblock? Using a previous unblocked account to remove that account from some projects while his master account was blocked? Serious lack of understanding, just like when he was blocked the very first time and argued "if I was not blocked, I would not have had to break the rules". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock We don't play Catch 22 with editors. From what I can tell, the user has reformed and has matured in their understanding. If someone who isn't a WikiBureracy navigation pro tried looking for instructions on how to come back from an indefinite block with talk page access revoked could be very difficult. With respect to Bwilkins, the admission of the new account being one registered to apologize appeal the indef demonstrates a good faith attempt to use our system. They appear to have fallen afoul of the "You didn't check box 32, DENY" mentality Hasteur (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions above re:single account. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Hasteur. --causa sui (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Some people appear to need to familiarize themselves with our actual policy. Sockpuppet accounts are only problematic when they are used to disrupt. The fact that this person created an additional account and edited for a couple of years is such obvious evidence that they've "reformed" that I don't know what to say... it's tempting to create a case about administrator misconduct around this issue. Blocks are supposed to be preventative folks. Show some proof that the person behind this account is actually causing disruption somehow, and then we'll talk. Support unblock with a finger waving at the administrators who have denied the unblock requests so far.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, for much the same reason as Hasteur. Looks more like a good-faith attempt to rejoin the editing community, rather than ongoing disruption or timewasting. bobrayner (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Just in case anyone raises a stink, I wasn't involved at all in the above but I endorse Errant's closure, there was clearly a consensus to allow the unblock. -- Atama頭 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fistoffoucault reported by User:Dave3457

Page: Femininity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fistoffoucault (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fistoffoucault has [been notified]

I initially posted this at 3RR or edit warring but was directed to post it here.

I just reported Fistoffoucault for edit warring and got a "No violation" result. I do not wish to rehash that but to report on his behavior since that result.

The most significant act being that he wrote the below taunting message at the top of my talk page...

[9] Dave, I noticed you have some trouble spelling English words, if you need help with your English, just let me know.Fistoffoucault (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason that he was not blocked at Edit warring was because he was somewhat apologetic and wrote in part...

I'm sorry for forgetting to include edit summaries. I can see that this has bothered you.

Note that I asked him several times to include edit summaries but he refuses to, he doesn't "forget".

Note that he wrote the above in response to my accusation of edit warring fearing he was going to get blocked, however when he received a "no violation" result he immediately went back to his old ways and made the following edit diff where he gave no edit summary and removed the image, Young Woman Drawing, which is the present consensus as explained in my original edit warring complaint.

He also proceeded to made these significant changes, again without any edit summary. diff

In short I just don't understand how his behavior is in any way acceptable, which is in summary...

• taunting
• refusal to be considerate of others and use edit summaries to describe and explain his edits.

and

• refusal to accept apparent present consensus.

If you do read my other edit warring claim, in light of the fact that my argument was long winded, be sure to skip over the History section stuff and jump to the sentence that is in bold and reads...

Concerning the changing of the images without consensus which is really the bigger problem.

Dave3457 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry you thought I was taunting; I noticed your edits and talk comments had a lot of mistakes and I was genuinely offering to help you. 2. Again, I sometimes forget the edit summaries. I promise I don't do it on purpose. 3. There is no current consensus on the picture. USChick has eliminated the picture many times. You and Avanu support the current picture. Aroneol and I supported the shaman picture. Doesn't it seem better to have no picture until we can agree?

The edit war was resolved as a "no violation" by administrators. Your frequent alteration of the psychology section without reference to sources (and without maintaining neutrality) is as much an instance of edit warring as my changes.

The offer still stands! Fistoffoucault (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

xxxxxxx

Regarding Fistoffoucault's claim that he was not taunting me but trying to help me...

In his response to my edit warring claim he wrote...

I resent that you have used this means of resolving this issue.

Fistoffoucault also wrote in the response....

diff I've been told by other users that you have mentioned on other pages that you hate feminism because it destroys romance. I wonder if you should continue to be involved in this particular area if you feel so strongly about something that is a generally accepted part of academic discourse--and an essential methodology for writing this article.

The above statement has somehow been deleted from his response as it presently appears in the archive, I couldn't find the diff describing how that happened.

Regarding Fistoffoucault's "forgetting" to use edit summaries...

Here is a quote from my edit warring claim...

In spite of my repeated requests, Fistoffoucault often refuses to use edit summaries. I wrote the below on the femininity talk page.

[[10]] Fistoffoucault, When you make changes to a wiki page you need to include an edit summary along with your edit. That way the other editors can follow what is going on without having to go to the page. This is Wiki policy. I noticed that you deleted the above comment with no response when I put it on your talk page . Do you disagree that it is Wiki policy? Please tell me your position on the matter. I have to be honest, I find it odd that you are "Looking forward to more productive discussion!" but then you change the lede image without so much as an edit summary. We had come to a consensus as to what that image would be.

Fistoffoucault, did not respond even though I used his name in the edit summary when I wrote the above.diff

Fistoffoucault is however correct that, even though I disagree with the "no violation" ruling, I should not have used that claim in this incident report.

Dave3457 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, as you can see, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm sorry for pissing you off by not writing edit summaries--I really do forget. I envy the fact that you have so much time to devote to Wikipedia; I've got a job though, so I'm pretty busy. I'll try and pay more attention to these small details in the future. But in the meantime, shouldn't you assume benign intent?

Looking forward to getting along better! Fistoffoucault (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

New User:Furkaocean

Resolved

 – If there is any new issue, go ahead and start a new thread. CycloneGU (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I need some help with a brand new user who is adding unproductive, misleading, and repetitive links to seemingly every article that begins with the letter "A". I think (s)he may be using some sort of automating tool to do this. I tried to write a message earlier, but the user seems to have ignored my addition to their talk page. I need some administrative help with this person, as I do not know how to use any tools that would enable me to efficiently review all of this user's edits. Let me be clear: I do not believe this user is malicious. I believe (s)he is trying to be helpful, but just plain doesn't really understand that you don't put links to every term found in an article. Please help! VI_WS ^talk 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So you believe that it's possible to be educated too much? =)

Taking a quick scan myself and will comment on the talk page if needed. I can't do anything other than a warning, however. CycloneGU (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just looking to try to get his/her attention here. That's it. I'm literally checking their contributions, and some of them seem genuinely helpful, but a large number are obfuscating, confusing, redundant, or just downright weird, and I find myself reviewing every one of his/her edits to see what each edit qualifies as. I really don't want to bite the newbie, just let them know what is appropriate and what's not. VI_WS ^talk 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to make contact with the newbie, so to speak. Hopefully we get a response. CycloneGU (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to block them until they read their talk page? ;) VI_WS ^talk 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there is. A 1 hour block perhaps? User has not edited for the last 24 minutes, however. Must be taking a break. CycloneGU (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We got a response! Yay! Thanks everyone. Now that we've got a dialogue, I think this can be safely put to rest. Muchas gracias. どうも ありがとう! VI_WS ^talk 18:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there's a previous account, Furkhaocean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - anybody inclined to check past contribs for unproductive edits might want to look at Furkhaocean's edits too. bobrayner (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"I fail to see what this footnoted 'comparison' adds to the article"

My add-on was removed by user Hrafn providing above reasoning. I approached him with my standpoint: " Add."I fail to see what this footnoted 'comparison' adds to the article" It adds NPOV, showing that original text is baised because declares something opposite than what can be found in general scientific literature.--Stephfo (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I do declare that I followed this WP:Policy: “When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral.”

I added what I deem as neutral. I prefer to discuss your reasons for erasing given text here, I doubt that someone else might know why the text was erased by you. Please note: “Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not discussing will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution.”

If you want to discuss it in a talk page of article, than I suggest that you initiate such talk before erasing something, when you do erase, then I believe it should be you who is able to explain what you did, not others. Pls. see also advise: "A number of experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse....The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars." I do not want start another edit war and prefer to get the reason for your point here, where it is less likely to initiate a never-ending edit war by involving a crowd psychosis.

Pls. do not erase this text, WP rule: "“Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative". --Stephfo (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"

He is refusing to engage in discussion, and makes just references to talk page where there was already demonstrated that it just ends up in edit war where effects of crowd psychosis are taking place: everybody shoots accusation one on top of other, without bothering to prove them, and when the thread becomes too long, they just declare it as deadhorse and at the end even accuse me of being war editor and block me. I do not want to end up in the same trap -I'm strongly convinced that if someone is erasing something, he should stand up for what he is doing w/o making appeals to the crowd where there is no chance for decent dispute-resolution. Pls., advise.--Stephfo (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Without any article links, user information, or page diffs. nobody can do a thing here. (I see a user link now, struck that.) CycloneGU (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait...if that's a user, you should be linking to User:Hrafn. CycloneGU (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Hrafn has now been advised of this discussion. As discussed at FTN, Stephfo has been insistent on adding a specific YEC claim to an article about generic (creationist) objections to evolution, without providing a secondary source showing mainstream views of this specific version of the generic claim. Stephfo has also repeatedly dismissed warnings about 3RR, and was blocked for Edit Warring: see the user's talk page. Possibly some difficulty in following or accepting policies relating to pseudoscience and fringe views. . dave souza, talk 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo made an addition to Objections to Evolution. Hrafn, deleted it, per WP:BRD I think it would be on Stephfo to take it to talk. Stephfo did not, instead a notice was placed on Hrafn's talk page [[11]], which Hrafn deleted. I fail to see how any action is needed, except that maybe Stephfo needs to brush up on policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute not needing administration. That said, I see some shadiness like involved editors closing discussions and questionably uncivil edit summaries. I wouldn't say anyone has done anything wrong, but certainly some editors have come close due to frustration.--v/r - TP 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into the situation and here's the relevant information, as far as I'm concerned:

• Stephfo (talk · contribs) has been perseverating on the claims of Young Earth creationist Andrew McIntosh (professor) and insisting on including McIntosh's particular claims in Objections to evolution. These claims follow the general theme of evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but also contain McIntosh's own peculiar obsession with "nanomachines". Nothing has yet been presented to suggest that McIntosh's specific claims have any sort of broader influence in the creationist literature.
• Stephfo's suggestions for inclusion have been repeatedly rejected at Talk:Objections to evolution for numerous reasons. Edit warring on that article earned a 24 hour block yesterday.
• this is the "footnoted 'comparison'" opaquely referred to above. The specific content within that footnote can be found as a direct cut-and-paste from numerous online creationist sources, all of which leave out the same sort of important citation information (that it's a selectively-quoted letter to the editor) and that it's contextual meaning does not justify its use in support of claims that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Nor is its attempted use to undermine the claims to which the footnote was attached a proper or relevant edit.
• There appears to be a language barrier issue, but the larger problem is an apparent unwillingness to drop the issue when consensus has clearly opposed Stephfo's editing.

I'd suggest that Stephfo (talk · contribs) may be a good candidate for a topic ban on evolution/creationism topics as his/her edits seem to be more and more combative and have not been productive. — Scientizzle 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you making me candidate, it seems by fighting manipulation I will inevitably earn what every my opponent is after. However, I still do not consider for just to state e.g."Nothing has yet been presented to suggest that McIntosh's specific claims have any sort of broader influence in the creationist literature.", if the discussion contains something like this: "Independent source: Per A. Larsen: Darwins lære faller (ISBN 82-7199-2228) p.127: "Entropy can be forced to decrease in open system by applying enough external energy and information in an organized form."" If needed, more sources can be added. I also protest against the way how the consensus was declared - NPOV tag was not allowed to be raised, and declaration of consensus was done before a serious answer could be constituted (cf."Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time."). I was also intimidated to look for any other editors that could have different opinion that my opponents. I will restate my main point here:

My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on the second law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification [12] [13] they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm disputing this article section because it clearly violates this WP policy (“Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”)- the article misrepresents the position of proponents of this argument and replaces it with a strawman. In the article devoted to A.McIntosh (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds) there had been a hyperlink to this section (that I removed but it was already several times put back) thus creating false impression that this section should be expression of his position as creationist. That's why I propose to present the real position of proponents of this argument as stated above, properly sourced in their papers (the first refused version was sourced from BBC Radio Ulster) and not just its stripped version. If anybody feels that argument is wrong, it is possible to state it below that text with all the reasoning without the need to remove the text explaining creationist’s position (the section declares: “Creationists argue that” but it fails to present the full version of heir position).

The article "objections to evolution" obviously attempts to state that it is enlisting and possibly refuting objections raised against evolution. If one of the objection (namely “Violation of the second law of thermodynamics”) is regarded as not allowed to be presented as it is declared, then I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Wikipedia reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position (WP:V“Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”). I do not care whether creationists are right or wrong, or if someone is able to refute their claims or not, but if someone atributes some opinion to them, then this opinion should be of theirs, and not replaced by something else.--Stephfo (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)--Stephfo (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

May I inquire on why you refer to your fellow editor as your "opponent"? CycloneGU (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not meant in pejorative way, it simply reflects the fact that we disagree on certain point, namely whether the objection of creationists should be presented as they declare it or how evolutionists (mis)present it. --Stephfo (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out what the problem is here, and what policies have been violated. Full disclosure, I edit that page, and I guess am part of the 'crowd psychosis'... Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but if I were in your shoes, if nothing else, I'd most likely manage to notice at least (and try to touch points raised, at least a bit):

1.I'm disputing this article section because it clearly violates this WP policy (“Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”)-

2.section ... is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Wikipedia reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position (WP:V“Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”)

3. I can add more if you like. --Stephfo (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, yes, this is wholly a content dispute, not an issue involving a complaint of behavior, and not actionable by administrators. If you can't settle the issue at the article talk page, you should bring the issue to WP:DRN, it's not a matter for this board. -- Atama頭 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I’ll try to explain why I think that this issue has something to do with bahaviour. Psychological manipulation is defined as “a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at the other's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive. Successful psychological manipulation primarily involves the manipulator:

1. concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors.

2. knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective.

3. having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.

Consequently the manipulation is likely to be covert.”

Specifically what I've experienced in aforementioned discussion was that I’ve come across of something what I deemed as violation of NPOV policy. “When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral.” I did. My addition was erased. OK. I wanted to know reason – and evidence that I have violated some policy – and the reasoning was just declaration itself, references to general policies, w/o any demonstartion of any particualr rule being violated. I consider such reasoning for fallacy – Argument by assertion (logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth). This was the manipulative tactic that I was facing – constant accusation something is wrong w/o bothering to proof such claim quoting specific sections from the text that I added. I naturally tried to redo my add-on as I do not accept invalid arguments. It was again erased. OK. I asked Yobol at his talk page what was the reason for his removal as at talk page he just mentioned he agrees with others, but no one of others really specified anything tangible. My Qs at his talk page are left unaswered until now:”

1. Pls. explain why you are not able to enlist your objections against my text that you erased: [6]. Do you still hold a position that the text should be kept out? If yes, what is your reasoning? Stating "Numerous objections" without specifying a single one is hardly to be considered as valid evidence that my text is violating any of the WP rules. Should I interpret your refraining from objection specification in a way that your position has changed and you do not dispute my text anymore? Pls. explain.

2. Pls. also explain why you had erased the Wikipedia-sourced image. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC) “ How person can discuss things if someone keeps erasing his contributions and then is not able to provide any rationale for it?

NPOV: Likewise, when I had tried to raise a NPOV flag, it was never allowed. When I asked Jess what was his reason to erase the flag, his answer was: ” I'm not involved in your content dispute, so I can't comment on the details.” I do not think that it is very ethical approach to keep removing NPOVs w/o providing any reason and consatntly making just appeals to the crowd at talk page. Another rational was specified like this: “I too agree, and, stop adding the neutrality tag, the source's misunderstanding of evolution and 2LOT and his sticking his fingers in his ears and singling 'la la la la' really loudly does not mean there is a neutrality problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)” I do not consider “la la la” as very polite answer to my question raised: “Please explain why you've removed the real argument on topic of 2nd law of thermodynamics with quotes and kept only the stripped version that thus becomes just a strawman w/o the key elements such as link between the 2nd law itself and the presence of nanomachines in the living cells. Thanx in advance for explanation--Stephfo (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)” Problem is that people who propose certain POV rarely see the NPOV violation if the article is up to their taste, that’s quite natural.

Consensus. My propossion was: “If consensus should be reached and this seems difficult to happen, then I suggest that the page is allowed to be labeled with neutrality label until a consensus will be reached.--88.88.83.52 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)” 4 minutes later, a following reply was placed:

“To be clear, I did give a reason: "per talk", which is shorthand for "consensus has been reach on the talk page against this change". Just so we are clear, I also agree with the numerous objections above. Yobol (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)” When I asked what a consensus is and what are the numerous objection in concrete, there was no reply. (cf. “Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time.”) Ok, to me it seems somewhat blurry how this consensus had been reached when person who declares that it was is not able to state on what grounds the aledged consensus is declared. I regard it for completely odd if someone declares “consensus reached” and at the same time arrogantly ignores questions raised.

What I regard for manipulative tactic: When group of editors avoids discussing passages of the text but ascertain it should be erased making references to general policies w/o bothering to prove the claim -nobody knows which sentence is wrong but everybody agrees the text as a whole is banned. When Q raised –arrogantly ignored; reasoning -everybody agrees (Argumentum ad populum). That's what I think has to do with crowd psychosis. Also, manipulation is if there is someone apparently purposefully avoiding pointing out specific text sentences that are not acceptable for him so that consensus in modifying it cannot be reached. That's pretending "discussion is in progress" but no actual textual passages are allowed to be discussed. Likewise, when somebody ascertians that text contains sensational claim but is not able to state what that sensational claim actually is. When only reply to question is another general accusation without evidence, or using Argumentum Ad Hominem (insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument –here: ignoring the arguments by making remarks that I should read some policies, but not able to demonstarte that I would violate any) so that when the discsusion become too long, a deadhorse is being declared. It is absolutely impossible to discuss the improvement of the text if nobody is able to specify what particar part of it is wrong (cf.:” How can be consensus shown if my Qs remain unattended?”).

What I further consider for violation of good morals: If per-review for professor of Thermodynamics is provided by people who have nothing to do with thermodynamics; put the case they have right to have their own opinion, but if somebody declares something like this: “I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry” then I consider such approach for ungrounded accusation for attack on upon smb's honour and reputation if that person is not able to manifest or at least enlist these errors that are being declared.

Generally I’m not saying it is tragedy, but I would really much more appreaciate if the people who keep erasing things would have at least some remote idea why they are doing it. I think it is quite natural that if treated like that, person tends to consider such deletes invalid and tries to redo such removals.

Moreover, I’d like also to ask whether it is considered a standard etiquette if someone in discussion uses images like this:

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

I somewhat tend to believe it tends to be a provocation. I’d like to ask whether the bottom line is that it is approved to remove NPOV tags and erase texts at anyone’s discretion without being able to provide any rationale for it and if this is the behaviorthat should be propageted and promoted within WP. Please note that it is your report which shifted this discussion form behavioral topic to content itself.--Stephfo (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen that image used once. It was to "whale" Jimbo. Granted, that was a funny instance of this image; with the word "squish", it can be taken negatively. CycloneGU (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, after slogging through that novel you wrote, I gather that you're having trouble getting through to people and getting them to be clearer about their objections to content you want to include. You consider that a "behavioral problem", but that's just called Wikipedia. To be blunt, if you need 10 paragraphs to get your point across, I'd have trouble discussing content issues with you too. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just something for you to think about. The problem with your appeal here is that we administrators don't have actual authority on Wikipedia, we just have extra tools, and with those tools we can change protection levels, delete or undelete pages and revisions, and block or unblock people (at least those are the main tools we get). Unless you're suggesting that administrators block everyone that you're having trouble dealing with (which I assure you isn't going to happen) there's nothing that anyone can do for you here. You have a content dispute with other people, and that's why we have WP:DRN. As I said before, I strongly suggest you give it a try, and when you do, try to say what you need to say in about 1/10 the number of words. -- Atama頭 00:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 a disruptive editor who knows the rules well

MakeSense64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am used to intense debate, but MakeSense64 has an exceptional pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing and harassment. On 12 January 2009, he started editing over a 5 day period focussing by promoting Chinese Astrology. [14] The account was reactivated on 27 May 2011. In two months and nearly 1000 edits over 90% have related to astrology, stars or biographies of astrologers.[15] In almost every case, his arguments and edits have been obstructive or destructive towards the field of western astrology. Though he appears to be a new editor, his detailed knowledge and use of WP rules suggests he is a highly experienced editor who has been reported on this page before.[16]

There is not space here to document the many specific examples:

• An example of how he disrupts and makes major edits in the face of consensus.
  • Discussions on the Astrology Talk page concerning one word were extended for a month, partly due to his intransigence. [17]
  • He ignored responses to his posts and repeatedly raised arguments that had been addressed. [18]line 612
  • He polarized the argument see here by repeatedly raising unrelated issues from a recent edit war.
  • To break the impasse, I proposed a 48 hour straw poll resulting in 5 in favour of the change and 1 against. MakeSense64 abstained. A few days after the changes were made, he undid the text. I reverted with a comment that this was disruptive. Next day, he edited the lede substantially with unsourced additions that were diametrically opposed to the spirit of the consensus. Another editor undid these edits and warned him to stop being so disruptive.[19]
  • Two days after a consensus had been reached, Makesense64 reopened the debate with a new section on the talk page. [20] Several new editors who were not involved in the debate or the straw poll argued against his rehashed points.
• Much of MakeSense64's editing involves tagging articles. [21][22][23] (approx 93 astrology sites between 9 June - 19 July) Some are valid, but very many are unjustified. His tagging is directed at schools, groups and biographies of astrologers, including my own. I accept that my biography is open to criticism since I do not disguise my identity on WP, but consider it harassment that he put tags on my biography within 12 hours of me undoing his posts. [24] After another editor removing the tags, he reapplied them on 19 July after I undid his unauthorized edit for the second time.
• My record shows I only edit a controversial page after discussing it on the talk page and only with the support of the editors. But MakeSense64 is consistently partisan and driven by his own agenda. He admits to being an astrologer in the past [25] and his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war [26] and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors [27]

I am asking administrators to look into this with the hope that you can block or ban him editing all astrology related pages and discussion pages. Robert Currey talk 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: "His agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI". I hope Robert Currey has strong evidence to back that up, as otherwise a little star-gazing reveals that a large boomerang will be on its way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Am I able to comment, even though I am not an administrator? I can give evidence to demonstrate that point, and a lot more besides to show how he has made my editing experience almost unbearable by his wilful obstruction and sinister agenda. Zac Δ talk 22:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  If I can close discussions and I'm no admin., surely you can also comment. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator either - that isn't a requirement here. If you have evidence, I suggest you provide it (with diffs from Wikipedia - take note of our policy on outing if that is relevant) - though again, beware boomerangs: accusing someone of having a "sinister agenda" is rather risky if you can't back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can back this up – although I could add a lot more were it not for the outing policy. I can also provide numerous examples of where experienced and non-involved editors have criticized Makesense64 for non-constructive, disruptive and tendentious editing. I don’t know an adjective big enough to describe how glad I am that Robert Currey raised this complaint on a situation that has gone on for too long. I am putting some diffs together now and will comment again shortly. And yes, I’m aware of boomerangs but I’ll take the risk. I have come close to quitting WP altogether several times because of the harassment of this editor and don’t think I would want to hang around much longer if something isn’t done about this.Zac Δ talk 23:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be wise to wait for MakeSense64 to reply before going too far with this. He/she hasn't edited for over 7 hours, and is quite likely unaware of this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

?? Am I to post the evidence you asked for or not? In defence of Robert's suggestion of an agenda I think I should, because Robert Currey has no idea what I know, since I am someone he has been haressing directly. I am able to show, without revealing his off-wiki identity, that he has definitely targeted the biography of an astrologer whilst simultaneously engaging in an off-wiki hate campaign against that person due to professional conflict regarding his preferred branch of astrology. (This is not normal BTW, most astrologers have healthy respect for other branches of astrology). Also that he has commercial interests in the sale of his own astrology software programs. I have raised this issue before and can point to the diffs, or at least what remains of what can be seen, following the censorship of some comments for the sake of the outing policy. For this he has complained about me officially twice, and that's why I have never instigated a complaint against him myself, for fear he will paint himself as the victim instead, (Both complaints were dismissed BTW, the only criticism being directed towards him for being uncivil - but still, instead of engaging with him further, I have adopted the policy of shunning him as much as I am able to. I am able to provide full verification of everything in private, if necessary. Indeed, in early June I asked the administrator AGK, who advertises help with arbitration issues, for assistance on how I could initiate a complaint myself, since I was inhibited by the outing policy - but although he initially offered to help, after several weeks he was still enmeshed in other wiki-things and couldn’t find time to look into it so I dropped it. I should also add that I changed my username from Clooneymark to Zachariel in the naive hope that it would detract Makesense64 from targeting my contributions so disruptively. Someone please confirm if I am to proceed with the details and provide the diffs or not. If not, then fine - I'll drop it. But the point is he acts from an agenda and his editing history is enough to show that he is deliberately disruptive, and not concerned about contributing productively or constructively to WP Zac Δ talk 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is up to you, obviously - it just seemed sensible to me to wait for a response before going too deeply into this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, have you looked at the edit history of Makesense64? Surely you must be aware of the disruptions. Don't act surprised, you have been following this long enough and you certainly know the rules well enough to know better. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not really commented on Makesense64's editing history - I have however pointed out that before making allegations about him/her having a COI, and an "agenda" ("sinister" or otherwise) is likely to require strong evidence. As for the rest, as I've already stated, I think that we should wait from a response from him/her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Before considering my experience, consider this in regard to tendentious, disruptive editing. Here's some of the comments addressed to Makesense64 from other editors (not Robert Currey / not me) about some of the disruption he causes:

“I find your discouragement of a new editor to be distinctly non-constructive. I find nothing even remotely constructive in your statement about "If other people insist on destroying the article" There has definitely been some non-constructive feedback provided”

All the previous edits were undertaken in good faith following extensive consultation amongst the editors. You have suddenly and without advance notice, consultation or any other reasonable notice made drastic changes to the topic. You are editing disruptively against consensus and against the interests of collaborative editing on Wikipedia.

(Three from the same editor - re issues raised on the NPOV noticeboard):

As to the actual dispute I believe you are wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring

Standing alone is against the basic principles of how Wikipedia works. The basis of decision making in Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. Warring to achieve aims is wholly wrong and can lead to administrative action.

What you are doing is removing information rather than linking to where there is extra information. I have reverted your deletion. Wikipedia is not a place for you to exercise your hangups about deleting everything that is not scientific. Plese try to improve the content and coverage rather than deleting well sourced information.

every single one of your edits was with the aim of degrading astrology and overly emphasizing it's pseudoscientific nature. Moreover, none of your edits had consensus, which would indicate POV pushing. I suggest that you work with the editors on this page before unilaterally making such one-sided changes

Your posting a spammer warning on their talk page was excessive.

Do you need more?

In regard to incivility, as an inexperienced editor the very first interaction I had with any wikipedian came from Makesense64 in May when he placed this final warning that if I “spammed again” I could be blocked from editing without further notice, and the website whose pages I had given as external links (because they offered interviews with the subjects of the biographies) - Skyscript.cok - could be blacklisted from all Wikimedia sites. The warning (the first of many I was to receive from him) specifically referred to links on the Deborah Houlding biography, who is the creator of the Skyscript website. See Makesense64's contribution history for how, when he resumed his editing activity at the end of May this year, (following a series of contributions to Chinese astrology pages in 2009) his first action was question the biography of Deborah Houlding on the notability noticeboard, here

In defense of the spamming accusation, I argued the links were relevant and helped establish notability – and tried to fix the problems on the pages but all my edits met with unreasonable obstruction by Makesense64, who resolutely maintained that there could be no link to the Skyscript website on the Deborah Houlding biography, even though she was the creator of that site, because it would be spam ..., it would break WP NPOV policy by promoting pseudoscience .., one excuse after another. A few days later Houlding gave a statement that this editor was someone who was engaging in a vendetta against her because a few days earlier (just before he resumed his WP activities) she had banned him from the forum of the Skyscript website. Houlding also gave links to his commercial astrology sites, where on one he had placed condemnatory remarks about the Skyscript site and how it had banned him - but all this was removed because the links revealed his identity. Makesense64 also removed other comments himself, such as the subsequent comment of another editor who acknowledged the statement. I let this roll because he initiated a complaint about the fact that I continued to refer to the situation (although not repeating the information about his identity) in arguing that because of his COI and vexatious attitude towards western astrologers, he should not be allowed to continue editing those kinds of pages. See the talk posts from here:

He never denied this BTW, simply maintained that he doesn't need to be a neutral editor since no one really is, and all that matters is that his editorial contributions are neutral. But the fact is that he is not a contributing editor, he very rarely adds anything to content and never makes attempts to resolve the problems that he tags (sometimes for no good reason at all, as I believe was the case when he tagged Robert Currey's biography). His editorial contributions are all about deleting content, reducing content, causing dissent and division on talk pages and proposing that anything related to western astrology or western astrologers is expressed in the most negative sense. He obstructs almost all of my Wikipedia contributions, using every way possible to twist WP policy. (Yes – he knows the rules far too well; does it sound feasible that an editor with only 9 days editing experience in his whole WP history, would be bold enough to place notices on boards, tag numerous pages, and place a “final warning” on my talkpage?).

Since my editorial interest is in a controversial subject, I frequently work with editors of different views, some highly skeptical; but I have not encountered anyone completely unreasonable as this editor is, or who I view to be editing WP from a wholly disruptive motive as I believe he is. I hope others will comment too because the problems he causes are widespread, although especially focussed on anything I try to contribute. He has a habit of deleting at least one of my contributions per day, for clinging to arguments and repeatingly asking for his questions to be answered again, and most definitely has caused me to abandon trying to contribute content on pages where he will not let the argument drop. He should not be allowed edit the astrology pages, but also consider that most of his disruption is about causing argument and uneccessary division on astrology talk pages, because that is where he seems to delight in baiting and proposing that his arguments are all backed by WP policy! Zac Δ talk 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump you will admit, will you not, that this editor has definitely masqueraded under the pretence of being a sceptic, and that from the arguments he makes, you would never have considered that he makes a living from the sale of his own astrological software? Zac Δ talk 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you are asking me to 'admit' anything. I'm in no position (as someone involved in disputes over the Astrology article, and as a non-admin) to decide one way or another whether your claims are valid. As I've already stated, my input so far has been to point out that serious accusations need strong proof. I'll leave it to others to decide as to whether this has been provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, on reflection, I accept your point about COI. I recognize that I have COI as my interests are on public record and you might if say you are an editor of a sceptical book or magazine etc. My complaint is about his disruptive behaviour on WP which is not in question. His/her motivations are background issues that may or may not account for the intense focus on tagging, deleting, marginalising, polarizing and disruptive editing in a particular field. Robert Currey talk 08:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If this story were to fully check out, it would be a pretty damning account of MakeSense64 not making sense, so to speak. Such an editor has no role on Wikipedia in my mind. Is there some way we can get in touch with Ms. Houlding (or the logs, etc.) to verify this? I'll ignore the sales of astrology software bit for the time being. CycloneGU (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to the complaints formulated by Robert Currey.

• It is true I went through a lot of astrologer pages on WP, checking all pages on List of astrologers, tagging those that have serious issues and cleaning up some spam where it was obvious. Later I did the same for the category 21st-century_astrologers. I went over them alphabetically, over the course of several days, something which can be easily seen in my edit history. If some articles were unfairly tagged, then Robert Currey is welcome to bring the diffs.
• He complained on my Talk page about harassment after I tagged his page Robert Currey, and subsequently two uninvolved editors have come in to remove the tags, without doing anything about the issues with the page. Just have a look at Robert Currey, some 'references' are nothing but pages that give the address of his shop in London. A 'selected books' section, and so on.. Tagging a page like that is harrasment?
• A group of editors have been on my neck since I started tagging astrology articles. The most vocal of them is User:Zachariel, and you will find his constant personal attacks and ad hominem comments about me on nearly every Talk page where he engaged me. I have told him many times that personal comments should go on my User_talk, but he doesn't care about WP guidelines. His actions started about here [28] and have continued ever since. If I need to bring more diffs, then tell me how many are needed. This editor has been on a mission to bring more astrology into astronomy articles, something he discussed with other editors on the WikiProject_Astrology Talk. I advised against that idea. While Robert Currey is more civil editor, he frequently came in to support Zachariel's efforts, and it was also Zachariel who went to remove the tags I had put on the Robert Currey page. The activity suggests a connection between these editors.
• On July 6-7 Zachariel reverted 3 or 4 times on the Algol page within 24 hours, and I gave a 3RR warning on his Talk page. He laughed in my face, saying that he was 'implementing overriding policies'. Since then a group of editors, Robert Currey being one of them, seems to be taking turns in reverting almost any edit I do on several pages. A coincidence? I do not object to editors reverting a bold edit, but they do not engage in discussion after doing it. My questions are either negated, or answers are not to the point. Recently the discussions have been on Talk:Astrology, where there is now a long list of unaddressed questions.
• Robert Currey is right that more editors have come to the scene who argue against me. The strange thing is that almost immediately upon arrival these editors complain about me in very similar language as Zachariel has been using in his personal attacks against me. Also a coincidence?

I could go on about this, but then I would be writing a book. I think none of the above is a coincidence, and before I bring the diffs that admins may want me to bring I invite them to take a look at some other evidence. For more than a month Zachariel and Robertcurrey are contending that I am in a vendetta against astrology. But there is evidence that just the opposite is the case, this is their vendetta against any skeptics of astrology, whether they are working on BBC or on WP. Please have a look at this recent note on Facebook [29], where some Robert Currey is basically trying to recruit meatpuppets, asking for ideas on how to get around the WP rules, advising new editors to first work on 'other' articles before they go on to the 'real' work, asking them to contact him first, and so on..
Could it be that some of the new editors that came to the scene on Talk: Astrology and immediately criticized me, are some of these new recruits? Could it be that I am seen as a disruption for the plans they have on WP? Because I don't go away too easily, even in the face of ongoing ad hominem comments?

So, I ask some admin to take a look into the editors that have lined up to revert my edits in the recent days, without even making an attempt to engage in subsequent discussion on the Talk page. I also noticed yesterday that some of the new names that pop up are the same names that were involved in problems on the Astrology page before. E.g User:Petersburg and User:Aquirata, who came in to remove the tags I had put on the Robert Currey article.

MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to suggest about “very similar language to Zac”? Be clear about your arguments, as I have been, so that anything which needs to be looked into can be. You give a link to one comment from the many difficult situations you have dragged me into, and if that’s as bad as it gets in your criticism of me then it suggests that you can multiply examples but you can’t strengthen (or justify) your argument. I’ve already proven the motive of my involvement, which is self-evident in the contribution histories on record. I did very little on WP (beyond minor typos and links) until the day that you slapped a spamming warning on my user page, and that is when I started contributing to WP in earnest, to justify why I was not a spammer. Here is my contribution history to show how my only editing contributions since 2007 were 1 minor typo and three submissions of relevant links (the latter on 1st June)

Here is yours to show that (unknown to me then) you had reactivated your account by making a call to the notability noticeboards about one of those pages, saying “I came across this page Deborah Houlding and wonder if it passes the notability test ? …” (how disingenious) - and then you placed your spamming warning on my user page on 9:27 am June 2nd.

Admins here can easily see for themselves that my WP involvement got active, immediately, from that point onwards, and for no other reason than that. From a sense of moral outrage that you would accuse me of being a spammer and that my arguments that those pages I had placed links on should not be tagged as lacking notability – which I then offered to help fix to demonstrate my argument.

Houlding’s email address is on public record. Her statement said that she did not want to post herself because your attempts to undermine her character were widespread and she had drawn a line under her negative interraction with you when she banned you from her website. She also said that she had sent her statement and her own complaint to the WP helpdesk, offering more information if necessary.

(I see you have since removed the comment where your only defence was to say that what she wrote was irrelevant because it broke the outing policy and the only thing that mattered was that your published contributions adhered to WP policy, not your lack of personal involvment or neutrality.)

Her email address is advertised on her site: deb@skyscript.co.uk I am not going to email her myself about this because I have had too much trouble already on the backlash that came from her statement. Otherwise I would and it might be a good idea if someone else does.

You can try to suggest some conspiracy of you wish, you were obviously going to try to drag up something to obscure the facts. The facts are these – I post for myself, I became an active editor in direct response to the intimidating warning you placed on my user page – and since there have been so many of these, I routinely delete them and refuse to indulge your desire to bait me by entering into talk-page discussions with you on your talk-page.

When I first raised this issue it brought me nothing but aggravation, so I decided to remain quiet about this (until now), and have been trying to edit around your obstructions lately by shunning you as much as possible without failing to answer your arguments and questions when I need to. See WP:shun, for the recommended advice that I have been trying to follow lately. Don’t pretend to be a sceptic – you are not even a pseudosceptic, you are just a someone who uses WP to pursue your own personal vendettas.

To AndytheGrump, I wasn't suggesting you had anything to admit to, I was asking you to share your own experience, by which you can surely that this editor (who makes his living selling his own astrology software) has falsely presented himself as a sceptic who rejects astrology completely. (Note western astrology, he has contributed positively to Chinese astrology pages, including inserting links that go to his own Chinese astrology services - this was also demonstrated in the removed material, because by giving the link to his websites, his off-wiki identity is revealed)

Makesense64 - do you want to deny this? I am willing to give further accounts to admins privately if required Zac Δ talk 10:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there are a few independent and long-experienced editors, whose contribution histories show no involvement in astrology-related topics, who would be free of accusations of being involved in astrology-disputes, who could verify different aspects of what I have reported and/or give independent accounts of how obstructive and disruptive his editing has been. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for me to contact these editors via their talk pages, and ask if they would be willing to comment here? I'm not sure whether this would be viewed as canvassing. Zac Δ talk 10:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense64 (typo) Zac, if you wish to seek comment from other editors, you are welcome to do so. However, one must be careful not to make a comment in asking them to comment that would sound like Wikicanvassing. For that reason, having been suggested of it once before (I wasn't) and not wanting the same fate for you, please visit my talk page and give me the names of the people you want to ask to participate. I will notify them neutrally about this thread. CycloneGU (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It was me who asked that, not Makesense64. I'll do that. Zac Δ talk 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, twas a typo. Corrected and section on talk page noted. Give me a few. CycloneGU (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Neutral notifications sent. CycloneGU (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a notice about this discussion. The only experience I remember with MakeSense64 was working on the Deborah Houlding article. I came across it because I sometimes check out the "Notability" noticeboard and wanted to have a look. Generally I do not believe in astrology but at the same time I realize that others do, and my aim was to be fair to astrologers and the subject because some Wikipedia readers want to know about such stuff, so I try to help in keeping with Wikipedia's rules and not let my POV (not believing in astrology) affect my contributions. I have not read the previous discussion in detail on this ANI page and I will only comment on the Houlding article; so please only consider this one thing -- I am not qualified to make an overall assessment of someone's edits elsewhere. I went over key changes made by MakeSense64 in the past month or so on the Deborah Houlding article and examined them to see if they were within Wikipedia's rules. Here they go: (1) MakeSense64 tagged the Houlding article as unsourced; it was unsourced, so this was correct; so it's within the rules. (2) MakeSense64 added a "no more links" hidden editing warning in the external links; constructive in my view since this discourages spammers; within the rules. (3) MakeSense64 removed unsourced material; it was unsourced and yes, maybe it was a little rough, but it was unsourced stuff in a BLP (including unsourced stuff that DH had some kind of tumor); within the rules. (4) MakeSense64 added a "notability" tag; there were 3 references at that point, it was a rather bare bones article at that point, so the tag here was somewhat dubious possibly but one could argue that the quality of the references was substandard, possibly, because the topic of what constitutes a good reference in the astrological world -- well, I'm not sure; so I'm kind of extending the benefit of the doubt here: within the rules. (5) MakeSense64 did a copyedit changing "She has been" to "Sydney Omarr" said...; improvement, since it's more accurate; within the rules. So, trying to look at it impartially, my guess is that MakeSense64 was playing by the rules on this article. In this situation, MakeSense64 had to contend with me working to make the Deborah Houlding article into a competent one and I can be a rather persistent and stubborn type who usually gets my way since I really really try to work within Wikipedia's rules and I'm an adept researcher and competent copyeditor -- perhaps in some other situation, MakeSense64 could have whittled down articles which didn't have an adversary. I don't know. But overall in the Houlding instance, MakeSense64 was, in my view, while an adversary to me, working within Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a notice for this as well, and I don't recall ever being involved with anyone in this dispute in the past (or astrology-related articles), but I believe that's why I was given the notice (sort of a WP:3O request). I looked at the complaints above and followed the links by Makesense64, and right now I just have one comment. MakeSense64, you said:

• "Robert Currey is right that more editors have come to the scene who argue against me. The strange thing is that almost immediately upon arrival these editors complain about me in very similar language as Zachariel has been using in his personal attacks against me. Also a coincidence?"

I don't think it's a coincidence, I think it's a case where Zachariel's complaints were valid, and so they were echoed by other editors. Maybe you should listen to the chorus of complaints against you and not dismiss them. Anytime I see a case where an editor accuses (or hints) of sock- or meatpuppetry when they receive consistent criticism of their actions, things don't end well. Also, just to point out, I see no personal attacks from Zachariel, a complaint about an editor's behavior is not a personal attack. -- Atama頭 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This complaint starts "he started editing over a 5 day period focussing by promoting Chinese Astrology. [30]". As far as I can tell, in that diff all he does is provide a ref for an unref'd statement: he adds no article text. A brief scan through the rest of your diffs didn't show anything particularly interesting, either. This isn't all a snit because he tagged your COI bio, is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, you have cleverly turned the argument around to my bio. I have already written here “I accept that my biography is open to criticism since I do not disguise my identity on WP,” and I once suggested to User:Verbal (who loved to tag pages like you) that it was deleted. My complaint is that on the two occasions where I undid your posts on other pages, both times you responded by placing tags on my biography within 24 hours. Your claim that you were merely following the list of astrologers is false as I have never been on that list! This timing was ill-advised since it suggests that you were pursuing revenge (harassment) rather than good editing as you claim. This is just one small issue among many bigger complaints about your behaviour.

My public comments on Facebook took place in March and were not recent as you implied. At the time several editors who had expertise in astrology were banned from WP and I was the only editor permitted to remain. News of this was widely reported outside WP and this brought me a lot attention. At the time, there was a real possibility of a lot of angry astrologers reacting by piling into the Astrology Page and treating it like a forum without following the rules. If you read my comments, my advice was that they should not to get involved with the Astrology page and that if they wish to be an editor, they should adhere to the Wikipedia Rules. Otherwise we would have another edit war, which is not in anyone’s interest. And until you appeared on the scene stirring up trouble last month, I remained the only consistent editor on the astrology page with any knowledge of astrology.

If anyone has recruited astrologers to Wikipedia, it is your practice of tagging some 93 astrology biographies, schools and organizations. This has served to irritate a huge community and it may account for reactivation of old accounts and an influx of new editors who don’t understand the rules. At one point, I seriously considered that your obsession with tagging was to motivate disinterested parties into a crusade. Certainly, your actions and inflammatory comments on astronomy pages appear to be designed to ignite potential disputes. For example you wrote “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome.” on a WikiProject Astronomy page . In retrospect, I should have requested that you were barred from these astronomy pages as well.

I understand why editors prefer to remain anonymous. Both the above personal comments are based on the fact that I have not disguised my identity. I think that taking advantage of my openness and mining public information about everything that I have ever done or written is the equivalent of outing an anonymous editor and using their activities outside WP.

Rather than dig for dirt on my life outside Wikipedia and try to imply that everyone who disagrees with you has to be part of a conspiracy, you need to look in the mirror. Zac is one of several editors from all areas – many who have no history of editing astrology pages have found your activities disruptive. Incidentally, only two days ago one of the non-astrology editors who experienced the early disputes in March first hand, was kind enough to refer to both Zac and myself as being in a different category to those who were banned from WP in March, for having made sincere attempts to cover the subject while adhering to policy.

As you know when I first responded to you, I supported your request for solid verification. However, since then I have watched how extreme you activities are, but have resisted a strong urge to act like your personal cop. I have also tried to work with you on the Aries article and we even established a consensus on the talk page. However, I notice that yesterday you went back to that page and without discussion, deleted a section put in by an editor in good faith last month. This is typical of your policy to shoot first and only ask questions when it suits you later! You may not like the Western Signs of the Zodiac but continually trimming down these pages to a stub of an article does not serve the interests of 25% of the population who follow the subject.

No matter how clever your arguments, it’s obvious that you are a divisive force within a community that is seeking to build bridges. Though I have not requested a total ban from Wikipedia, I believe that wherever you go on WP, the same problems will come up. Robert Currey talk 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The March ban [31] looks to be relevant. For example, the editor who reverted the tags on Robert Currey, User:Aquirata, should not have done so, because he was banned. Unless someone has undone said ban? Note also the text of the ban: People may also want to keep an eye on Robertcurrey (talk · contribs), a professional astrologist, who, while he may not be a devoted SPA, has a definite conflict of interest in this matter William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Tomsulcher doesn't realise, not having read the previous discussion, that one point he could help to clarify is that the Houlding statement was given, he saw it, acknowledged it, and so would be aware of what it reported (and that what I have described above is accurate). Zac Δ talk 17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The posts have been removed from history, including your reply to Houlding. I recall that you acknowledged her statement, reassured her there there were editors on the page who would prevent innapropriate actions, and that you asked if she would submit a photo for the page. I remember because I was relieved that you at least had seen it before it was zapped from all record. Subsequently your post which responded to her has been zapped too. So now you understand why I am asking. Zac Δ talk 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And if I do not believe in astrology, I do favor assology (my POV) but again, I try to keep my POV out of my contributions here.Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well here's a wierd thing, although Tomwsulcer's reply to Houlding can no longer be viewed by the history diffs because it has been deleted (see here), as has Makesense64's reply to the statement, the posts that relate to those diffs are still visible on the talk page under the extended content tab. This the code I have, just now, copied from the page.

"

Hello, comments noted. The material in the article at present is all based on reliable references and contributors here are doing our best, by following Wikipedia's rules, to make sure we follow the guidelines. And we'll be keeping watch of the article to make sure it's fair. Ms. Houlding, please email a picture of yourself to me via email at thomaswrightsulcer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com. And give me permission to post it in Wikimedia Commons under license ccsa2.5. Say when the photo was taken approximately. That way, I can include your photo in this article, thanx."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Contributors are not required to explain why they spend more or less time on WP, or why they are inactive for certain periods. There can be a myriad of reasons for that. Contributors are also not required to be neutral (usually they are not), they are only required to apply the WP guidelines and write from a NPOV, which is what we have been trying to do here. To bring challenge to an article WP:CHALLENGE is also part of what is being done here, and it is not rarely the quickest way to get an article improved ( as this case shows)

This article as I found it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Houlding&oldid=393392111 ) violated a lot of core WP principles, so I tagged it. I found similar problems on a number of astrology related articles and biographies and tagged or improved them as well. Fact is that Tomwsulcer has done most of the trimming and editing of this article here, and now added back some things for which some reference could be found. Ms. Houlding's complaint is thus nothing but an exagerated story, most of which cannot be verified, and interestingly she has nothing to say about Clooneymark, who woke up after a long period of inactivity, only to add more external links the day after Tomwsulcer had trimmed them to one. Ms. Houlding is asking to block me from abusing any WP page, without pointing out even a single WP page that has been abused by me.MakeSense64 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the comment by Ms. Houlding based on WP:OUTING MakeSense64 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)"

Obviously the statement by Houlding has been removed from all accesible records Zac Δ talk 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall the Houlding talk page stuff being of any importance. I looked over MakeSense64's contributions to the Astrology article hereon July 19th. The contributions seemed to me to be reasonable, referenced, fair, within Wikipedia's rules.Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal observation: my recent request to gain unqualified support for working within Wikipedia rules on the astrology pages is undersubscribed, and the relevance of asking for that support has been explicitly challenged. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where you said "I ask for a simple show of hands – all who favour abiding by existing Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings, say yes, those opposed to these principles, guidelines and rulings, say no –" and several editors thought that was too silly to vote on? My comment "Peter let's just move forward. Commitment to Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings is surely self-evident by the collaborative effort to bring this page up to WP best standards. We don't need another time-diverting discussion when it's obvious that most editors here understand the issues involved and the necessity for consensus on how best to meet those policies and demonstrate their principles in every element of the page's content". Your response: "Gibber-jabber".

On the whole most editors are working collaboratively and productively on that page. Zac Δ talk 22:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Tomwsulcher, from not appearing to have any clue what I was talking about when I asked you to remember your post, to now (after I found your forgotten response) remembering the statement it referred to as not “being of any importance”, some details of what is fair and reasonable and important may need to be reconsidered. So let me recap on a couple of things.

This editor, whose edit you approved of, was insistent on making three references to pseudoscience in the lede of the astrology article – inserting an extra one into the first sentence, and then augmenting the one that already said “in its modern form astrology is a classic example of a pseudoscience” to read “In all its forms, astrology is a classic example of pseudoscience”. He removed citation requests on points editors were working collectively to substantiate and clarify, and removed the one positive point about astrology’s history from the lede, even though there had been a proposed structure to the lede that ran “outline introduction > historical outline > philosophical contradictions > pseudoscience status and scientific criticisms”.

The citation requests were not there to dispute the pseudoscience status but to find clear authoritative references to substantiate it. We have asked more sceptical editors to help us get this right and most are showing a very positive willingness to offer valuable and constructive criticisms. But Makesense64 redesigned the content in his own preferred image in flagrant disregard to the good team of editors who have discussed and worked hard to establish consensus for over a month, and are doing their level best to bring this struggling article up to featured article status. So no, Makesense64’s edits were not fair and reasonable. No editor should remove citation requests until suitable citations are found. No editor should bloody-mindedly and repetitively revert and disrupt, and badger and harass, and call for talk-page answers to questions that have been answered over and over, particularly not in an article that has a prominent tag at the top saying:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

There seems to be a lot of willingness to look in other ways here, and I understand that astrology may not be a very popular or well liked topic for many reasons. Regardless, just like any other subject it requires thoughtful attention and a clear representation of facts and its notable points of interest. There is a good collaborative team working hard on getting the content of this controversial subject just right, and a lot of talk page discussion is analysing sensitive problems very critically. Against this we have one disruptive editor who delights in creating division, argument, annoyance and frustration. Good editors will leave this project if administrators don’t take their blinkers off when someone who is acting against WP interest is supported because their actions undermine a subject they dislike.

With regard to the statement Tomwsulcher doesn't remember so well. I remember it very well. This editor, who pretends to be a sceptic even though he makes his living from the sale of astrological software, was engaging in a malicious web-based off-wiki hate campaign about the subject of a biography page who at that time was being subjected to significant harassment and character assignation attempts by him. The reason was because his branch of astrological interest was different from hers. He was calling for the links to her website to be rejected as spam. He questioned her notability even though he was well aware of it. He reactivated his account two days after she had banned him for causing trouble in her forum. He was uncivil to me from the start because I sought to add content to her page. He initiated WP editing with a vexatious agenda and almost all of his edits have pursued this agenda one way or another. I have exaggerated nothing and could add more if it were not for the outing policy. I have offered to substantiate privately what I am not allowed to substantiate publicly here. If this is not a serious COI I don’t know what is. But regardless of all this, his contribution history speaks for itself and so I ask admins here to go back and consider Robert Cuerry's complaint more seriously, and keep in mind that this long-established editor (Robert Currey) has an excellent reputation for fairness and is not of a character to criticize anyone without strongly established good cause Zac Δ talk 23:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point that is missing is that MakeSense64 knows the rules and his actions cannot be judged on one edit but as part of a one month discussion involving at least 10 editors. How he deliberately and repeatedly asked the same questions, repeated the same arguments, didn't read other's posts, extended the debate, posted his edits without agreement in spite of 5 to 1 majority against in a straw poll and reopened the topic. His record has to be judged as a whole. Terry Macro (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Zac 22:50 21 July above: How do you know that there were a number of editors who thought my proposition was too silly to vote on? Up until the time I posted on this page, you were the only editor who expressed that point of view. Have you been canvassing or communicating with other editors somewhere I wasn't looking? Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands - admin COI intervention

Hi. I have a very simple issue to raise. The Senkaku Islands page was subject to mediation until recently. In order to satisfy a user, Lvhis, other users agreed that a neutrality dispute tag could be added to the top of the article during mediation. Mediation expired, so I requested the mediation admin, Feezo, (who had added the tag) to remove it. Lvhis was unhappy about this, so he asked Penwhale to remove reinsert it. Penwhale did this, despite acknowledging there might be a conflict of interest. He had also reinserted the same tag about a month ago during mediation, even though Feezo had removed it. I really don't think Penwhale was uninvolved nearly enough to intervene again on this issue.

I'm also concerned how it looks for a Chinese user to ask a ChineseTaiwanese admin to intervene in a dispute over an article on islands that China and Taiwan are in sovereignty dispute with another country over. I'm sure Penwhale was acting out of good faith, but Wikipedia should be seen to be impartial, especially from the perspective of other users (given the sorts of disputes that can blow up).

Anyway, would appreciate some feedback and maybe the removal of the dispute tag for the moment. John Smith's (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about how you're using "COI" here. The conflict of interest guideline speaks about citing yourself, promoting your own company or financial interests, or editing articles related to organizations or campaigns you are involved in outside of Wikipedia. In what way does Penwhale have a COI? Are you saying that because he was born in Taiwan, that he should not edit China-related articles? Or that he should be considered an involved administrator on those topics simply because of his ethnicity? Quigley (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Penwhale was the person who raised COI when actually discussing why he was taking action. Maybe he was thinking along the lines that you've described, but in any event I've struck-through the term. John Smith's (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we seriously having a real conflict over who has the right to remove a cleanup tag, where both parties agree that the tag should be removed? Because when I read this, you seem to be upset not because the tag was removed, but that it was removed by someone asked by your opponent to remove it, and not by the person you asked to remove it? Please tell me you didn't come here with that as the central conflict here. This is beyond stupid, into the realm of sheer insanity, if in fact you went through the trouble to complain about who has the right to remove a cleanup tag that everyone agrees should be removed. Please tell me I am wrong... --Jayron32 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood the issue because I used the wrong word. The inclusion of the tag was a subject of an edit war. Editors who didn't agree with the tag's inclusion generally accepted that it could be included during mediation to satisfy Lvhis, as a sign of good faith. It was removed after the mediation ended. Lvhis wasn't happy, so he cherrypicked an admin that previously reinserted it, asking the tag to be put back. The tag was put back. Hope it's clearer now! John Smith's (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If all that is of issue here is that the admin is Taiwanese, then there is indeed a serious problem here, however that problem is user:John Smith's. Preface it however you want, but that you would even see this as an issue and bring it up is somewhat appalling. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree strongly. I think it's incredibly improper for people of particular groups to even be seen to be taking sides over issues like this. I'm certainly not suggesting that Penwhale never get involved in any article related to this sort of matter. (And apologies for describing him as Chinese, though the point is still valid as Taiwan is more or less on China's side in this dispute). But the matter has already been characterised by people on both sides of the argument as being "pro-China" and "pro-Japan". In a similar fashion, if I was Japanese I wouldn't have sought feedback from a Japanese admin over this. Or, if I'd been a Japanese admin, I would have asked whether the editor in question really thought that I was the best person to deal with this.

That said, if it was just down to ethnicity I wouldn't have thought much about it. But when added with the cherrypicking and previous intervention, I thought something should be said. John Smith's (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And to make another example, I don't think that it would be correct for an editor that was (noticeably) Christian to seek assistance from another (openly) Christian admin over a dispute at, say, the Jesus or Christianity articles. John Smith's (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, your using the word "removed" in above are really confusing. If you want to argue against adding the tag, you should argue on my two main points in my edit requested. You'd better to read the wp guideline Wikipedia:POV Cleanup#Guidelines for cleanup at least 3 times or more before you made such complaint again and again. Admin Penwhale just did a thing 100% in line with wp policy and guidelines, nothing with COI at all! --Lvhis (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You cherrypicked an editor who had previously reinserted the tag. You didn't wait for, or seek assistance from, an uninvolved editor. That was inappropriate. John Smith's (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think you can rely on a page that has only been edited 14 times and has not been edited since 2007. John Smith's (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are playing down or even trying to deny a wp guideline or policy that you feel you cannot be benefited from, you shall not use (actually misuse or abuse) any others to make your complaint here at all. --Lvhis (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Who says it's policy? It's a page some random editor started in 2005. And the lead is completely nonsensical. "There are pages sitting in Point of View (POV) Dispute state where the discussion ended and it was resolved months ago. We clean up those tags." What does this mean? John Smith's (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's very badly written, indeed, but aren't you being a bit disingenuous in saying you don't understand the intended meaning? It seems perfectly clear to me, despite the poor writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was exaggerating. Though I have no idea who "we" are. Was this supposed to be a page about the removal of stale tags? John Smith's (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that we're having this conversation means that there's still a dispute. As I was not a party to the mediation case, I cannot tell how many people were on each side of the viewpoints. However, we're warring over a template that fits the current state of discussion. Have we resolved anything? If you take a look at the edit history, I've added the tag twice; once due to Feebo delayed his closure on RfM, and once after the RfM closure due to the situation not cleared up at all. I claimed possible COI issues for myself because this is related to Republic of China political issues and my view may not be as neutral as I could on other cases.
• What I'd like to see happen to this article? Constructive discussion on what to do with the title, while title-NPOV is tagged (to reflect the ongoing discussion), and unlock the page provided that no parties edit the infoboxes/title disputed information without detailed discussion. That would be what I'd like to see the editors collaborate on. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (revised at 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

So how long do we have to use the tag? We have discussed possible pages moves many, many times. Each time there was no consensus to change the title. However, some users don't like the fact that the titles are staying the way they are and are using the tag as a sort of protest. As far as I can see, they will want the tag to stay up there indefinitely - or until other users give in out of boredom. That is not what the tags are for. John Smith's (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: John Smith's statement, "In order to satisfy a user, Lvhis, other users agreed that a neutrality dispute tag could be added to the top of the article during mediation.". There has never been any such agreement from me and some other editors; the tag was applied according to the usage guideline and without any pre-condition. STSC (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Penwhale: We've had discussion (I'm not sure that it qualifies as "constructive", but at least some of us have tried) about what to do with the article. We've had it on that article's talk page, on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, on WT:Naming conventions (geographic names), and, most notably, a MedCom mediation that ended (failed may be a better word) after it, well, completely fell apart. I don't have an answer to the problem (I'm one of the key disputants), but the problem is by no means caused by lack of discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Penwhale: Please answer my question. Who do you think in the world in general do not like the name Senkaku and think it a biased name? Oda Mari (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the best examples I will provide here, but both Google Maps and CNN articles (Google Search Keyword used: "CNN Senkaku Islands") have mentioned both the Japanese name and the Chinese name right near each other. Here's a good example on how CNN deals with it. Both names would be biased based on which view you take, for the record. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not really relevant. No one is suggesting the article only refer to "Senkaku Islands". The alternative names are mentioned in the article. It is not biased to have a name used by one country in a territorial dispute for the title of a Wikipedia article. E.g. "Falkland Islands", rather than "Falkland/Malvinas Islands". Or are you going to tell me "Falkland Islands" is biased too? John Smith's (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that CNN and Google, two of the prominent media groups in the world, refers to both at the same time, without using the phrase Pinnacle Islands. This is almost similar to Liancourt Rocks situation, except the usage of the phrase "Pinnacle Islands" is much smaller than "Liancourt Rocks". NPOV name would force a move to "Pinnacle Islands", as both "Diaoyu(tai)" and "Senkaku Islands" have bias. But then the term "Pinnacle Islands" is underused... I personally don't have a preference over which one this article (and the dispute article) settles at, but I believe the tag should stay until a final consensus is reached (i.e. as mediation didn't resolve in agreement by parties, the name's NPOV-ness is still under dispute).

In addition, CNN has actually refrained to name the islands in its article titles (only mentioning both in the article text). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to highlight a few important things: John Smith and cohorts' arguments of common name usage were defeated quite soundly in the recent (failed) mediation, so that already robbed a pretty key point on their side. In addition, the mediation failed because of active sabotage committed by individuals who very passionately advocated for the removal of the POV tag. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions

Related to the above, earlier today User:Magog the Ogre unprotected Senkaku Islands dispute, which had been fully protected, on and off, for quite a while (due primarily to the NPOV Title tag, but also due to other disputes). In explaining the removal of protection, Magog placed the article under what are essentially self-imposed general sanctions. You can see an explanation for his position at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#BRD cycle, crystal clear. While I'm not usually a fan of "rogue" admin actions, in this case I support the decision fully. The disputes at these articles are painful, seemingly neverending, with lots of bad behavior on all sides. The biggest point of contention is the title, but there's plenty of other problems lurking in the corners if and when we ever get the main one taken care of. As someone fully involved in the dispute, I'd like to say that I concur with Magog's actions; as such, since we're here at ANI anyway, I'm wondering if we could get the community. I think that we might as well make the sanctions official, get them listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, and that way nobody can claim that, when an admin acts in the best interests of the encyclopedia and puts the beatdown on bad behavior that it wasn't fair. Alternatively, if the community doesn't want to deal with it, we could always consider kicking the issue up to ArbCom. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm wondering if we could get the community." - seems as if you didn't quite finish this sentence, get the community to what? Chaosdruid (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much problem of Magog's suggestions, but I cannot agree to the inclusion of the dispute tag forever. There has to be a time-limit on its inclusion or some other way of allowing for it to be removed down the line, apart from "consensus". The sad reality is that certain users will never agree for the tag to be removed until they get their way. John Smith's (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! I think I meant to say, "I'm wondering if we could get the community to give its input." Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes; I support community sanctions on this article, including a 1RR limit and a strict line against BRD, as I've explained there. And John, I understand your desire to not have the NPOV tag up forever, but apparently other people feel just as strongly the opposite way, and the utter lack of ability on the two sides to come to even the slightest agreement on the issue is disturbing. I might point out they would rightfully say you will never agree for the tag to stay until you get your way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They could say that, but it wouldn't make any sense. My position is that it is inappropriate to use the tag indefinitely regarding the article title. This would be the same if the article title was "Diaoyu Islands" or "Pinnacle Islands". I am not refusing to have the tag until X happens. I simply don't believe the tag should be included. John Smith's (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My British friend, I hope you realize that the recent attempt at mediation failed largely because of sabotage committed by editors who were on your side of the opinion spectrum. As a result, you should take your issue up with Tenmei and Phoenix7777 if you are wondering why the tag is still up there. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncertain as to whether ArbCom would actually rule on the actual name of the Senkaku Islands article to be used, as generally that would be seen as editing dispute. In addition, the long-term full protection on there means that there may be very little remedies actionable things that can be ruled upon. I'd think that the main thing that would come out of this would be remedies either imposed by the community- or ArbCom on related pages. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC), modified 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate and apprize admin Magog the Ogre for his decisive action of this kind at this moment very much, more than just saying support it. I'd like to say it would be better if such action had taken earlier. As for the dispute itself, even I am on one side but I can say I am quite open, not only including open for either of dual name D/S or S/D, or pure/real English name, but also including let the tag be on if there is dispute even the title can be moved into a one which I support as NPOV . I am not going to take advantage of status quo by stubbornly removing out such tag when the title is the one I support but the dispute has been raised and ongoing. Admin 日本穣 mentioned Liancourt Rocks dispute in his message there, that remind me the moment when the mediation started going to a deadlock. When I mentioned the precedent Liancourt Rocks which has been demonstrated as an example in the the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, Qwyrxian expressed "Please drop it" and then actually shut a door or way as a possible solving approach. I am not critisizing anyone here, instead, I just hope we should be more open in the future DR no matter it will be through AbrCom or the extensive community. Otherwise, I am not optimistic for any means to solve this kind of dispute. --Lvhis (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I remember seeing one particular post made by John Smith's in Senkaku Islands dispute...

I have not accepted the tag. Please do not misrepresent what I said. I would like to see a commitment from people like Lvhis and everyone else who has reinserted the tag that they will accept its removal after mediation. If that does not happen then I would want the tag removed. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

... which suggested he would permit the POV-tag to be left on as long as others accepted its removal after mediation (i.e. presumably, ended with satisfactory resolution of disagreements). However, what made this interesting is that his cohorts (who had closely collaborated with him) proceeded to force an unsatisfactory end not very long after the mediation had started (by savagely attacking the mediator and flatly refusing to cooperate). Since the disagreements were effectively unresolved for reasons due to inappropriate actions taken by opponents (rather than proponents) of the POV-tag, it does seem strange that John Smith's is still adamant about the immediate removal of the POV-tag.

This ANI he opened on Penwhale and subsequent attack on Penwhale's objectivity as an administrator (purely on the basis of racial background) does further cast deep shadows on John Smith's motivations and interests in the article. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:DrMarcu

I would like to request some action be taken against User:Dr.Marcu for gross incivility on the talk page of Talk:Romani_people#Azis_is_not_representative_of_romani_culture. The user has a personal problem with Azis, a Bulgarian drag artist. Azis happens to be both notable and a Romani and is mentioned on the page Romani people. Dr.Marcu opened a thread on the talk page claiming that mentioning Azis on the Romani page was inappropriate [32], claiming that anyone who supports this mention is a racist and likening Azis to Hitler.

When it was pointed out that a drag chalga artist may not be representative of Romani culture but deserved inclusion for being notable, the thread very quickly descended into more accusations of racism and direct insults referred (to me in particular) using the Romani term gadje (striclty any non-Roma but hardly a term of endearment) and a goym (gentile) and of "hating gypsies".

I have participated in a number of Romani related articles, in particular bringing Erromintxela to GA status and find this more than inappropriate. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As an apparently new editor, DrMarcu needs to embark on a sharp learning curve if they hope to continue contributing on the project. RashersTierney (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, RuPaul is missing from the article on Americans. Huge omission, isn't it? FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Americans aren't a disadvantaged minority in their own country. Romani are both in all countries they live and for one to make it to the top group of performers in any country is notable. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

PS Graham Greene probably isn't in the article on Americans either but he certainly features on the page on Oneida people. Get the difference? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The only think I get from this is that you're a slightly more civil POV pusher than Dr.Marcu. You've provided zero evidence that that Azis singer is seen as emblematic for the Romani people by some reliable source, but harp on with your personal theories, which is why usually avoid editing articles like that. Good luck with your little feud. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

82.18.152.186

82.18.152.186 (talk) is an editor who appears to make random changes of numbers in articles, all unsourced. He/she has been (intermittently) doing this for months. Is there any point in warning, or should we simply avoid wasting time and block? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically a user should be warned first, but vandalism of this nature...I've sure instant blocks have been made for less, so maybe it might be necessary right away. CycloneGU (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, no. It takes three seconds to Twinkle this away and issue a warning: blocking over minor vandalism like this without any warnings would be OTT. Eight edits in two months is not exactly long-term abuse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, there's the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce. They might have more experience with this kind of thing. causa sui (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

London School of Economics

We're having a minor edit war on London School of Economics and Kingston University. I don't know how to proceed because my sourced edits are being reverted because another editor doesn't like me. If someone could weigh in I'd be grateful. It almost seems like he'll keep reverting even if he has no real reason to. BETA 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything beyond a content dispute here - AN/I is for issues that require administrator intervention. If you have a dispute that cannot be resolved easily on the talk page of the article, take a look at the other steps in the dispute resolution process. Looking at some of the edits involved, I also kind of have the feeling that a wp:boomerang may be involved here pretty soon... Kevin (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to report this here, but see that I've been beaten to it. BETA, who has been heavily involved in a contentious dispute over our Kingston University article, and stated on the talk page that he "believe[s] that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk" [33], has chosen to add a new section to our article on the London School of Economics, where he writes: "London School of Economics' Academic Board has voted for a self-imposed maximum of ₤8000 per year in tuition fees per course. The regulation is applicable to all courses. The school's Council Will firm up the final figures on a course by course basis, provided they fall withing this ruling. School President Charlotte Gerada stated that she is both "grateful and proud", considering their rank in the top 5th of universities in UK. Other UK universities, including Kingston University, have decided to opt for the maximium". [34] Note also the misleading edit summary "new section, looking to nominate for good article". As the article history shows [35] after I removed the gratuitous reference to Kingston University, he has reverted it. I had made clear to him that this will lead to the matter being reported here.

Given his stated POV, and his disregard for the integrity of other articles, I consider at minimum a topic ban on any matters concerning British universities is entirely justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And when he mentions this POV problem, I promptly reassure him that my edits reflect the sources(though my most recent one had a minor accidental misinterpretation that was quickly corrected), my admitted bias about one particular university, created by the information I looked up for my contribution to the article, isn't relevant to my sourced edits. BETA 01:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:Boomerang. I mean this has been going on for a while on Kingston University before I even got to it. I might have gotten a little frustrated, I don't know. :0) BETA 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You add a couple of contributions and both of them are ripped to shreds, over minor things, it's bound to make you a little upset right?BETA 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "minor" isn't really in line with popular opinion. Even so, that doesn't excuse trying to make a point by going to another article and take the fight there. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if I were making a point, Notpointy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it". Showing readers a contextual distinction is not disruptive. BETA 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A "contextual distinction" between what and what? You edited the LSE article to assert your POV regarding KU. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Show me how my edit slanted the point of view of the article. I didn't say anything that was more positive or negative than the sources I supplied, despite the misunderstanding about the final decision. BETA —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Did you edit the LSE article (a) because you were "looking to nominate for good article" as you claimed in the edit summary, or (b) so as to include an off-topic comment about KU? Given your recent editing history, and your self-proclaimed low opinion of KU, it seems hard to believe the former. Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page, or to find some other way to make a general point about fees without naming one specific university? I think you are stretching credulity beyond reasonable grounds here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page" - again, double standard, isn't it the "logical response" before removing something to discuss it on the talk page. WP:NPOVFAQ:"Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." BETA 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You haven't answered the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Essay trumps policy? BETA 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing trumps anything. The two most important principles you can have for how to behave at Wikipedia are WP:UCS and WP:DBAD. Other policies, guidelines, and essays only exist for people who lack the ability to obey those principles. --Jayron32 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Wikilawyering isn't going to help, BTA. Taking a failed argument from one article to another unrelated one is pretty clearly a violation of WP:POINT. Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT is mostly about attempts to sway consensus, I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. --BETA 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't going to tell us why you decided to edit the LSE article to include a gratuitous comment about Kingston University? I can't see any point in discussing this further then. You are clearly more concerned with pushing your personal agenda than with contributing towards Wikipedia, and as such, I'd suggest that maybe you would best direct your efforts elsewhere. If you continue in this vein, you may soon have no choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What ever you think your motives were, they look and feel like an attempt to bring your issues about KU (which is under full protection atm) to an article you could edit, you may think that was not to prove a point, others (including me BTW) think it was. As others have already made clear to you both here and at your talk page, if you carry on in this way you are likely to attract a block or topic ban.

(edit conflict)If you want some advice, before you make any changes to university articles think, is, or could this be, a contentious change and if the answer is "Yes" post a note on the Talk page and leave it 48hrs to see what others think. This is after all a collaborative encyclopaedia and not a web based university guide or review forum. Oh and least you are in doubt any edit involving either "fees" or, in your case, given your comments, "Kingston University" is going to fall into the category of "a contentious change". Mtking ^(edits) 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Bentheadvocate for obvious reasons. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Whatever his problem is with Kingston University, it shouldn't be allow to spill over to other articles as this behaviour is evidence of. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Can the exact nature of any proposed topic ban be made clear, for example is it Universities, UK Universities, UK University Fees, Kingston University ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Edits related to Kingston University" would be plenty for me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Edits related in any way to Kingston University" might be better, given BETA's predilection for nit-picking over semantics. I did however suggest a ban on edits related to British universities in general: my thinking was that if he has a strong POV on one, he is unlikely to be neutral regarding others, and a general ban is easier to define. Still if the ban is confined to KU, and enforced, it'll probably do the job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Ben has been problematic in a number of places since he recently became active again, in particular he enjoys playing semantic games with people, pushing the lawyer talk to absurd heights. At WP:COIN, for instance, he has made arguments like this one which raise the likelihood that his goal is to get under people's skin and cause disruption, not actually improve the encyclopedia. I wish I could believe that a topic ban from KU-related articles would resolve the issue, but I doubt that it will, I feel that this just happens to be where he's currently active, and a topic ban will just lead him to disrupt elsewhere. I considered the possibility that the account was compromised, as is often the case when an editor returns after a long absence to cause disruption, but then I saw this comment from 2008 (before his previous absence), so I think this is just how he has always been. -- Atama頭 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Bans for Bentheadvocate and Cameron Scott. Such bans, absent threats or totally off-topic edits/vandalism generally should not be enacted, as this amounts to censorship, particularly when they are phrased so broadly as a ban on "anything related to" x.--Lorifredrics (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Registering relevant 3RR against Cameron Scott

Since it pertains to this discussion, an assertion of 3RR violation has been made regarding edits to Kingston University, by User:Cameron Scott. Request that his vote be tagged as conflicted. Thank You. BETA 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Object to striking Cameron Scott's !vote. He is not an admin, so WP:INVOLVED does not apply. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Given that BETA posted the supposed (stale, and highly dubious) 3RR violation in response to Cameron Scott participating in this AN/I debate, I suggest that additional sanctions be taken against BETA for misusing the edit warring noticeboard. I think we've seen quite enough crap by now to tell that he isn't interested in Wikipedia, except as a place to push a POV, and to attack those who disagree. I think a block is now in order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm choosing not to rise to the bait. Look at me I'm growing(a la chandler) :o] ...... p.s. This thread is pretty much done for me except for the 3RR. -BETA 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP dispute in progress at Talk:Harold Covington

Apparently the subject of this article has showed up, and is not entirely pleased with the contents. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a greeting on behalf of Wikipedia (I know, I'm not an admin., but someone had to break the ice). I have encouraged the user to feel free to come here to discuss the concerns where more administrators are also available to discuss his issues, and also explains WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I hope he will take my invitation to further discuss the things that are concerning him regarding his article.

With that said, there is unsourced information in the article. I noticed at least a few sentences that are not cited anywhere, and something there could very well be the bit that is bothering him. So we need to figure out what the concern is and go from there. CycloneGU (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, on the article talk page is an account Haroldcovington. It might be necessary to determine if the IP used by that account matches the IP used now, if that can even be done. The reason for that is the five year old legal threat. As it's been five years, I will overlook the threat for now and am more interested in determining first if it's him, and second addressing his concerns to make the article something Wikipedia can be more proud of. CycloneGU (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says that Harold Covington is a neo-Nazi. If this is true, his thinking is undoubtedly so deranged that "addressing his concerns" is unlikely to "make the article something Wikipedia can be more proud of." Having said that, there's been enough edit-warring and contention at the article that it should probably given a good NPOV, RS and verifiability check. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there appear to be multiple problems with the article. Short of deleting it all and starting over, I wouldn't know where to begin, myself. But I have faith it can be saved. (I'm also trying to be friendly.) CycloneGU (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In this edit, the subject (if it really is him) mentions that it might be worthwhile to take down the article. Assuming we could confirm through OTRS that this is, in fact Convington, is there any possibility that that might be the best strategy? Quite a number of the links and references in the article are to his own internet presence; he's been a member of a variety of organizations, but not all of the orgs themselves are notable, and the one's he was highest ranked in seem to be the least notable; and he once ran for election for North Carolina Attorney General, but lost. Yes, he meets WP:BIO, but not by a whole lot. Maybe this is a case where we should consider BLP-sanctioned possibility of deleting an article on a bio of a marginally notable person when they themselves request it. I'm not saying it should be for certain, but I wanted to raise it as a possibility. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As a normally-less-than-zealous-about-BLP-enforcement, in marginal cases I think a time-limited courtesy blanking or deletion is of very little harm and is potentially doubleplusgood. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Per talk page, Forky1138 is a confirmed sock of NorthwestVolunteer. Further, since the IP freely admits he is NorthwestVolunteer, there is another sock situation found. We need to make sure he is only using one account before continuing any further. At a minimum, Forky1138 must be blocked now as a sock. CycloneGU (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, and I just found this. Back to legal threats. I think it might be necessary to have a full block at this time. CycloneGU (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The situation at the talk is going from bad to worse, with the IP/Covington now dropping legal-ish threats and attacking CycloneGU, who is absolutely bending over backwards to do everything he can to help the guy. Assuming good faith is assuming good faith, but at what point do we need to force the IP/Covington to a stop? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This most definitely is one of the toughest situations I've ever gotten myself into here - maybe THE toughest. I'm starting to wonder if we're better off blanking the content portion and completely rewriting it. I'll merely add sources for information I can verify and add more info if the source has it, but other than that I can't guarantee it'll be exactly what he wants to see. CycloneGU (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Now he's requesting page deletion. Of course, given he hasn't created the deletion discussion page, it's not set up yet. I will have to see what his contribs show. If he wishes to have it created, I'll start the discussion for him but I am neutral. CycloneGU (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, Ticket:2011072110016071 is now in place. I can't access that server at all so I can't see a thing (how do you get that NEway?), anyone willing to follow whether it looks like it will be approved or declined I would appreciate so I know whether we have to eventually do an AfD. CycloneGU (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Newly placed POV dispute tag subjected to multiple reverts

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:DD2K (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

User talk:PhGustaf (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

I edited the section title of an article based upon what I felt was a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. That title edit was reverted. Rather than edit-warring, I placed a POV section dispute tag in the appropriate article section and established a talk section dedicated to dispute resolution. My POV tag has now twice been removed by a second and third editor. I believe it is well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor to both place the tag and to expect resolution discussion, not an edit-warring removal of my tag. I'd appreciate an administrative determination as to the Wikipedia propriety of this arbitrary, multiple deletion of my dispute tag while the associated discussion had barely commenced. My appreciation to whoever might intervene either to set me straight on my misunderstanding of this integral aspect of the dispute resolution process or to please restore my tag per WP:POLICY. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the dispute tag because there is in fact no dispute. This section has been argued out at the length one might expect on the talk page (it's all archived, for the patient), and nothing has changed since the consensus for "False" gelled. If Jake can come up with a reliable source, fine, but else his complaint is just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

I've said roughly the same thing on the article talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm getting old, but... since when is it an NPOV violation to call false claims "false claims"? It seems like WP:NPOV requires us to do that, rather than to pretend that false claims are just "alternative approaches to reality". MastCell ^Talk 03:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)JakeInJoisey: You are free to request a discussion on the talk page, but to place a tag as contentious as an "NPOV-dispute" tag you'd need to establish that there is a genuine intractable dispute between two sides. As it stands right now, I don't see evidence of that intractable dispute. I see you. The talk page is the appropriate page to raise issues on, and you should discuss your problems there. However, please refrain from tagging the article until it becomes a genuine dispute. --Jayron32 03:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. I would appreciate your further consideration of "Disputes over tags" which I believe is more in line with both my experience with the general practice of tag placement (considerably more observing than doing) and which provides specific guidance relative to POV tagging. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting. I've been an active adminitrator at Wikipedia for several years, and an active editor since 2005. I've never seen that particular page before. I'm not sure it is widely accepted nor carries much weight, so I wouldn't take anything written there as particularly useful in trying to decide how to handle the situation. From a practical standpoint, it disagrees directly with the documentation at {{POV}}, which states (bolded by me for emphasis): "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality reliable sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors are irrelevant." In other words, the POV tag isn't placed because the personal view of a Wikipedia editor holds that there section is under dispute, it is that there are "high quality reliable sources" which disagree with the statements in the section. What high quality reliable sources did you provide to indicate that the section is not neutrally worded? --Jayron32 05:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your open approach and I look forward to responding. However, as it's quite late here and I'd like to do this discussion justice with a considered response, I'm going to have to table that till tomorrow. Thanks again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jake the section of that essay (that's right, essay) you can probably most benefit from reading is this: "Occasionally, editors place tags to make a point, to disrupt editing, or to be tendentious." That's what you're doing and that's what you need to stop. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Could the section title be improved? Possibly. "False claims" doesn't readily identify exactly what permutation of "false" is being used ("falsified", "incorrect", "invalid"), and so something like "Disproven arguments" might work better (not least because some sources would have one avoid "claims" for "statements" or "arguments"). Nevertheless, the arguments in question are false, so the section title is neutral, and altering it to make that less clear as you did was not a good idea. If you want to pursue improving the wording without fundamentally altering what it says then you're free to use the talk page, but a dispute tag is unheralded here, and edit warring over that is plainly counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jake seems to be under the impression that on Wikipedia anybody can place a POV tag on any section and successfully insist on retaining it while they themselves "reserve further comment pending completion of their review", whenever they "strongly disagree" with the consensus and the way it came about ("merely an accommodation to multiple problematical WP:NPOV existing entries" — not sure what that means). Jake has not offered any actual reasons (yet); perhaps they'll come later. OK, if they're persuasive and build consensus when they do show up, then change the section title accordingly. But changing it or having the POV tag on it while we wait, and while Jake makes big-voiced statements without any facts in them ("one of the more blatant violations of WP:NPOV policy I have yet to encounter".. "I can't imagine how consensus agreement on this title could have come to pass" etc) is a curious idea. If that was the way things were done here, all our controversial articles would be carpet-bombed with POV tags. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
• To answer the question above, we don't call false claims false claims. Consider Moon landing conspiracy theories; if we took a poll of readers, I suspect there are substantially stronger beliefs that Obama was (insert theory here) than (comparative moon landing conspiracy). Calling theories "false" or "true" is inherently POV, and makes Wikipedia the arbiter of truth, instead of the reporter of what reliable sources say. Regardless of what the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, calling conspiracy theories of any sort "false" in Wikipedia's voice, like in a subject heading, is an NPOV violation. We can and should report that they're roundly rejected by most mainstream sources, and then let the reader make up his or her own mind. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Vinny Faherty

Hello. I wonder if someone might have a look at the editing of footballer Vinny Faherty. The article was the subject of an ANI report in November 2010, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#Disruptive editing-ownership-edit warring issues at Vinny Faherty, because of persistent replacement of sourced information/stats with info more favourable to the subject. That report resulted in Thesaint03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being blocked for what the blocking admin called "as clear a case of edit-warring and disruption against consensus as I've seen" and for pursuing the disruption while editing logged-out.

A few weeks ago, Josekb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started the same editing pattern, and ignored requests to discuss the matter at the article's talk page: see User talk:Josekb. They then removed mention of the player's new club [36]. Then an anon changed the stats as usual,[37], and a few minutes later Josekb added more unsourced info, including stats that turned out to be different from those on the club's governing body website. Which he then reinstated and removed the reference.[38] At that point (yesterday) I again asked Josekb to stop it, or to go to the talk page and justify their edits, and warned that if they did not, I'd report the matter.[39] Last night another anon restored Josekb's version.[40]. Josekb is being notified of this report. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Unexplained content changes, edit warring, ignoring warnings, zero communication, obsession with stats and the infobox, logged-out editing... this all sounds rather familiar. I've indefblocked Josekb and blocked the main account, Thesaint03, for another month. I don't particularly feel like playing whack-a-mole with the IPs so I've semi-protected the article for a month instead. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 09:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (again). Struway2 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, your post just happened to catch my eye because I vaguely remembered the article name from last time :) EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring

• Badugi
• Suited connectors
• Cardroom
• List of playing-card nicknames
• Shirley Rosario
• Proposition Player
• Jennifer Leigh

User:TheTakeover is edit warring on several poker articles. I removed a spammy self-published source (poker-babes.com) from numerous poker articles and he reverted my edits. I changed them back and made a note on his talk page, asking him to discuss this before changing them back. He gave a very short reply and instantly changed them all back again, including multiple edits I made to one article (Shirley Rosario) which had nothing to do with this issue.

A former employee of a cardroom is the author of 100% of the content on poker-babes.com and it is not a notable poker website other than the fact that it is used so heavily across Wikipedia. It is clear there has been an effort to include this source in as many Wikipedia articles as possible and this makes it meet my definition of spam.

I request all links to this site be removed from Wikipedia and it be banned from being a reference in the future as it is spammy and a self-published source. I also ask that user:TheTakeover be warned about reverting edits in the future with no discussion. DegenFarang (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked first at Jennifer Leigh; to be fair, it was her account of her entry in the tournament, so I can't really question that. I also went to the home page and clicked a random article on Jennifer Tilly, and I learned some things I did not know about her from that article. Now, perhaps I'm biased as a poker player myself (been a while since I last played, mind), and maybe I am not looking at the quality of the site correctly (the style indeed does suck, even if the content doesn't), but I don't have an issue with this site if used appropriately in the right articles. It's not used as a reference, but as a See Also; IMO it could be a reference when information is added to an article that is on that site. What do others think? It is clear that if the contributor in question is the publisher of the site, she cannot add it to articles without a COI, however.

(Degen, I changed your list of sites to a list and headed the topic post with them so it's clear what this post is about, and removed that paragraph putting your sig. at the end of the prior one. I hope you don't mind this change to your post.) CycloneGU (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, you never notified TheTakeover of this thread. I have now done so. CycloneGU (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If it had been used in one or two articles I wouldn't have an issue with it either. But before I started removing links to it there were more than 200 instances of this completely random and obscure self published source being used as a reference and/or external link on practically every notable BLP for professional poker players and tons of articles about poker, across many languages of Wikipedia. That is clear evidence either Rosario herself or somebody connected to the site made a prolonged effort to spam the site into as many Wikipedia articles as possible. I don't think such blatant spamming should be rewarded and I think this site should be punished for this conduct. Add to that there is simply no reason this site should be used over so many better alternatives for things such as the rules or strategy of poker. Perhaps the Leigh and Rosario articles can stand, but all the rest should be removed. DegenFarang (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This of course not true and you know it, as anyone who uses the history function can see. Many editors added links to this site over the years, most by CryptoDerk, some by other admins. There are less than a dozen instances now; there never were 200. As for your assertion that Rosario somehow owns Pokerstars, really, get a grip. 2005 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In case it is not completely obvious to you, user2005 is the one who has been responsible for the vast majority of the 200+ links added to Wikipedia from this "source", the vast majority of which have already been removed. DegenFarang (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks no better than a fansite to me and should not be used as a reference on BLP articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur. It's a subsite of pokerstars.com and appears to be 100% promotional. Based on the pervasity of the editing as described above, perhaps both URLs should be added to the blacklist. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO (not an admin, just came accross this on my watchlist), this is a self-published source, but it's hardly spammy; no affiliate links etc. The problem with poker is that the few reliable sources out there are mostly magazines and poker room websites, both of which contain much more advertising and are more likely to have minor errors slip through. Although I agree that this is hardly a reliable source in the context of Leigh's or Rosario's wiki articles, I'd much rather trust someone from that site than a random CardPlayer magazine editor when it comes to rules or strategy of poker. AFAIK there are no PhD's being written about poker strategy or poker history yet so we'll have to settle for something. Rymatz (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There are affiliate banners and links all over this site for pokerstars. Have another look. As for your opinion that a self published source is more reliable than CardPlayer, you are just wrong. They have the same profit motivation (advertising and affiliate links), but CardPlayer is run as a traditional media organization. This is like saying Glen Beck's blog is more reliable than the New York Times. DegenFarang (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The website in question owned by Pokerstars, the largest poker site in the world. The face of the site is an expert player who has won several poker tournaments in different game variations and has been quoted as an expert on poker in The New York Times, The Times of London, the Associated Press and other reliable sources. The links he is removing are unquestionably valid links, and they aren't even reverenceing anything controversial. For example, User:Rymatz added references to the Razz article saying how many cards each player gets in the game. In contrast, User:DegenFarang has a long history of tendetious editing. He has been reverted by at least five editors in the past few days. He previously has vandalized other articles in extremely tendetious ways where he makes nonsense claims against many editors. He has stated he will ignore any rule he wants. He has been give at least one, two, three, four "final warnings" to stop his disruptive behavior, and even a double final warning. He has called administrators incompetent... etc etc etc. Whether it is this issue, or a Supreme Justice, or any of several other issues which I am too tired to continue to list, he needs to finally be banned for disruption and blatant dishonesty. That is the issue. This user needs to finally banned and his IP blocked permanently. No more "final warnings". he is long past that. (Finally as his lie of "heavily" linked, the site he is attacking is linked in eleven articles in the wikipedia. he is fanatical about eleven links from a site owned by the billion dollar, industry-leading company. It's just incredible how he is allowed to continue to disrupt the work of multiple good faith editors. 2005 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like it meets the threshold of an reliable source to me. Self-published sources are allowed when the author is a recognized expert in the field.--Crossmr (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, only two of the above articles are BLPs. One is the article about the face of the site, the other are articles written by the subject of a different article. Those are certainly valid ABOUTSELF links. The site is used as a refernce for game concepts, rules, stuff like that, not BLPs. Many editors have added links to the site because it is authority/player site for game stuff, but it is not being added now to BLP articles -- even though back in 2003-2004 when former admin User:CryptoDerk created the oringal poker player content in the Wikipedia he used this site for the basis of his articles because there was no other bio-type site online at the time. So again, the issue here isn not BLPs. The articles are too personal and subjective for that. The issue is that it is plainly obvious that it is an expert site that is a far better source than most for game basic practices and so on. (Actually the real issue is DegenFarang's long history of tendatious editing for which he has been warned over and over and over again.) 2005 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this page because I was wondering why a perfectly good reference on the "List of playing--card nicknames" was removed. While poker-babes.com might not be the most visually attractive site, it certainly seems like a valid source for a wide variety of poker information. Also, there are clearly multiple writers who have contributed to the site, not just Shirley Rosario. This is not spam but rather a valid and well-written source of poker information. Paige Barbeau (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit here that often and part of the reason is because of people like DegenFarang. Just a quick look at the PokerBabes site shows that 7 or 8 other people have written articles, and that the copyright is to PokerStars, the biggest online poker room there is. Reading the comments above, it's obvious this editor has been disruptive elsewhere too. I don't appreciate him saying that I am edit warring when I see at least four other editors have reverted him in the past three days. TheTakeover (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You repeatedly reverted my edits with no discussion including one article where I made 5+ edits, several of which had nothing to do with this source. That is the definition of edit warring. Next time discuss and reach consensus before overriding somebody else's work. DegenFarang (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to compromise and leave Jennifer Leigh and Shirley Rosario as they are with regard to this source along with the nicknames article, so long as it is removed from Omaha, Razz and Suited connectors and any other general poker article. That is information that can be found in every poker book ever written and on any reputable poker information website. There is no need to use this questionable, self-published, obscure, spammy source DegenFarang (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Accidental Negative Reviews of Articles

Resolved

Although a long-time Wikipedia editor, I misunderstood the new article review function now at the bottom of each page and accidentally left negative (one-star) reviews for four articles for which I meant to leave postive (five-star) reviews.

Is there a way to undo or negate these accidental negative reviews that I myself left for these entries?

The entries are:

John Avery McIlhenny Edward Avery McIlhenny Edmund McIlhenny Tabasco sauce

Sincerely,

--Skb8721 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admininstrator but AFAIK, you can always re-rate them, just click the blue stars and re-submit the ratings. I don't think an admin can change how you voted, though. Rymatz (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Skb8721, you could try asking here. EyeSerene^talk 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You just re-rate, and it replaces your old one with your new one. (If you think about it, this is necessary, since articles change over time. Also, ratings expire after a certain about of change in an article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you all very much! --Skb8721 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats by 74.142.195.13

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see this message at the Help Desk. A clear legal threat IMHO. IP user informed. – ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, OrangeMike beat me to it. – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal atack by User:Camelbinky

This obnoxious personal attack on me by User:Camelbinky has just been posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [41]

"...you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles".

I consider the suggestion that I am a pro-white racist abhorrent - as anyone familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have consistently opposed racism in any form. I call on Camelbinky to either provide evidence to the contrary (which he/she will not of course be able to do), or to apologise unreservedly, refrain from making any further attacks on me, and agree to observe WP:NPOV in regard to articles regarding race, religion and ethnicity. Failing that, I ask for a substantial block to be enacted. Such malicious and unfounded attacks have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Weeeelll, it's a bit rude but I think "obnoxious personal attack" is a bit of an overstatement. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see, I brought Andy to this forum about a week ago and he received a FINAL WARNING regarding insulting other users and since then Andy insulted User:Busstop and then took Busstop to the WQA to intimidate him, where user's told Andy there was not only no actionable issue by Bus but ALSO that Andy had been insulting and needed to cool it during that discussion. I pointed out that Andy had a FINAL WARNING and should get a block. Andy decided to bring me here. I would like to see Andy get a 24 hour block with the warning that a 3 day is next if this continues with his insulting manner. As for my words–I apologize for stating my personal opinion. But will NEVER back down to bullies who insult, degrade, and push around other user's to push their own point of view. Busstop has valid concerns and should not be insulted whereever he goes. And he is not the only one that Andy pushes. This ends now or I'll continue to point out every single time he bullies.Camelbinky (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want WP:CIVIL issues to be a blockable concern or not? I myself wish they were. You both have certainly got away with breaking that "policy" quite a few times. I don't see anything here that should be at a forum other than the toothless WQA. Sorry for the derail, but WP:CIVIL needs to be downgraded to a guideline. It's not enforced as a policy, and hasn't been for years. This is not a civil complaint, but it's not an issue for AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I don't see any implication that you are a pro-white racist. If anything, it accuses you of advocating for a policy of deliberate colorblindness on Wikipedia. Given your long history of telling the community that Wikipedia has no business reporting that a Jewish person (for example) is Jewish, I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable description of your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In response I'd point out this previous comment by Camelbinky: "Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying" [42]. That doesn't read to me as anything other than an accusation of racism. I'd also ask you not to misrepresent my views. I have stated that I consider the use of categories, lists etc to label people by ethnicity/religion etc is misguided, and that such issues should only be discussed in articles where it is of relevance to the notability of the person concerned - the latter of which is entirely in accord with current Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that in context, it actually looks like you're being accused of not being a racist. At least the latter half of the comment is, the only part that's a bit dodgy is saying that you have an "unhealthy obsession with Jews". I would say that "fair" and "no special treatment" is the same thing, so you're accused of wanting to be fair to whites and everyone else. Why that should annoy Camelbinky is beyond my understanding. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He/she also suggests that I'm a "conservative", while lacking "deference to those who've been here longer"! [43]. Evidently, logic and consistency aren't Camelbinky's strong points (incidentally, I only consider the 'conservative' part of this to be a personal attack ;-). ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Observation Having seen several posts and threads lately where both Camelblinkey and Andy have been involved, it appears that the tone and language has continued to rise to a rather strident and combative level. I'd suggest (strongly in fact) that the two of you might benefit from an extended break from one another. If the language continues at this rate, it's likely to result in difficulties for both editors. Please back away, and regain some composure before that happens. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The fish market is open... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there is hinting involved here...you'd like some seafood, Alan? ...what? (Yes, I know. =P) CycloneGU (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I'd concur with Ched here. I think the best solution is a voluntary, bilateral, self-imposed interaction ban by the two of you. That is, what would be best for all is if you two each agree to just stop interacting with each other. The other solution is to force you both to do that. I'd like to avoid having to get to that point. --Jayron32 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  diff It seems that Camelbinky considers the defying of WP:NPA to be a Wikitactic.  The tactic is disruptive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right- Andy consistently insults other users, is given a FINAL WARNING, and then CONTINUES to do so and not only does no one see this as a problem, they then say I should simply not interact with him. Instead of realizing the reason I'm getting more and more testy and upset in regards to Andy is his continued insistence on being a bully towards Busstop and others. Are we in high school? This charge was attempted to be leveled at me at Noleander's ArbCom case and it was completely dismissed as childish there and eventually the same vindication will come my way with this user too. I am not in the wrong in my analysis of the manner in which Andy is "editing" and if admins at AN/I wont do it eventually ArbCom will.Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you provide the diffs in which you say Andy recently insulted and bullied Busstop, that might help the responders here. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Stalking, or proper use of contribution history?

If you have reason to think that someone will improperly tag non-free-use images for deletion, is it WP:Wikihounding to keep an eye on their contributions and remove improper speedy tags when the fair use conditions have been satisfied? Further, is it hounding when they tag a dozen files, but you only disagree with one, so that's the speedy tag you remove? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has to know you're keeping an eye on their contributions if you do it quietly is my opinion. Juliancolton (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but what if they're so prolific that you're going to reverse one of their edits every few days? (And I don't always revert them -- if they're right, I'll delete the page myself.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem whatsoever. I would say wikihounding is when someone is aware you're following them, and is made uncomfortable by it. Egg Centric 20:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the boundary when they're made uncomfortable, or when they're made "unjustifiably" uncomfortable? HOUND says "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." So, if you're protecting encyclopedic content, is that an overriding reason? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto the above. I'd only add that it would be worthwhile to leave a talk-page message. Makes it clear that you have concerns about their editing, and is probably less likely to frustrate another editor. It's also a bit of CYA, since if the other party complains to e.g. ANI, it's easier to redirect the complainant back to their talk page, where you initiated the conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with someone else's fuck-ups cannot reasonably be construed as stalking. Jtrainor (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not notifying me of this thread, Sarek. I would simply point out that in your case, you should be exceptionally careful when taking admin actions in relation to me (including declining speedy tags) and more generally when reverting or questioning my edits. In particular, if my tagging is so clearly inappropriate, the likelihood is that a more neutral admin will deal with the tags and will bring the matter to my attention. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting an edit is hardly an admin action to be fair. Juliancolton (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said that. I said, "Admin actions (including declinging speedy tags) [new clause] and more generally when reverting..." ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply put - If the editor in question is making questionable edits we should all be looking at him/her edits closely. If questionable edits are a problem then wider talk should take place. Moxy (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So make up your mind, TreasuryTag, am I allowed on your talkpage or not?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I understood that it was required and not optional to notify editors when you are starting an ANI thread concerning them. However, perhaps I misread the instruction at the top of the page. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You're itching like the crabs to actually stir some shit up with another editor, and you're stirring unsuccessfully - you're looking pretty bad right now, IMHO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I don't see why it's so necessary to drag this discussion off-track, but since you seem not to understand my point: I do not want Sarek to post anything on my talkpage except compulsory notifications. That seems a fairly clear and simple (and obvious) principle to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 21:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• If the CSD tags are really that improper, then the reviewing admins will decline them, no? So why the necessity to even create the appearance of something drama-worthy? causa sui (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Causa sui speaks the truth. The answer is, if there is a prior history of conflict between you, Sarek, and TreasuryTag, you shouldn't be doing anything to his edits at all. There are hundreds of other admins who will happen upon things he tags, and if those tags are incorrect, they can deal with them. Wikipedia has a huge level of redundancy in this department, and if your involvement has any potential to cause drama, then you aren't personally needed for this task. Some one else will do it. My recommendation is that you, Sarek, take TreasuryTag off of your radar entirely, and don't bother looking through his contributions. Just pretend he doesn't exist. If he creates a problem, someone else will notice. --Jayron32 23:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. A voluntary total interaction ban (both ways) would be much appreciated, by me at least. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike

Vote (X) for Change - again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Not much to see here. CycloneGU (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC) This afternoon an editor filed an SPI against me, claiming that he had protected the page so that I would not be able to file a defence. His conscience must have pricked him, because a few minutes later he filed an RfC on himself. I filed my defence at the SPI but about thirty seconds later MuZemike reverted it and blocked me. Here is the evidence: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change&oldid=440694287. 94.194.22.179 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Has your IP changed or were you using a username that is now blocked? I don't see your IP listed on the page or in any of the two edits that MuzeMike has ever made on the page. OlYellerTalktome 21:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Yes and yes. Can a more experienced editor please notify all parties required to be notified under the rules? 94.194.22.179 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC) I also don't see any open RFC for MuZemike. And the editor that filed the SPI case isn't an admin, so there's no way they could have taken away your User Talk page access. Nevertheless, I have taken the liberty of notifying MuZemike. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC) The IP was referring to this RfC, which was Jc3s5h asking about when it is appropriate to revert a sockpuppet without 3RR being violated. (Jc3s5h was the person who filed the sockpuppet report linked above.) And I agree that there is a lot of quacking going on with this tomfoolery. -- Atama頭 So this is a rotating IP...and why does that name look familiar? CycloneGU (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC) This is a bloody obvious evasion of block by User:Vote (X) for Change (as well as the IP whom I reverted and blocked), who has started up again on the same calendar articles. –MuZemike 21:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, that's why it looks familiar...another IP having a disagreement with the administrator in question. Looks like there won't be much to discuss here...but regarding the obviousness of it, I can't see the user's IP, so unless there's a checkuser, I can't confirm it myself. CycloneGU (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Also, please note that this has been the 5th block on 195.195.89.70 (which is a library IP, which was why I opted for a very brief block) for block evasion. –MuZemike 21:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 94.194.22.179 blocked for a month. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC) MuZemike, instead of swearing at me would you like to explain why you don't want me to defend myself at the SPI? 82.35.114.3 (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC) lol, where did he swear? I don't believe you for some reason. LiteralKa (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of war

I consider the combination of three edit from ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Jack Kevorkian as a declaration of war against Jabbsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both users are nor friends, nor perfect guys. ClaudioSantos is a POV-pusher (blocklog) and sockpuppeteer (SPI), while Jabbsworth also has a sockpuppet history (SPI). But the three edits are way over the line: [44], [45], [46]. They followed on this (rather unhandy and/or rude) edit: [47].

The problems on Jack Kevorkian are not the only ones. The battle is in fact going over all articles related to euthanasia. I have enough, and now request help. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of notifying ClaudioSantos of this discussion. I note Jabbsworth's Talk page bears the sock-block banner, so I did not post the notification there. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You were quicker then me, Mr. Ambassador! I have added my personal notification to it, and added a notification to the talkpage of "Jack Kevorkian". Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also notify Jabbsworth. They are no longer blocked, and obviously could not be editing if they were. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You called it a declaration of war. And this mmessage from Jabbsworth to you, was tagged as a sort of declaration of love. And you NightOfTheBigWind also declared to be desperation your promised attempt to topic-ban me:[48]. And this was a declaration of help offered from Jabbsworth to achieve the desesperated topic'ban aganist me. But, at any rate for me it seems you are an involved party in this what you -not me- called a war.-- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is in the interest of Wikipedia, I can do in my own workspace what I like to do. That it send shivers over your back is your problem, not mine. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, really, something must be done. I was indeed a sockpuppet, but only to escape the wikistalkers who have gone so far in opposing my edits that they have made webpages about me on the internet. Serious stuff. So when I am called a sockpuppet, yes guilty, but only to protect myself, because my personal details were linked to my accounts outside wikipedia by seriously hostile editors, with corporate funding. (They got my identity wrong, but the fact that they are trying to name me is worrying). I should have kept an admin informed of my different accounts, that was my chief sin, and this happened because I was not aware of that policy. Anyway, back to the topic, user ClaudioSantos (who used to sockpuppet as PepitoPerez2007) — this editor is a major problem in the euthanasia-related areas of WP. At one stage he carpet bombed the Talk page at Talk:Action T4 with this statement, over and over: PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCITIVE KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA(sic) [49] [50] etc etc To see all his obsessively POV edits on this topic, you need to monitor his edits from 190.25.192.49, 190.25.98.59, 190.27.153.9 and innumerable other South American IPs. His thrust is to pillory euthanasia because of his personal religious convictions. He inserts the word "murder" onto every euthanasia-related page he can [51] [52] etc etc, changes a medical infobox on a biography page of a doctor to a criminal one (Kevorkian) against consensus, insists that the Nazi extermination of cripples in WW2 is the equivalent of modern-day euthanasia, and much, much more (it's a huge job to collate all the madness into one paragraph). In general, he usually sources his edits to obscure, foreign language sources, or self-published sources, and edit wars every change. If he has consensus against him, it makes absolutely no difference to him. His edits are in broken English and are usually ungrammatical (so why is he editing the English version of WP and not the Spanish version?). I call for an indefinite block or topic block on him, except I know he'll just go back to IP-hopping attacks. No idea how to proceed... Jabbsworth (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jabbsworth should have been fully aware of the notification policy as he has claimed to have followed it with his account AllYrBaseRbelongUs (talk · contribs), although he did not.Novangelis (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of all the ramifications, and anyway, this discussion is off-topic. Jabbsworth (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is User:ratel again and again referring to "my" religion, which he does not even know which is it? Although religious concerns and comments are not to be discriminated at all as User:Ratel suggests, at any rate I have no made any "religious" edits. Every edit I made was based on sources, reliable and verifiable. See for example the last edits I made on euthanasia based on historian Ian Dowbiggin who does compare modern euthanasia with nazi euthanasia version, so it is not POV as User:Ratel intended. By the way, it is interesting to mention that Ian Dowbiggin and also Jacob Appel at the Bulletin of The History of Medicine, referring on the history of the euthanasia movement in the 20th century, they have noticed that: most arguments against euthanasia was based on practical and not on religious or moral concerns[53]. And it is also interesting to mention that also for Dowbiggin and other authors it was clear that (anti)religious and (anti)moral arguments came mainly from pro-euthanasia movement. But here the thing is: User:Ratel used up to 6 known sockpuppets, affecting more than one user (thus not only me) and made a mess each time, and always triggered ANI cases against me because his agenda is pro-euthanasia and he uses any mean to delete anything defiling euthanasia. Perhaps NotBW has called it properly: declaration of war. And certainly euthanasia involves casualities. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

1. You've made extensive edits on articles concerned with Catholics and Catholicism, so it's not rocket science to see where you are coming from.
2. You are starting a content discussion here, but your lack of civility and co-operation in editing is at issue.
3. Stop talking about sockpuppetry (yours or mine), it's not the issue here. Jabbsworth (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no made any edition at any article "concerned with catholics and catholicism", unless you are confessing that for you: euthanasia, nazi euthanasia program, eugenics, etc., are "catholic" issues and that your "science" consists in argue that anyone editing at those articles is catholic. Then, following your "scientific argument", as you are also editing extensively on those articles, therefore you are also catholic and also my coreligionist. No, I have not made any "religious edit", I have provided non'religious arguments and sources. But for me it seems you are trying to use the alleged "religious" tag in order to force your pro-euthanasia agenda. Perhaps like, as Ian Dowbiggin noticed, these anti-religious arguments were used by the earlier euthanasia movement to turn certain segments of the society favorable to the euthanasia agenda[54][55], although most of the arguments against euthanasia were not based on religious or moral but based on practical concerns[56]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's right, I remember now, you sourced some of your edits to religious sites/documents and you inserted the comments of religious functionaries into articles. That's where I got the religious angle. But you are continuing with a content discussion. How about you agree to abide by consensus in future and stop edit warring? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually I have experienced that you misunderstand or misuse consensus, by turning it into a sort of voting. Thus majority against minority, excluding any reasoning, excluding facts, excluding sources, but a "consensus" based merely on numbers (usually 2 users vs. 1 user). Of course, that is "consensus" for you only when numbers favour you and certainly that is not always the case. Certainly I remember that some minorities were crucified or burned for the strongest majority. A majority impossing their false ideology (such as "Earth does not move ") against the truth, but mainly imposing their status quo, by force of numbers; and that status quo was indeed what they had for consensus. Nevertheless, certainly I also have some strong particular doubts about your proposal. Let me cite here just one (1) example: WP claims that consensus is not voting not impossing 3 users against 1, but once you have said that my disagreemnt was only "flogging a dead horse to waste the time of you and the other users". And, as I said, that is just one example of your "civility" and "consensus". So, for me it seems you have never been dispossed to achieve any consensus, and your recent edits also testify this. What I have also realized is: you delete each statement defiling euthanasia wherever it is sourced, and you also use any mean to trigger and achieve blocks against those who edit sourced material against euthanasia, like the offer you did to NotBW to help him to achieve a topic ban against me. That sort fo stake is what you understand for "consensus"? You not only used 6 sockpuppets but you used all of them to do the same warring, therefore as it seems you loses temper, why do not you refrain yourself from editing these articles? That is my proposal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Now we're making some progress, because you are actually discussing editing behaviour. Is consensus voting? No, it's not, as I am well aware. But when you have 2 or 3 or 4 editors ranged against you, as is frequently the case (me, Night of the Big Wind, Bilby, admin Teadrinker, and many more over the years), it still does not stop you. Now, please explain why, when you are faced with numerous opposing editors, your response is to edit war, defile Talk pages, and make life extremely unpleasant? (I can provide many examples if required). Why can't you accept that your opinion and edits are being overruled, and move on? Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So again, numbers, years, that is your main answer. For the rest, certainly I am not defending the pleasure of death. Can not you fill of pleasure by editing other articles or do you feel so obsessed with death? Can not test another way? Change rather than eliminate? Of course, knowing to add and to subtract is not enough but too simply too boring too lethal. Yes, you did not answer my question. Qui tacet consentire videtur?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is another example of your "consensus": there was an agreement from two editors,me and also user:Night of the Big Wind who usually agrees with you and disagrees with me. But you did not refrain from reverting the consented edition nor discussed nothing but just reverted. You are not dispossed to achieve consensus, you are still editing warring and you just want to force your agenda, which i do not why includes posting a lot of irrelevant and non-encyclopedic but promotional contents about EXIT international and its products such as Suicide bag, thus nothing else but a small bussiness of doctors earning money with euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope the sysops reading this are noting your broken, ungrammatical English, which alone should bar you from editing the English version of WP, but they should also note that I am restoring long-standing, sourced (for the most part) material to articles, recently removed by you, while I was blocked (while the cat's away, the mice will play) for reasons that have zero to do with improving the encyclopedia (you want to reduce opposing articles to stubs). There is nothing promotional involved. Exit International is well known all over the world ( see google news archives [57] ) Jabbsworth (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• You should also note that the suicide bag is NOT a product sold by Exit International, so your claim that I am promoting a company and its products is prima facie wrong-headed . Jabbsworth (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do not doubt that you should be an expert on punishment and grammar, as you were reprieved although you evaded 6 blocks by using 6 sokcpuppets and disrupted each time more than one user. For the rest, earning money from books about suicide bags and suicide things, that financial accounts prima facie. why do not you refrain from editing those articles?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Just out of curiousity, other than the two involved editors, is anyone else following this? Can any uninvolved editor decipher this wall of text to see if there's an action that can be taken? Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Shh! Can't you see that there's a war out there? Doc talk 06:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's kinda sad when one editor with a bee in his bonnet is allowed to go berserk in an important area of the project like death-related articles. We are all going to get old and die, some of us in a nasty, painful and slow way. When you get to that point in your life, think back on how you turned the head and did nothing while people were allowed to censor and distort articles about euthanasia on wikipedia, all to suit their own political or religious agendas. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:110.174.63.234

110.174.63.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been going around marking socks of User:Bowei Huang to redirect to those user and user talk pages, and reverting himself. For example, [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. This IP is clearly the IP of Bowei Huang, but I don't know if it is block evasion based on the terms of the blocks of Bowei Huang and his socks.

Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely on January 12, 2010 after being told to stick to one account, A1DF67 (talk · contribs), following this ANI thread. A1DF67 was later renamed to Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs) on April 19, 2010. Bowei Huang 2 is currently unblocked, but there is also Bowei Huang 1 (talk · contribs), which was blocked indefinitely on February 5, 2010 for being a sockpuppet. An Unknown Person (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely on March 5, 2010 for being a sockpuppet. This message left by the IP on an admin's talk page muddles things as well. Can someone with knowledge of this situation clarify on what action should be taken? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pointy AfDs

I'm of a mind to speedy close three AfDs raised by the same editor. These are for Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology and Horoscopic astrology. His reasons are the same for all three:

• Being created to avoid known controversial debate (NPOV content fork) on the Astrology page where it has been asserted that no change can be made without considering all sub-pages (see Talk:Astrology#Sub-pages_to_avoid_disputes.3F).
• Using a Wikipedia article as a sandbox.
• Violating Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability.

All three were created in 2006 by the same editor and are clearly not NPOV forks. What the sandbox thing is I have no idea, and although all could use more references, that isn't a reason to delete these articles. This is tied in with the editor's statement he will be deleting all unreferenced material at History of astrology.

Is there any reason I shouldn't speedy keep these three articles? These are clear WP:POINT nominations of articles which don't stand any chance of being deleted. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)