Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Montanabw

Following this exchange,[1] Montanabw has begun wikihounding me. This includes making insinuations about me on other users' talk pages and recruiting an administrator, Lar, to follow me around too.

• 2008 November 20

• 01:04 User talk:BarretBonden#Weymouth[2]
• 01:01 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move[3]

• 2008 November 23

• 03:14 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Article request: Heeling[4]
• 03:48 User talk:Hafwyn#FYI[5][6][7]
• 03:51 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[8]
• (Lar) 04:14 User:Una Smith#Friendly suggestion[9]
• (Lar) 04:19 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move[10]
• (Lar) 04:22 User talk:Una Smith#Weymouth[11]
• (Lar) 04:26 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[12]
• 04:48 Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Navigate to topics lacking own article?[13]
• 04:58 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[14]

Please block Montanabw. --Una Smith (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, I invite review of my actions. Frankly, I don't think Montanabw is the problem here, nor are matters as Una has painted them. Not at all, in fact things are rather the other way round. I'd invite readers to review this Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive50#User:Montanabw Wikiquette alert, in which Una tried to make the case that there was a problem with Montanabw's behaviour. My take on the outcome of that was that Una had behaviour she needed to remediate. I believe that Montanabw is not the only person that Una has had issues with, and the Equine project is not the only project where she is viewed as not completely helpful. At the heart, this is a behavioural issue on Una's part, but earlier steps have not been completely tried here. Much of what Una points to is work by concerned editors to try to highlight to Una that she has issues she needs to resolve to be a more effective editor. No blocks for anyone are called for at this point in my view, and certainly not of Montanabw. However, perhaps it is time for a user RfC to be developed about Una. I suspect there would be a fair few folk pointing out things that need correcting. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with Lar's actions. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree an RFC is needed here as an initial step into looking deeper into these issues. This has been simmering a long time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Equine WP, I would back up Lar's statement that Una is not all that useful to our project, while Montanabw is a star member. Montanabw promotes collaboration, works well with others to guide articles to GA and FA status, asks for discussion on controversial changes, welcomes new members who show a genuine interest in the subject, and is generally a helpful and useful member of the project. For examples, see her collaboration in working to bring Thoroughbred to FA this year, our current collaboration on Horses in warfare, or her help to a new member working on Banker Horse, in which she talked three other project members into completing PR's of the article. Una, on the other hand, promotes discord, does not discuss before making large or controversial changes, and rarely, if ever, goes out of her way to help new members. Yes, I agree that there is a problem member in the Equine WP, but it is not Montanabw. Una has been told multiple times by many editors and admins that she is the one in the wrong here, but as she hasn't seemed to take this to heart, I'm going to say it again - Asking for Montanabw to be blocked is ridiculous and Una is the one who is a problem. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-If I were an impartial editor or admin reading this situation for the very first time, you'd wonder if Una Smith or Montanabw were at fault. I'm not impartial, because I've either interacted with her or watched others do the same, and in general, it isn't positive. I spend most of my time in medical articles. During editing of articles, one runs into either editors who are knowledgeable or those who are not. The problem with Una Smith is that she is not very knowledgeable about medical articles, but pretends to be, and then is very disruptive about it. Most of my knowledge of it is around Herpes zoster. Here and here are discussions about the article. Una Smith tends to be very tendentious in making points about the definition of the word "shingles", "zoster", and "herepes zoster", a point that had be agreed to long ago. And this type of edit just exhibits a lack of knowledge of editing medical articles (both in accuracy and in quality) that is just frustrating. I'll add to this later. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the problems are apparently not confined to the Equine Project, as the Medicine Project has also seen some unusual editing and input from Una Smith. The issues Una Smith brought to the Herpes zoster article frustrated several other knowledgeable participants and derailed the FAC, leaving several editors expressing confusion on the talk page about the issues she was raising. I've seen other similar incidents, to the point that I have become reluctant to request help from the Medicine Project on articles, out of concern that Una Smith will get involved, having seen her cause deterioration to articles like Herpes zoster and Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (AT/RT). For example, in this incident, another editor asked for assistance in cleaning up the AT/RT article. After I worked on formatting cleanup (as requested) for about four hours, leaving it ready for further medical input, Una Smith took the article from this version to this: she eliminated the lead, created two Prognosis sections (not in WP:MEDMOS order, one at the top, one at the bottom), and created duplicate incidence and epidemiology sections, and left the article in that state. Yet strangely (in that WP:MED discussion), she claimed not to even see the issues when she later returned to editing. This incident was so bizarre that it discouraged me from collaborating on the Medicine Project to clean up articles and I'm more cautious now about asking for input from the Medicine Project. There were other similar issues. I've also noted that she doesn't have a strong sense of collaboration (see the interaction with Montanabw, for example). I suggest a mentor might be more useful than an RfC, as the basic issues have already been reviewed and I don't think an RfC would produce anything different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Late addition, because I had completely forgotten this incident. Una Smith also derailed a DYK nomination for Retrospective diagnosis with original research that left others scratching their heads. The folks at DYK had little choice but to reject the nomination after Una Smith presented complaints about the hook, based on idiosyncratic original research (the DYK had been submitted by Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), a knowledgeable medical editor). The DYK discussion was moved to Talk:Retrospective diagnosis#Removed from T:TDYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

These same 2 names came up in an unfounded WQA report a couple of months ago. I'll try and find it to provide some background. ►BMW◄ 16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For your reading enjoyment, here is a link to the WQA ►BMW◄ 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, despite everyone telling Una at the WQA that the problem was not on Montanabw's side, she felt that the response there was telling her to take it to a RfC against Montanabw. See [15]. I was asked to provide a few examples of Una's behavior, which, although difficult because it streches over so many pages and often has discussions in multiple areas, I will try to do. First, her quick-failing of the GAN of Horse (which can be found at Talk:Horse/GA1, when she knew that Montanabw was a major editor (and this occured after the WQA). This was apparently a bad-faith fail, because the article was fairly easily passed by a reviewer who is known as fairly difficult to please. Una then argued that because she and Montanabw weren't "allies", there was no reason that she should not review the article, see here. For this action, she was roundly rebuked by involved and noninvolved editors alike, which can be seen on the Horse talk page and her talk page, as well as at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 10#GA review of Horse, where she apparently went to try to get some support for her side of the story. Another fine example is one that she conveniently just created for me - accusing me of biting a newcomer in the subsection right below here this one. I'm assuming she's trying to show a pattern of collaboration between Montanabw and I, and I will admit, there is one. It is a pattern of collaboration that has improved many articles, led to several GAs and one FA, welcomed and attempted to help and communicate with several new editors, and in general done what I hope is a service to WP as a whole. If Montanabw and I have a difference of opinion, we work it out on the talk page of the article, and have so far always managed to come to an agreement. That is the difference between my relationship with Montanabw and the relationship between Montanabw and Una - I am willing to discuss things at length and take criticism, while Una apparently cannot (or sometimes appears to not even read it). I hope this helps everyone to see a broader picture, as that is my intent. Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw and Dana boomer

Montanabw recruited User:Dana boomer to bite new user Sorrel filly 13. --Una Smith (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• 2008 June 13

• 23:02 User talk:Dana boomer#Ahem...[16]
• 23:10 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution[17]
• 23:32 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution[18]

• 2008 June 14

• (Dana boomer) 00:17 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Proposed deletion of Kool Little Leo[19]
• (Dana boomer) 00:28 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome![20]
• (Dana boomer) 00:37 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)[21]
• 01:01 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)[22]

• 2008 June 19

• 13:01 page deleted

Are any of those diff's supposed to show a problem? If so, um ... they don't. ►BMW◄ 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Una Smith, how on earth do you get "bite" out of that exchange? I'm mystified.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

None of those, I mean not one, indicates that Dana boomer or Montanabw have exhibited bad faith towards anyone. However, the use of these diffs in trying to make a case indicates that Una Smith lacks good faith (in addition to her other faults). This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is from June. Strikes me as vexatious litigation to be bringing it up now, given that the WQA was more recent and it could have been brought up there. All this does, in my view, is make the case that Una is not acting reasonably. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, and I don't have much time to spoare, but I got a mail from Una about this AN/I, and I really feel the need to step in on her side. I have noticed what could well be undue irritation from her side, but Montana is not nearly as unproblematic as she's made out to be. There are also issues of Montana's acting as a constant gatekeeper for just about any horse-related article. I've been confronted with this personally without having long-standing disputes with her. I'm hesitant about getting detailed by posting diffs here, though, since it's not an RfC. I'm awaiting further comments.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have diffs to share that highlight an issue with Montanabw, you should feel free to do so. We are none of us perfect, and Montanabw is surely no exception. But Una is here asking that Montanabw be blocked (presumably indefinitely), not just counseled not to show ownership. That is a very serious request, and is not to be undertaken lightly. Since Montanabw is a long time contributor with no previous block history, AN/I is probably not the right venue for a resolution, but since we're here, it's appropriate to note that Una (while certainly making some valuable contributions) has a history of antagonistic relations with Montanabw, and with others. With other members of the equine project, and members of other projects, pointing out that there are serious issues with Una, there clearly is an issue here with Una. That's not going to be resolved here at AN/I either though. I'm thinking that an RfC on Una is the appropriate next step. If Una (or others) think an RfC on Montanabw is also appropriate, that's for Una (or them) to put forward. I don't see it, but I may not be unanimous in not seeing it. Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the block request, but like I said, I'm not happy about Montana being presented as a virtually flawless contributor by herself and her co-editors. Ideally no RfC should be filed at all and both users should try to scrutinize their behavior closer. Much of the problem is that Montana is allowed to boss people around, even other high-level contributors, simply because she's so darned active. I've had a few interactions with her, and I've found them all rather troublesome.

• horses in the Middle Ages: I made an uncontroversial, albeit bold, move from medieval horses and got this testy reply.[23]
• mare: Despite being argued against very convincingly by myself and other editors, Montana was more or less unilaterally deciding what was relevant or not in the etymology section. Everyone who disagreed were put on hold until she personally felt she was convinced. I still think that the etymology is one part relevant material and one part dictionary trivia, but I simply ran gave up because of Montana's zeal. This reply[24] in particular is what put me off since it appeared as though Montana's voice was more relevant than that of other editors.
• horses in warfare: I had a crack at helping out in the PR and tried to argue for what I believed was somewhat irrelevant sources and a somewhat Eurocentric tilt to the article. There was disagreement, but I tried to focus on details rather than mere policy interpretations. Montana asked me to summarize my position[25], and in the next reply I was told to take it elsewhere[26], even though other main contributors were partially agreeing. The discussion continued on the article talkpage, and again another editor agrees, but Montana defines the whole thing as irrelevant.[27]
• I was also auto-reverted on mere technicalities with the motivation "This was Ealdgyth's work, she has multiple FAs, please leave it alone, take this to talk."[28] When I complained, I only got this non sequitur as a final reply.[29]

The problem as I see it is that Montana is too keen on putting edits on hold for tedious consensus discussions whether they are actually controversial or not. She also acts like a kind of proxy guardian for the work of her colleagues, and appears to insinuate that only the original contributors are really qualified to change her/his work (see the reply to Gwinva at the bottom).[30] Whether or not her co-editors actually sympathize with this, I don't know, but the end result is nevertheless her guarding horse articles quite jealously. I think part of the solution might for members of WP:EQUINE to look a bit more critically on how she handles contributions and criticism that comes outside of her own clique.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I grant that the bit I posted about Montanabw and Dana boomer above is old, and in that respect not relevant to this AN/I, which concerns Montanabw's current wikihounding of me. I think Montanabw's behavior toward me reflects the gatekeeping (ownership) that Peter Isotalo mentions. But the proper venue for that would be an RFC/U on Montanabw, correct? Or is AN/I a free-for-all, as Montanabw's supporters here seem to think?

Montanabw's wikihounding of me goes back farther than I showed above. Below are just two other instances, from earlier this month.

• 2008 November 10 23:26 User talk:SandyGeorgia#Two to watchlist, just in case[31]
• 2008 November 16 02:23 User talk:Cgoodwin#Draw reins and running reins[32], edit summary Asking the "other parent" again, are we?

--Una Smith (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(I refactored the examples to indent, and to go above your signature, for improved readability... the "::" construct can indent bullet points nicely) I'm not the supporter or enemy of anyone. What I support is harmonious, collegial, collaborative, constructive editing, and I'm happy to support activities by anyone along those lines. AN/I is not a free-for-all but it is a venue in which the complainant may well be subject to scrutiny themselves. This is true of every venue, not just AN/I. You have a history of complaining about Montanabw which is, in my view, not supported by the facts. That's worrisome, and suggests that you are deserving of more scrutiny. When I did so the last time you complained, I found a pattern of difficult behaviour in your interactions with others, not just Montanabw. It's not out and out blockably bad, but it is concerning, and I'd like you to seriously consider the repeated feedback you've been given by many folk that the problems in your interactions with others do not lie entirely with others, but in part are your own doing. That said, I think you're unnecessarily polarising this into supporters and enemies. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote nothing about how long a block should be. I would not presume. My concern here was and is to prevent more disruptive edits such as Montanabw made on November 23rd. I figured that if the AN/I notice did not stop them, an admin might apply an immediate block. I agree with Lar that my prior behavior in response to Montanabw's remarks and other behavior that offend me sometimes was less than ideal. I think I am doing better now, although it is difficult in the face of such as Montanabw's edit summary Asking the "other parent" again, are we? --Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so a block NOW for behavior a while back is not warranted, unless there is reason to believe the behavior is endemic and is going to continue and is manifestly disruptice. Tell you what, Una... find an admin or other impartial party, and if you see behavior that concerns you again, ask them to evaluate it and if they agree, caution or counsel Montanabw (or whoever). I'll do so if you like, in fact, although I'm not sure you consider me impartial. That might be a better approach than coming to AN/I. If you're trying to turn over a new leaf with regard to yourself that's also a good thing... if it's for real you can expect my support. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The block I requested concerns Montanabw's behavior yesterday; it certainly has seemed endemic to me, and whether it has now stopped remains to be seen. --Una Smith (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly if anyone needs a block here it seems to be Una. I hadn't realized how widespread Una's disruption was until I saw this thread. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I quit editing horse articles because of the contention between Una and Montanabw. If this should go to RfC on either of them, I'll have more to say.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Response from Montanabw

Montanabw finally weighing in. The other people who have posted have said far more than I can at this point, and have done so far more eloquently. Thank you. The issues between Una and myself have been longstanding, and quite frankly, I firmly believe that she is trying to run me off of wikipedia; this is her second formal attempt (the first was the WQA Lar refers to above). However, to the immediate incident, WikiProject Equine has been having some ongoing problems with Una that are very similar to the problems she appears to be causing at WIkiProject Medicine, namely, derailing articles on their way to GA or FA status, promotion of unusual theories with much Original Research, needlessly challenging terms or art, emphasis per WP:UNDUE on minority or obscure concepts, and very unusual forms of questioning commonly understood conventions of the field. Just in the last couple weeks, Una has edited horse articles to insert techniques that are actually very dangerous ( example) or considered animal abuse in mainstream circles. (example). There is room for debate, of course, but I believe that the requirements of WP:V would resolve these questions. However, Uns often does not provide sources for her edits when requested, or uses them out of context. (example).

As of late, Una has been trying to do some sort of reorganization of some of the horse equipment articles without collaboration with other members of WPEQ. She has created stubs, red links, two templates that are not spported by the project, and has responded to comment from others besides just myself with an unwillingness to change her positions or collaborate. In this process, I noticed that the problem with the horse articles were starting to bleed over into the dog articles and the articles on Weymouth and so alerted some of those editors as well as an admin, Lar, who, unsolicited, had weighed in at the WQA and had been instrumental in resolving this issue.

I have been trying very hard for the last few months to not respond with anger toward Una and pretend that Una she is just another editor and to try and deal with each issue on its own without dragging up the past. So, to stay in the present, within just the last week or so, I have had to deal with the following: [33], [34], [35], [36]. I will defer to those with admin credentials as to how they wish to deal with Una. From my end, I wish that she would simply collaborate in places where she knows other editors are active, avoid inserting offbeat theories and OR, cease engaging in tenditious editing, and ask questions on talk pages rather than engaging in editing disputes that just make a lot of work for everyone else. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, except for some occasional instances where you need to think about WP:OWN, there appears to be very little concern overall for your contributions and actions noted above. I would be careful about reverting any of Una's edits, but try as much as you can to incorporate them with appropriate modifications, if possible. Ensure that your posts on various talk and user talkpages don't have any hints of sarcasm. You are dealing with an editor who has a high degree of sensitivity - that doesn't mean kid gloves, but it means think twice before hitting "submit". Build consensus overall.

Una, you appear to take constructive criticism a little too strongly. If consensus is that your edits do not positively add to the article, then there may be a reason, and it's not simply because it was your edit. Many of your "complaints" were the same you brought up in WQA. They were not found to be overall valid. Even though this is a few months later, it's almost considered to be "forum-shopping" to re-use those same arguments. Many of your edits are fine, but sometimes they are not - that happens to all of us. Work together - again, build consensus.

I'm not trying to sound patronizing to anyone here, just after a WQA and now this ANI, I'm really trying to get people to work together ... ►BMW◄ 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts BMW, and I acknowledge the balance of your comments. I will attempt to watch the sarcasm, I admit it is a flaw of mine, along with impatience. I have actually tried desperately to sort through many of Una's edits to keep what material she adds that is useful and remove the inappropriate material. See for example the recent edit history of Pelham bit. But, sometimes it is extremely difficult to collaborate when everything I try to do is perceived as an attack and I am told to go away from wikipedia altogether. I have repeatedly attempted to negotiate a truce or discuss collaboration and compromise in recent months, to no avail. (In addition to above paragraphs, see also example, example) She now has requested that I do not even post a message on her talk page. So, in short, I would be delighted to see if there is some way to end this constant barrage of attacks on me and engage in direct peace talks, but it takes two to negotiate. I think this is now my fourth request, in good faith, to ask Una to discuss matters directly with me instead of through indirect means. If someone wants to help as a neutral third party mediator/negotiator, I'd be OK with that, too, in fact, I'd prefer it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Small aside to Peter's new comments. Peter's not a bad egg; I believe he and I mostly just are two rather stubborn people who tend to dig in when we interact with one another, probably as much due to mutual tone than anything. His examples must be viewed in full context of each discussion, and also considered in light of this particular user's general pattern of interaction on other articles where I am not involved.(example). I can provide a point by point explanation/rebuttal if requested, but I hope the full context of the discussions noted speak for themselves. BMW, what is the next step here? Do you weigh in?Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trying to dig up dirt on me, I'd like to hear why you so obviously went against several other editors over at mare and then called your decision consensus. No one agreed to your conclusions and your argumentation was entirely based on your own opinions. I would also like to hear why you consider yourself entitled to be so uncivil to me at talk:horses in warfare#Length/bias of the Europe section. I don't keep tellign you that you're not serious and the likes. And since you appear to have turned around completely[37][38] concerning my suggestion on mounted archery, despite arguing fiercly against it, I get the feeling that you're arguing against me as a person, not my suggestions and criticisms.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First Peter, I apologize if my growing frustration and impatience at arguing the same points with you over and over and over came across to you as uncivil. But second, please do not distort or misstate my positions here: I did not argue against the archery material in HIW, Peter. I acknowledged it. See here. My exact reply to you on the issue was: " While I agree that if archery can be explained further, that would be nice, but If you have any recommendations, it would be much appreciated--we lack adequate source material." In the time since you mentioned it, as you were so gracious to demonstrate above, I responded to the critique, recalled some of the institutional history of the article,(here) found some material, and added it. If the admins want to review the issue at the mare article, which was 11 months ago, they can read the entire discussion after the diff you providedin it's complete form here, where my last comment to you was "Anyway, I was OK with your last set of edits, so if things are settled for now, I'll call it a day." which I think means I agreed with some of your work. I believe a compromise was reached, removing some linguistic OR material the other editors wanted out, but keeping some other definitions. The issue was further refined by other editors later, and the etymology section of the mare article has now been, er, "stable" (pardon the horse pun) for months. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to summarize and move forward

From the above, I see absolutely no consensus to block Montanabw - in fact quite the opposite. Yes, they can be a bit tendentious, and can also resort to sarcasm. This, and some WP:OWN concepts need to be looked at, but overall a competent editor who takes the lead (not always a good thing).

Una is another matter. Multiple editors on a wide range of articles have had concerns with her behaviour. Over the last few months, when feeling especially downtrodden, they have resorted to WQA and now an ANI filing. This is not how we deal with complaints about your own bad edits - in in fact seems to be drawing more attention to the quality of their edits overall. Valid WQA and ANI (and even RFC) reports are important tools in Wikipedia, and they should be reserved for cases when they're required. Perhaps some mentoring would be due for Una - I think it would help them to understand the project overall, and the "rules and how to apply them".

As far as puns go, I believe that we have not put the cart before the horse on this one,nor are we dangling any carrots. I could go on until I was long in the tooth, but that's Montanabw's fault now :-)

If someone is willing to mentor Una, I think it would help them to become a great editor - they obviously have passion for a number of subjects, and for Wikipedia as a whole. If not, then I expect we'll see another ANI or RFC by them very soon, and the results will be a complete reversal of what they want.

Additional comments about closure and mentoring welcome. ►BMW◄ 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you BMW, and I will give thoughtful and sincere consideration to your assessment. (um, yeah, in real life too, gotta work on that) Is there anything further needed from me? I make no recommendations as to Una, other than a simple plea that she work cooperatively with me instead of filing these attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW that seems a pretty good summary of where we stand. By request, I was just about to pop over here and write something similar. I see no need for blocks of anyone at this time, and suggest we close this. If folk really want to, the WP:RFC mechanism is available, but I'd rather see everyone work things out informally, via each other's talk pages. Una, while I don't have time to take on a mentoree for an indefinite period, my offer to review situations for you stands and also I am happy to offer advice if asked. (and I'll point out that the advice I give when asked is likely to be a little more friendly than the advice I give when I see matters have already come to a head and there is corrective action that needs taking) Move to close and archive with no other action taken. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the ownership issues are quite serious enough to require a full-blown RfC, but they should be resolved properly. Otherwise I think there's a good chance Montana will eventually get into similar conflicts with other editors. I'd like to continue the discussion I initiated here over at Montana's talkpage. Is anyone willing to participate as an impartial observer and/or mediator?

Peter ^Isotalo 01:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If my somewhat dilatory attention would be helpful, I certainly would. Assuming I'm viewed as sufficiently impartial. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds okay with me. BMW, yould you also be interested in looking at the exchange? My suggestion is that we move relevant posts with diffs over to Montana's talkpage and continue there. I just want to make sure that Montana is with us on this course of action.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User: Mercenary2k

Diff here: [39]

"moron"? "delusional"? "bozo"?

"Indian"??

Similar incivility here [40], here [41], and here [42], repeatedly calling me "Indian" or telling me to "get a life".

Not only is there no evidence that he's going to work for consensus, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's attacking me, and is a racist. Sorry, but I really don't think I should have to put up with this, no matter where it's posted. As I indicated previously, the page protection has done NOTHING to entice Mercenary2k to come to the table, and I think nothing will. Regardless, this is pretty unaccaptable.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

These edits are obviously personal attacks. This user should recant and agree not to do this again or else be blocked IMO. Oren0 (talk)

I had asked Mercenary2k to participate in the discussion regarding his edit dispute with CSHunt68. However, from his bitter reply to that request, it does seem Mercenary2k is not willing to discuss this amicably :(. --Ragib (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the edit war at Inter-Services Intelligence, I would suggest that the two editors pursue 3O and other dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking further, I see Mercenary has been making personal attacks before and some ownership issues. I am going to keep watch. Ragib, I think you can remove the protection if you can get both editors to agree to go to the talk page first before being massively bold. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already posted at 3O, and am continuing to pursue good faith DR of this article. But, that post was beyond the pale. And, needless to say, it's not okay for Mercenary to say that he's now going to make some edits _without discussing things on the talk page_. To me, that would be more of the same - demonstrating lack of desire for consensus, and WP:OWN. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for _some small level_ of good faith - a strikeout of the offending comments, or an apology AT THE VERY LEAST. CSHunt68 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He received a civility warning from BWilkins on November 14th, which was promptly deleted (along with every other comment made about the article on his talk page - mostly by me) by Merc. These defamatory comments have now been up for 24 hours. Any chance of anything happening about this? As indicated, I continue to pursue good faith DR (having just posted regarding a source on Reliable sources/Noticeboard), but I shouldn't have to put up with these personal attacks, should I?CSHunt68 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a final warning to Mercenary. It remains obvious that 3O and additional DR need to be worked on. However, I read complete exasperation on the side of CSHunt68, and Ragib is just trying to come in and prevent overall damage. I am not removing offending statements from any of the locations, even though I would consider many to be outright racist ("an Indian in disguise" is used in a way to say that it's "offensive" to be Indian). I would actually hope someone with a button takes further action. ►BMW◄ 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So, Mercenary2k has now had time to DELETE ALL COMMENTARY related to these incidents from his talk page, including all warnings. And yet, the talk page of the article in question, and all other talk pages, remain unchanged - despite third parties becoming involved. As well, the blunt, racist, personal attacks remain in place, unretracted. Colour me disappointed. Not surprised, mind you, but disappointed. And, yes - UTTERLY exasperated.CSHunt68 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If Mercenary wants to blank his talk page, it's on him. I think we should archive the article talk page and remove the protection, to get moving forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe moving forward is appropriate if Mercenary2k won't strike his previous personal attacks. I think you guys are being too light in tolerating this kind of behavior. Oren0 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am actively seeking consensus for changes to the article as it exists - creating and participating in discussion on the article talk page, asking for outside opinion on WP:3O, asking for outside opinion on WP:RS/N. Mercenary2k has indicated that he is NOT going to do this - either on my talk page threatening flat reverts of any changes I make, or on User:Ragib's talk page saying he'll just add a bunch of citations and be done. So, while I remain willing to move forward, it is very clear that Merc is not. Until those comments are stricken, a recant is issued, and he joins the discussion on the article talk page, I cannot assume good faith on his part. How could I?CSHunt68 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(UI) So ... nothing.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I create a user RfC? I'm honestly at a loss here as to how to proceed. An editor has now come forward on the discussion page, at my request, to provide third opinion. I doubt Mercenary is going to join the discussion, and with his unretracted personal attack still up, I'd rather he stayed away. However, his last comments indicated that he intended to undo whatever I did (with or without consensus) and make edits as he saw fit. What is the proper course of action here? When there was an edit war going on, admins were quick to intervene. Now that there is clear evidence of ridiculous personal attack - nothing? Advice, please?CSHunt68 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? CSHunt, if nobody is going to address the racism and incivility who actually has the tools to do so, then perhaps you have to take the next step. ►BMW◄ 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that might entail that wouldn't get ME blocked or banned. :(CSHunt68 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it's RfC / User time. More ridiculous commentary from Mercenary - this time, on the article talk page, so I guess that's progress. :-/ ... CSHunt68 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat against User:Possum

User threatened, and personal information given, in this diff to today's FA. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, for all the good it will do. The page has been protected and I doubt it's really personal information. JodyB _talk 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT if it is. Pedro :  Chat  12:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Page is not protected beyond standard move protection for Main Page articles. Oversight have been emailed - easier for them to remove one diff than for me to delete the Main Page article and selectively restore. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another threat here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight contacted ... just in case someone hasn't already done so. Anyone with Checkuser access might want to do a sweep of that IP ... sounds like this person knows Possum fairly well. Blueboy96 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually called the number listed in the soon-to-be-oversighted edits? For purely encyclopaedic purposes of course. :) X MarX the Spot (talk)

No, because either it's the number of the editor in question, in which case we're helping the harasser harass; or it's the vandal's number and s/he'll get off on us chasing around after him/her; or it's a made-up number and we'll just confuse whoever it belongs to. Better to ignore it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Yeah, I 'spose. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who know me will know that I've been the victim of some very serious harassment recently which was one of the reasons I retired in the first place. However, what's happened today is ridiculous. The following 10 edits were made to todays featured article, my number appeared on the main page for goodness knows how long: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. He left similar messages on my talk page yesterday (1, 2 and 3) until User:Garden protected my page. He then went onto posting similar messages on his talk page as seen here and here. I have no idea who it is but I'm pretty sure it's the same person who's been causing me grief all year, he's just taking a different route to harassing me. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what to do. I thought leaving would stop this but it's only made it worse. Whilst in class this morning, I received dozens of text messages and calls from people saying I needed 'smacking.' — Possum (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, how did the nasty little git vandal get your mobile number in the first place? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea but if it's the same person as last time then they also know my address and email addresses. They've been sending me cheques and other mysterious gifts through the post too. You all may find it hilarious but it most certainly isn't — Possum (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, this is worrying. It's also very illegal. You're being stalked, and clearly by someone who knows you (I assume, sorry if you're older) from school. I think you need to tell the authorities. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, I would suggest two things. First, contact a 'crat and ask them for a name change (or just start posting under a different name) If you want to conceal your WP identity from this guy, you might want to lay low on the articles you've been working on. Second, you might want to consider contacting the authorities. If this guy has your personal information, is using the internet to make threats, and sending you stuff to your home address, they might be able to do something.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I renamed from User:RyanLupin very recently, however I didn't undergo usurpation purely because of this harasser. Second, I have alerted the Police but they've been less than helpful. They think the guy's from Hertfordshire because that was the address on the cheques and originally asked me to contact that force directly which I thought was ridiculous. I eventually had someone pay me a visit who gave me a card with a number to call to help tackle cyber-bullying! — Possum (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Did the card have this guy's number on it?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been getting a lot of instances of the phone number posted to oversight-l - you may wish to ask WMF what paperwork they need from the police to release the IPs to you/them (some of the edits are IP edits, you'll see 'em in the block logs, some are logged-in users) - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being part of the crapflood, David, but better to have each diff a dozen times rather than not at all (I assume). Possum, this isn't cyberbullying, no matter what the useless police have to say: it's real-life harassment. They have your telephone number, email address, home address and Wikipedia account details. That's Not Good. You need to do something. An email to Mike Godwin may be a start, to see what info the Foundation can release to you, as David suggests. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, I echo Redvers above. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 this is harrassment and a criminal offence that can carry a jail term. I implore you to contact the police again, making it very clear that the "cyber-bullying" is mixed with real world interaction too and that it has escalated. Given the nature of the threats on your talk, you could easily argue that you are in fear of violence, in which case it is also common assault. Pedro :  Chat  15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted the article for about two minutes in the process to get them out of public view (that's the first time ever I've deleted Today's Featured Article), and all the offending revisions have apparently been duly oversighted. The IPs who added this are all blocked for 48 hours, and I support reporting this to the Internet Service Provider. The FindIP resolves the IP to some service provider in London. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just zapped another few. Could someone please put their hand up and step through every single diff during the relevant range of the history of the page(s?), and report to oversight-l a list of diffs that introduce the problematic text. Thanks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I contacted oversight a while ago asking whether they could provide me the material that was posted about me so I could pass it onto the police but I think it was FT2 who replied by saying it's against policy even if it is sensitive data about myself, he still couldn't do it. I then contacted Godwin who pretty much echoed the same. The only concern I have is that oversighted material is kept for 30 days, I live in the UK, if I were to request the material the legal way, surely it would take more than 30 days? — Possum (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Send Godwin and FT2 a note that you want them to preserve the material separately since you are going to be making a legal request for it shortly. That should make sure that they at least keep a copy on hand. And then get a lawyer on this asap. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted Scotland Yard about this matter since its it threatning , and cyber-bullying.Rio de oro (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contacted Scotland Yard, however, my local force is aware of the situation — Possum (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive user ScienceApologist

Resolved

 – Consensus among numerous editors is that no sanction is needed.

This seems to have gone on long enough that I need another opinion and would ask for action. The article is List of alleged UFO-related entities. The person is ScienceApologist. He sent it to AFD (no problem) where it ended in no consensus, and closed one week ago. Since then, it appears he has decided to delete it regardless of consensus. This observation is based on the entire series of his edits, not any single one. Including when he redirected it, then began issuing a series of ultimatums, while not actually participating in discussion. Additionally, there have been plenty of rude nonarguments for deleting. Now, I wouldn't be here if the problem was just rude conversation or a lack of rationale. After Zagalejo trimmed all the unsourced fat, fixed the existing sources and found new ones, ScienceApologist made several edits, some honestly valid, but some more POV. Then, in the middle of his ultimatum, he then redirects again to a different article. When that was reverted, he then tagged the article for advert, cleanup, confusing, fansite, globalize, in-universe, introrewrite, notability, original research, peacock, primarysources, refimprove, self-published, tone and unencyclopedic. Yes, all of them at once. I reverted under WP:POINT and have tried to keep a civil tone throughout, as has everyone else. It is difficult to discuss the merits of his suggestions in this situation, particularly when he simply deletes material and is under the impression he owns the right to determine the outcome.

In the middle of this, the original admin who closed the AFD entered the discussion and asked that he take it to deletion review instead, which appears to have been ignored. At this point, I can no longer assume good faith. It appears the user is being disruptive to prove a WP:POINT, ignoring the outcome of the AFD he was nom for, and causing good editors to quit editing the article.

I would ask for a block at least long enough to fix the article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sighhhhh Shot info (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel like directly quoting a bowl of petunias. ►BMW◄ 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate when ANI is in reruns... --Smashville^talk 00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again. Can someone close this down and buy all of us a beer? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain the joke to me please? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the block log. Never mind. I see now that we have a group of like thinkers who believe it is ok to use disruptive behavior to prove a point. Ok, when why do we keep doing short blocks on someone who is this disruptive? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The joke is, every time SA cleans up a FRINGE article full of poorly or non-supported information, and those who love the article can't meet the burden of proof, they come here claiming SA hates them, hates Science, hates America, and so on. Then a bunch of people come, look at the complaint, support SA, and we all move on. It's like menstruation, except the bleeding, unless one of us gets an aneurysm again from the hassle or the laguhing at the complaint. ThuranX (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the cleaning up. I don't edit the article. I AM kinda big on honoring the outcome of an AFD. My complaints weren't about editing, it was about the obviously disruptive behavior. Adding every tag, or multiple redirects while demanding reasons. I'm not a UFO guy, and honestly, agree that everything in it should be sourced. Actually, I was ready to listen to why the redirect made sense. The problem is that he has taken a controversial tone since the beginning and basically is just saying "fuck you all, I'm deleting this". DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke ... the bowl of petunias said "Oh no, not again" (well, at least it went through its mind). This name comes up more often than a teen boy's hormones. ►BMW◄ 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's always going to be fun when ANI has SA somewhere in the section title. Thuran, I hear that SA hates dark chocolate too. Just thought you should know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

don't get taht one, but we've had a dick joke in nine replies, so I think this is over. ThuranX (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Come now, no need to advertise for our rival. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such block. In reviewing your links, I do see the alleged wikilawyering, I do see a lack of cogent arguments, and further, this list of alleged UFO entities includes a large number of NON alien cryptozoological/mythological topics, like Mothman, Chupacabra, and more. I don't see any reliable sources for the temperament of imaginary space people. The article looks far better now than before SA started cleaning up. One major point he cleaned up? the one essentially asserting that mainstream science is unwilling to admit this is all real, which has way too much 'cover-up conspiracy' feel to it. This stuff is FRINGE to the FRINGE. A list of improbable entities that are being used to fill up an otherwise ridiculously small list? The Atmosphere beast, by the list's own admission, is native, its origin is in our upper atmosphere, so it's NOT an alien. SA fights a long uphill battle here, and all this stuff gets ridiculous. The external links were to fansites, not to interesting, scientifically reliable nor historically vetted reports. His edits look fine to me overall; the biggest problem edit I see is the 96 hour deadlne, but that gives four days for a reply. Plenty of time for any advocate of the page to put something together, but not so long as to allow the issue to cool so he has to start all over again in a week or a month. No problem here. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Mothman nor Chupacabra exist in the article. All the existing material is sourced with reliable sources. So you are saying that disruptive behavior of adding every possible tag, redirecting after you already have an ultimatum, these are ok behaviors? Just curious. So, you are all saying that any complaint about his actions are simply ignored? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They did when I looked at the diffs. ThuranX (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone already agrees the unsourced stuff should go. That isn't the issue. And yes, this article was a POS recently. Many people (not me) have done a lot of work to fix it though, and the overall topic, if sourced properly, is notable since plenty of crazies have reported this stuff in reliable sources. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's stop biting people just because it's a common topic here. ScienceApologist is hardly blameless; there is no deadline, yet SA artificially creates one in effect strangling discussion for his own ends; not to mention he himself professes to throw policy out the window for his own ends. Just because he may be right about the content doesn't give him carte blanche to mistreat other editors and ignore guideline, policy, and common sense. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute????? There are reliable sources that say aliens exist? Do tell. I would contend that there are reliable sources that state that delusional humans imagine aliens exist, and that's NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But there are reliable sources that describe aliens someone people believe exist and with the widespread appearance of such creatures in works of fiction, they're a valid part of literature, without FRINGE applying in the slightest.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Back to the issue: The actions are disruptive. I have made it as linked/clear as possible. If the admins here feel this is acceptable behavior, please let me know so I can change the way I do biz here. Otherwise, I would appreciate the merits I am presenting to be considered, as I brought them here, documented, in good faith. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I only partially agree with ThuranX. The article needs fixing; he is certainly right about that, and so is SA, & I would support some or all of his improvements. That there is a deadline on fixing articles, he is equally certainly wrong, and the attempts of SA to impose one seem like illegitimate pressure. The redirect without discussion immediately after the AfD close was in my opinion unfortunate, and was properly reverted. The discussion of how to edit the article should be carried out on the talk page, and if necessary--and I think it probably will be necessary--through dispute resolution. But Dennis Brown is wrong to ask for a block on the editor; I think that unnecessarily aggressive. The correct course for such disputes is to protect the article until there can be a resolution of the dispute. As I endorsed the revert of SA's redirect, I ask some other admin to do it. Personally, I think the need to deal with this here is not fit matter for jokes. DGG (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't ask for a block lightly. There were a couple of editors fixing the article, except it kept getting redirected and tagged. Do you feel that tagging the article for advert, cleanup, confusing, fansite, globalize, in-universe, introrewrite, notability, original research, peacock, primarysources, refimprove, self-published, tone and unencyclopedic is not disruptive? And I never have argued the article has problems. I argue, like you did at AFD, that doesn't need deleting, real or virtual. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To add, the reason for the block wasn't the first redirect, which was ok under bold. It was the second one during the middle of his "convince me in 96 hours or else" timeframe. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Biz? What? I'm not reading this entire ordeal, but what's wrong with those those "more POV" edits from SA? I'm seeing the removal of non-NPOV, unverifiable statements. What's wrong with that and how is it relevant? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like upon SA's first edit to the article (the addition of the AfD notice). From what I can see, since then, the article has gained a couple sources and trimmed the vast majority of unsourced material, much of it of questionable relevance. ScienceApologist is certainly brusque, and I would prefer that SA tone it down and drop the ticking deadline clock nonsense. However, I don't see any current need for admin intervetion. There's still plenty of WP:DR left to draw from. — Scientizzle 01:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh. The question is pre AFD, the question is about post AFD actions. It appears obvious that being disruptive is ok for certain people that do it often enough to endear themselves to others for the simple fact of being disruptive and having a block page longer than the average talk page history. Stupid me, I assumed we all participated under the same expectations of conduct. Since this has provided such joy and joke value, although no reading value were it shows multiple redirects, I suppose I shouldn't expect more. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You're asking for a block. I just stated my opinion that, while I don't approve of all of his methods, SA's intervention has sparked what appear to be improvements within the article. Thus, it's not purely disruptive and jumping for the block button is not, in my opinion, a wise choice when there remain dispute resolution avenues to be tried. Now that there are more eyes on the article, hopefully wider input will encourage further improvement efforts. — Scientizzle 01:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I realize we've resolved this issue, but I want to step in and say the best way to resolve an issue with someone who feels shortchanged in a dispute resolution area is not to say "you're asking for a block." It comes off as very schoolmarm/mother, and more importantly, that's not what blocks are for. Let's stop threatening users who get frustrated and continue to talk through issues without resorting to stupid threats. Everything good? Good. Mike H. Fierce! 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
      • For the record, "You're asking for a block" was only meant to reiterate Dennis Brown's thread-initiating request to block SA followed by my explanation of why I felt such a block was not necessary. It was not meant in some threatening way (such as "if you keep it up, you're asking for trouble"), but I now realize that it could have been misinterpreted in this way. I'll leave a note for Dennis (Mike, too) in case it was. — Scientizzle 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally or otherwise, someone was talking on the radio today about how reports of UFO incidents increase during periods of economic downturn or other stressful times for the nation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Thats quite interesting, because people also turn to religion during such times, and also co-incidentally, I read recently that a survey found people more likely to believe in aliens than god--Jac16888 (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall during the spring or so of 1974 that Harry Reasoner reported that a larger percentage of Americans believed in UFOs than believed in Richard Nixon. His comment: "I don't know what that says, but it says something." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in the immortal words of Porky Pig, "Me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-MEN FROM MARS!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd just like to say that I agree with Dennis Brown - SA's edits are disruptive and he shows little interest in discussion or establishing consensus. I came across this recently on fractal cosmology, where SA removed large parts of the article while an AfD was in progress without having the courtesy to inform the AfD discussion that he had significantly changed the article. After the AfD was concluded as keep, and several editors, including myself, were attempting to improve the article, SA then performed a drive-by rollback to a 9-day old version. If the community is tired of seeing complaints about SA's behaviour here, then it should think about taking some effective action - although I admit I am not sure what that might be, as SA clearly feels the fault is always with those who disagree with him, and never with himself. As he says at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion) "I come into conflict with the users on this list on a fairly regular basis. I am often mystified as to what justification there is to keep such users on board". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI is the wrong venue for this. If you really feel something needs to be done, start a formal WP:RFAR. However, I don't think that's going to go anywhere. Unless SA does something particularly egregious, he's not likely to have sanctions imposed by ArbCom. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

SA has a tendency to approach every encounter on Wikipedia as a battle. He'll start by wiping a page and slapping every tag he can think of onto it. Sometimes he'll move into launching accusations and attempting to tar and feather people as 'fringe advocates' who hate science. As a recent thread over at WP:AN demonstrated (ban Pcarbonn from cold fusion), substantive diffs are not really even necessary. While some good evidence has now been presented at the Arbitration case of Pcarbonn making truly bad edits, if I recall correctly t the above linked thread a total of 10 diffs were presented, 8 of which were of Pcarbonn editing the talk page ("pontificating"). One of the two articlespace edits cited by SA showed Pcarbonn changing the word majority to two-thirds.[43] While nobody seemed to care about diffs, they weren't shy about expressing support for banning Pcarbonn from the page. Anyway, while there is a (diminishing) problem with fringe views on Wikipedia, SA doesn't do much to address that problem with his battleground approach. While he drums up constant wikidrama and gets credited for 'brilliant' work which actually amounts to attempting to wipe articles and drive-by tagging, others do the hard work of improving articles through old-fashioned reading and sourcing. Probably the best approach at this point is to do a Requests for Comment/User, cataloging the wikilawyering, petty edit-warring, and disrespect for other editors. I'll admit that he does some good work, but I don't think he's worth the headache. II | (t - c) 05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Network"

User:Horologium suggested I come here to report a constant issue him and I have been working on. There are a group of IPs from around the country attacking Camden, New Jersey and any related pages (so far, Delaware River, Cooper River (New Jersey), and Benjamin Franklin Bridge (the former 3 of which have been semi-protected for 3 months, while the latter has just started to see activity) called "The Network," a group of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity members determined, in their own words, to publish "certain facts" about Camden (this page has also been semi-protected for 3 months). See some examples (though, definitely not limited to just these) from Camden (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the first that I could find), Cooper River (1, 2, and 3), Delaware River (1, 2, and earliest instance), and Ben Franklin Bridge, with Camden being attacked for the longest period of time (since at least April).

They constantly use Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg as their calling card (trying to suggest that Camden appears to be like San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake) and use different IPs from around the country, anywhere from California to Maryland, Minnesota to Texas, and even as far away as Canada and the UK, so warning/blocking IPs doesn't work; it only encourages them more. They even tried (unsuccessfully) to impersonate me with User:EaglesFunInTampa; Horologium caught that right away, however, and I'm in the process of making doppelgangers to prevent that from happening again.

I'm not sure if anything can be done (without infringing on WP:Five pillars, I doubt it), but it's a good idea to get everyone on the same page to keep an eye out, should something ever arise again. If you need more information, please feel free to look at User talk:Horologium for our side of it or just ask me. Does anyone know what I can do to help prevent this in the future? EaglesFanInTampa 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a rather beaten-to-death practical joke of some kind. One could do the same thing for East St. Louis, or Gary, or any city just across New York to the west. Or Oakland, even. Any lesser city in the shadow of a big city, both geographically and economically. Semi-protection should simmer it down a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is it possible to add Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg to the bad image list, as is done with all of the lovely penis pics that have been uploaded to commons? Since they seem to have a hard-on for this picture (wordplay intentional), limiting it only to appropriate articles might slow them down. I don't know the procedure/policy for this, and it's an odd case, since the picture doesn't fit the usual profile of restricted images. Horologium (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's worth a try - however that would be done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did that once with images used by the former socker Mmbabies (who enjoyed using the Maniac Mansion box art in multiple articles), but got my hand slapped for it saying it wasn't an image that needed protection like the usual sexual pictures on that list. We might have to check to see if it was OK. Nate • (chatter) 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The right response to a criticism like that would be, "OK, how would you handle it?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs)

I don't think this editor understands how to contribute to this project. Despite being blocked numerous times for essentially the same things, he choose to harass me with this obviously uncivil 3RR report where I was not in technical or other violation as commented by the admin who reviewed it. The only reason GdB made the report was because his article was being edited. This kind of behavior has got to stop if we are to have an academic atmosphere of writing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted a large number of edits by several users, including ten by me, well within 24 hours, without any explanation or attempt to discuss. Enough said; I'd appreciate a review of user's editing behaviour. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Guido could show good faith by striking his second frivolous 3RR report here, or at least correcting it so it shows evidence of over 3 reverts to the same article in 24hrs. Verbal chat 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that instead something is done about the editwarring, and that constructive editing gets appreciated more. But perhaps that is too much to ask; I've never found this page very stimulating. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

...and the main issue is dodged again. Hypocrisy at its finest. Tan | 39 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of Guido's response I feel some action should be taken due to the frivolous reports and harassment of editors. Verbal chat 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do none of you ever read any policies?

For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages... (WP:EDITWAR) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You've yet to show edit warring on any of those pages. Verbal chat 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I had provided the diffs, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on the 3RR page. Verbal chat 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original point, I feel action should be taken for the reasons outlined by OM. Verbal chat 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned G William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, warnings are always appreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is abusive, especially for an editor that just completed a one-month block for a variety of negative activities. Again, can someone explain why GdB is allowed to treat fellow editors in this manner? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Guido den Broeder has filed two frivolous reports in less than 24 hours, I have imposed the following conditions on his editing WP:AN/EW. He is barred from editing AN/EW unless one of the following conditions apply:

1. He is reporting a clear and unambiguous violations of the three-revert rule. At least four reverts must have been made to the same page, by the same editor, in a period of less than 24 hours.
2. He may make a response in any thread on that page which directly refers to him or his edits.

These restrictions will last for approximately two months, until midnight on 31 January 2009 (UTC). I feel that these restrictions will limit the disruptive filings of frivolous or vexations reports, but will still allow Guido den Broeder to report on genuine, serious problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I have done nothing of the kind, I do not accept this ruling (by which you overturn another admin's decision, btw). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How many blatant mis-understandings of policy exactly do we have to put up with? This is what, the fourth, perhaps fifth time Guido has shown up as a title on ANI, plus an RFC and multiple blocks with no change in behaviour? Does WP:UCS apply to bans as well? Guido is not contributing fruitfully to the project - for every debatably useful edit, there's three days worth of talk page time wasting and bickering. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details of GdB's editing history. If additional sanctions might be appropriate, other admins can feel free. My remedy here is solely intended to end the disruption at AN/EW, and does not address article-space conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, his block log tells some of the story, although it barely hints at the level of drama. Note that he just came off a 1-month progressive block for incivility and edit-warring on Nov 23. The block log also doesn't show the lengthy list of sanctions he received on nl.wikipedia before coming here. looie496 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Judge him on what he does here, not on any history on another Wikipedia language. Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And we are. He recently had a one-month block on this wikipedia.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy, every time I come back after few hours there is a new complaint from Guido. Like these two consecutive addings at 3RR notice-board, Guido says people that oppose him do not know policy and WP is weak, and then sheesh I really don't believe it but he says I edit warred a sixth time after all these people try explain him what edit warring is. Guido i think is saying, edit warring is when any body beside him makes more then three edits in all of Wikipedia in a day!! I never reverted more then once on any article, I always explained my edits. I am very tired, being accused of stalking and 3RR and the rest. There's these guidelines MEDMOS and MEDRS, I am sorry i will follow those. Guido disagrees about the guidelines, he has edit warred, real edit wars, to try and change them but he could not. I think w/ his COI as a major activist and w/ his intransigent attitude to WP policy and guidelines it is an idea having a CFS topic ban where he can edit talk pages only is that possible or to harsh or should he have more warnings, just a suggestion. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support TenOfAllTrades' ban on dubious or unclear AN/EW postings by GdB. Although that ban isn't accepted voluntarily by GdB, it still may be enforced with blocking, if any further disruption occurs within that period. Perhaps that is the best way to leave this matter, for now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Freddyboytoy

Freddy is back. Having made this series of tasteful contributions [44] during his recent absence, he is now requesting to be blocked [45]. I'd say he should have his wishes fulfilled tout de suite. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wish granted. Tan | 39 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia really can make your dreams come true? Tan, are you of magical powers?? <Swoon> AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Freddy is also User:Idiotsonwackipedia, to which account he has now turned. See [46]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddy's talk page needs to be protected, I think. looie496 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He's now 64.24.41.43. — neuro^(talk) 04:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Eurokiwi

I wonder could a friendly admin ask this user to start using sources and stop using personal info and opinion on main pages. I have tried as others have and he has not responded. the user has created sevral pages and has redirected several. here are all his contributions [47] If he keeps going it will take a lot of work to correct all his editsOpiumjones 23 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

if he's adding inappropriate content or nonsense report him to AIV if warnings fail.--Crossmr (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A wrap on my knuckles, I have amended and updated some of my posts, and referenced a bit more, what I post are not my Opinions, at least not consciously so, perhaps my phraseology is somewhat indefinite, will endeavor to be more so Eurokiwi (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

COI and incivility on Scientology

Resolved

 – Topic is under ArbCom general sanctions. Referred to WP:AE. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing, as discussion has moved to proper venue, per Durova. To continue, please see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term single-purpose account that edits solely at articles concerning Scientology, previously under the name User:COFS, which is an acronym for Church of Scientology. Shutterbug openly admits to one conflict-of-interest, to his/her benefit, as a Scientologist. However, after a long period of inactivity, Shutterbug has begun editing in the Scientology article again, as well as several sub-articles. In the discussions that have followed, an old ArbCom case involving Shutterbug has been brought up. The ArbCom case ended with some minor temporary topic bans and blocks, but little else. Part of the reasoning that lead to this result was that Shutterbug (or COFS, at the time) claimed a particular Church of Scientology-owned IP address he/she had edited from, 205.227.165.244, including this accidental edit, was a proxy used by various hotels and such. Shutterbug recently reiterated the claim here. During the ArbCom, this claim was apparently given the benefit of the doubt, as a checkuser revealed that several similar single-purpose accounts had all edited from the same address and other Church-related address ranges. The users in question were: COFS CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Grrrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Makoshack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I haven't been able to figure out why this proxy claim was given credence, as I can't see any particular evidence one way or the other in the ArbCom, and the single-purpose editing definitely lends itself to an appearance of conflicts-of-interest, if not sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. But until recently, I was happy to let the decision stand; I wasn't even involved in the ArbCom, and was inclined to defer to the administrators in that case. I now think the decision was a mistake. This user, these accounts, and every IP address previously confirmed by checkuser as being associated with these accounts has been used overwhelmingly in Scientology-related edits and minimally in anything else. Were these IP addresses those of hotel proxies and the like, one would expect a host of non-Scientology related edits, but per these Wikiscanner results, there are few if any to be found. Lacking any evidence to the contrary aside from Shutterbug's word, the bulk of the user's edits come from official Church of Scientology-owned machines, and the claim of an IP proxy used by "hundreds if not thousands" is implausible. Had these accounts and these IP addresses not edited so single-mindedly in Scientology-related articles, it would perhaps be more plausible, but as is, the evidence is pretty compelling that Shutterbug -- as well as the other accounts -- have conflicts-of interest affecting their abilities to edit neutrally, or at the very least the appearance thereof. There is also an issue of incivility. In this edit, I decried the sudden battling over the article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular inappropriate edit performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said "Let's talk and no personal attacks, please." As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to retract it, and asked again on the user's talk page. The response speaks for itself. My thoughts at this point, unless I've missed something that completely negates my COI concerns, is that Church of Scientology IP addresses simply shouldn't be used to edit Scientology-related articles, and accounts associated with those IP addresses should be topic-banned as probable WP:ROLE accounts. --GoodDamon 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC) I think a short-term topicban would illustrate whether or not this is an SPA. Ask the user to stay away from any content related to COS for a month, and see what they do. If they do it and contribute elsewhere, excellent. If not, obviously we are dealing with someone inserting biased info, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thoughts? //roux   09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) My only problem with that is that if the user reads what you have just said, they have a clear way to 'prove' their innocence and continue however after. — neuro(talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Good point.. so... how about an indef topicban from COS articles until a couple of admins (to be named) agree that this isn't an SPA, topic ban to be at least a month? //roux   14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) See the ArbCom results I mentioned. This has already been tried. Shutterbug was topic-banned October 2nd, 2007 for one month. During that month, Shutterbug did not contribute to a single article. Shutterbug did, however, contribute to a few incident reports and checkusers associated with other users who edit in the same area of interest. So he/she was actively involved in the encyclopedia for that month, but not in any content capacity. --GoodDamon 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Comment by Justanother (Justallofthem) As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. As much as I respect GoodDamon, he seems to be trying to reopen an arbitration in the improper forum for such an effort. The arbitrators were well aware of Shutterbug's POV and history of editing from a CofS-owned proxy server and made no remedy that restricted her editing. If GoodDamon thinks that they did not make the correct decision then he should present his evidence to the arbitrators and ask that they reopen the case, not make his case here. The other point GoodDamon brings up in incivility. Incivility is a much-disputed issue but if Shutterbug was uncivil then perhaps she deserves a warning though I see little in the way of objectionable incivility in the diffs provided. However, I cannot stress enough that GoodDamon should move his doubts about the arb outcome to the arb page. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) I do not believe the ArbCom is actually the correct forum anymore. When there is ample evidence of a serious WP:COI, and the only credible counter-argument -- upon which the ArbCom result was largely based -- turns out to be rather incredible, it ceases to be a content dispute, and content dispute resolution mechanisms are no longer the appropriate venue for dealing with it. Believe me, I thought long and hard about this, and coming to the decision to file this as an incident report was not easy. But this is the proper venue for it. Shutterbug and several older accounts edit from Church-owned IP addresses, and those addresses produce, almost without exception, content in Church-related articles. The proxy argument does not hold up, so we can only conclude that what we see with our eyes is in fact what's there, a conflict of interest. Note I do not propose banning the accounts in question outright. But I seriously doubt they will choose to edit in other areas. They are well-established as single-purpose accounts. A single-purpose account editing with a conflict of interest is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --GoodDamon 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Topic ban proposal Support. The topic ban proposal as suggested by Roux (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Cirt, as an anti-Scientologist with a long history of highly POV edits under your current and previous accounts, don't you think that you would be doing yourself as an admin and the project a service by recusing yourself here instead of leading the charge? (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt for material relevant to my point)--Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Support - Assuming it is an indef, and applies to the other similar accounts. This is basically the standard response when evidence of an unresolvable COI exists. --GoodDamon 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Oppose - this has already been addressed at a higher forum than this one. If GoodDamon does not like the arbitrators' work then he needs to take that up with them, not here. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Oppose – I don't see any evidence of incivility on the talk page and in principle support this user's right to edit Scientology topics, just as Jewish Wikipedians are entitled to edit the article on Israel, muslims are entitled to edit the article on 9/11, etc. However, I would support a warning that the user should refrain from edit wars and seek consensus through the talk page. Jayen466 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Hold on a minute You're in the wrong forum, guys. The topic of Scientology is on article probation. From Wikipedia:General sanctions: Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation. So I'm marking this thread resolved and referring it to WP:AE. DurovaCharge! 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC) For the record, I opened this as an incident report, because the evidence indicates a very large WP:COI issue with probable WP:SOCK and WP:ROLE problems as well, not because of a content dispute. However, I will abide by your wishes in this matter and move this report there. May I have your permission to copy it verbatim, including responses, to avoid extra work for all parties involved? --GoodDamon 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC) You appear to misunderstand the quoted definition. Nowhere does it restrict itself to content policies only. Nor do you need my permission to quote what I post. See gnu free documentation license. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Guhh... Sorry, I apparently overdosed on stupid this morning. Proceeding... --GoodDamon 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by 71.35.158.93

I am requesting a ban or at least a warning for 71.35.158.93. His first edit was a questionable edit to a talk page, and since then all of his edits have been talk page vandalism. Cerebellum (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't edited after a warning, and that was six hours ago. The IP may well be reassigned to another user so there's little point blocking at present. In future, reporting to WP:AIV will get a faster response. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That certainly seems irregular and inappopriate, although as it's now stopped, I don't know that a block is justified just now. A mass undo might be called for though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

I'm happy to go through and undo the edits in question. Would that be appropriate? Cerebellum (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

POV edits and removal of templates and 3rd party sources

• Atisha's cook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

regarding the New Kadampa Tradition article the user has repeatedly deleted templates and reverted edits on which discussion were made on the talk page, and especially all corrections by me on which I used 3rd party sources or included the correct phrases from them. The user didn't participate in the discussion and seems to ignore the rules reagrding NPOV and 3rd party sources especially on controversial subjects. --Kt66 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Atisha's cook is over 3RR at New Kadampa Tradition, having made five reverts on November 26. I have notified them of this discussion, explained 3RR, and asked them to revert their last change. This editor has made sensible comments at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy so I think negotiation is worth a try. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User INTGAFW/User:JRG reverting inclusion of {{information}} template

INTGAFW (talk · contribs) keeps revering my inclusion of the {{information}} tag on the image Image:Hornsbydockplatform.jpg in favor of a ill-formated incomplete set of image informations he provided [48] [49].

Since he's the author and original uploader of the image, this may influence his feelings of ownership of the image description page.

He's also edit warring about a new version of the file I've uploaded, where I blured an incidental advertisement that is visible on the image, making it 100% free.

Just for the record, INTGAFW (talk · contribs) is the new-incarnation of JRG (talk · contribs)[50], and user that recently "retired" from the project with a long dramatic goodbye letter[51] [52]. In at least one occasion, he used one of his incarnations to support his other self while attacking me in a deletion discussion[53].

I have no reason to believe INTGAFW/User:JRG will desist from his version of Image:Hornsbydockplatform.jpg. So, as once advised by an experient admin, I'm asking for help before reaching 3RR. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 13:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe his primary objection is your uploading of a new version that substantially degrades the quality of the image as you did here. Any modification of his image should be uploaded under a new file name as a derivative of his image, otherwise improper attribution will exist. MBisanz ^talk 14:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with reverting the use of an {{information}} template (see my first 2 diffs)? What why you say my upload ubstantially degrades the quality of the image? Compare the original with my version (switch between firefox tabs) and you'll notice the only difference is the hiding of a copyrighted advertisement. --Damiens.rf 14:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you edited the image, and then uploaded it over the original. It should be uploaded as a derivative of the original, citing INTGAFW and citing your alterations of it. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But the point of my edit was exactly to replace the image used on Wikipedia, since his version contained a visible copyrighted advertisement, and mine was treated to have it blured (by the way, I didn't claimed authorship over my alterations because I don't think there's enough creative work involved).

And still, how does this would justify removing the {{information}} removal? --Damiens.rf 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is fixed now that the image is on Commons with a bot-placed info template. MBisanz ^talk 14:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It uses the {{information}} template with the incomplete information (e.g. bad description) from the image-description page version of JRG/INTGAFW edit war. I'll try to fix this, but one of his socks will revert it. But since that will happen on commons, nothing would be done here (not your problem). --Damiens.rf 15:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in the move to commons, my {{information}} template (with really useful information like a wikilinked Description parameter) was deleted (since it was edit-warred back to history). Can someone recover that? --Damiens.rf 15:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Query: Is there a rule against any copyrighted material or trademark appearing in the background of a photograph? If so, there are a lot of images which need "blurring"? Or is the fact it is in the background, and that blurring makes the image look really poor relevant? [54] etc. Collect (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

EnWiki has no rule on the concept known as Freedom of Panorama, as far as trademarks and other non-copyright legal holdings, the only thing we have is Wikipedia:Restricted materials. For such circumstances, the best I can suggest is Commons Freedom of Panorama page. MBisanz ^talk 15:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's basically a "fair use" issue. To my understanding, showing an ad or billboard at low res in a picture of something else will usually constitute fair use. If the photo showed nothing except the billboard, that would be an infringement. Like many fair use issues, it comes down in the end to a question of judgement. In my judgement, there shouldn't be any problem with the original image, and in my aesthetic opinion, blurring the billboard would suck grievously. looie496 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The OP previously nominated the image for IFD(prior to it moved to commons) which resulted in a speedy keep in its current form. Damien.rf's edit of the image very much borders on disruption after he failed to get it deleted. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens has a pretty long history of not getting it. He was recently blocked for a week for edit warring (against a former member of arbcom), and his reaction can be seen here. A walk through his contribs shows quite a bit of other incivility and disruption that somehow slipped under the radar (for example, deleting the entire content of a list of modern dictators with an edit summary asking why Ronald Reagan wasn't included, and then responding to a revert by re-deleting it with an edit summary saying that the revert was unexplained.) looie496 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Impersonation of Bonafide.hustla

I got an e-mail from NWA.Rep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently blocked by Gwen Gale, formerly Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Certified.gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), complaining that someone was vandalising under some of his old names, perhaps trying to frame him. I can only find the Bonafide.hustla account vandalizing, out of the old usernames, and I think that one's an old friend... just look at this little lot, from today! That's never NWA.Rep. It's surely a bot doing those moves, for a start. (Though it would be possible, no doubt, to do it by hand, with tabs and a fast connection, on a good day.) And, well, you see the other issues. I don't understand how somebody was able to use NWA:Rep's old account names, though. He officially changed his name every time, AFAIK; wouldn't the old ones be locked from being taken over? Anyway. I'm not good at this stuff. Slakr quickly blocked the Bonafide.hustla account, thus stopping the pagemove vandalism; but would somebody like to check out the situation? If NWA.Rep is innocent of this vandalism, which I do believe, I don't want him to end up with an extra block, or extra black mark, for it. It doesn't seem quite like a regular CheckUser case, which is why I'm posting it here. Would somebody a bit smarter than me like to take over the problem? Thanks in advance. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Clarification please: Is this the same old account of NWA.Rep, one that he relinquished and somebody now found his password and highjacked the account, or did NWA.Rep have the account renamed and somebody then later re-created a new account under that name? There are edits in its contribution history from 2006 which seem to have been the genuine Hustla, which would point to the first possibility, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If an account gets renamed, the old name can be registered by anyone, so it's technically possible to harass someone on that way. That's a known issue (has someone filed a bug report at bugzilla?) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This threw me off: There are old edits in the history of Bonafide.hustla, from 2006, looking like genuine Hustla edits. If the account was renamed and later recreated, the fact that these old edits are still registered to it must be because of a glitch in the logs: the page was deleted at the time of the rename and was later restored, leaving the old edits behind as registered to the old account name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in the old times, deleted edits were not re-attributed when a user got renamed. This has now changed, but that rename was a long time ago. Kusma (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To Enric: we should certainly advise users that if they get their accounts renamed, they should immediately re-create their old account as a doppelgänger to block it against abuse. This shouldn't be done automatically by the software though, because I suppose it would make the process of usurpation impossible, where the whole point of a renaming is to free the old name up for re-creation by someone else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagging auto-creation of abandoned user names would work well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. This happened to me too under both my previous names. Sticky Parkin 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't even aware of that technical possibility. But back to the original topic, to put Bish's mind to rest, I don't suppose this looks as if we'd blame it on NWA, agreed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No. That's what I mean, it could happen to anyone who didn't realise it was possible/likely so didn't bagsy their old account. Sticky Parkin 18:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many things that NWA does that I disagree with, but this doesn't seem to be his style. I have tweaked the blocks so there is now a message in the log that shows that the 2006 and 2008 blocks are unrelated. Kusma (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) It will be Johnny the vandal (I think) check Krimpet's recent blocks) Viridae^Talk 20:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It was considered a gr*wp-a-like, see the similar contribs made using my old name [55] Sticky Parkin 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did someone try to rename Bonafide to see if this wannabe has an SUL? If he does, this isn't Johnny the vandal; this is more likely JA/G, who is known to abuse the SUL system to impersonate others (I fell victim to it last month). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Dear WP admins,

i bring to your attention a seriously disruptive editor. Once i warned about a "contributor" called PARARUBBAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pararubbas), whom operated almost exclusively on PORTUGUESE FOOTBALL and/or FOOTBALLERS, and his modus operandi consisted of gluing sentences into one, removing brackets, links and references. Thank god i got some users to help him get blocked.

Now, i bring to you another user which i believe is the same, as PARARUBBAS is blocked and has not edited in 4 months. With the account name PEP10 (contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pep10), the M.O. is the same: Almost exclusively PORT.FOOTBALL, refs, links all gone just because and, like PARARUBBAS he does not write one single edit summary and does not respond to messages, although (over)duly warned.

Sincerely yours, from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs would really be helpful here. I think what's going on here is an accusation of sockpuppetry? Seems odd considering the first user, Pararubbas is not blocked. Looking at a random sampling of edits by the latter user, I'm not seeing anything particularly disruptive- looks like this user is doing things like correcting typos and linking to appropriate articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hi there MENDALIV, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

regarding your input to my report on a disruptive editor (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents), you seem to not understand what i am conveying. PEP10 (which may not me previous user PARARUBBAS, i only said it should be because his modus operandi is the same, and i also did not mean PARARUBBAS was permanently blocked, i only referred he had been in the past for continuous edits of the sort) is a disruptive editor and adds nothing to the site.

You said you had a random look at his edits and saw nothing particularly disruptive. Well, his "correcting of typos" consist in writing in appalling English (not an accusation or a judgment, a statement based on what i see) and gluing all sentences leaving just 1 paragraph. Much much much worse, his "linking to appropriate articles" may also include removal of references and external links that pertain duly in articles, and that is a striking pattern in both user PARARUBBAS and PEP10. Of this latter user, i'll give you an example: see what he did in RICARDO OLIVEIRA's article in 3 edits at about 16h00 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Oliveira&action=history), right before i "entered the pitch". If that's not vandalism...

Anyways, i did what i thought was appropriate and reported, if the people responsible don't think a block is justified, no problems by me. By the way, here his PEP10's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pep10#November_2008), where he also has received warnings about removal of content.

Regards, keep up the good work"

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.67.28 (talk)

I have no idea what you are going for here, but I find the fact that you take issue with his English quite ironic... --Smashville^talk 04:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you believe an editor is making bad edits, it would help to provide specific diffs showing the exact bad edits he made. That way, we can look at whatever the specific problem is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for automated help

I have just closed this TfD discussion as delete. Unfortunately, the template to be deleted is transcluded over 1400 times. As much as I like to pad my edit count with AWB runs, I am editing from a computer which lacks such amenities. Are there any admins who would like the extra thousand-or-so edits, or who could submit this request to some other type of automated tool? (There's got to be some sort of bot which could do this, isn't there?) Thanks in advance, RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 20:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Anomie often configures his bot, AnomieBOT, for such replacement tasks. I suggest you ask him or at WP:BOTREQ, I am sure someone has an bot for such tasks. Regards SoWhy 20:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect, I'll ask them. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 21:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

threat of violence, sort of

Resolved

 – IP hardblocked for six months. Horologium (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this edit by Special:Contributions/209.146.31.20 (made a few hours ago). It implies a threat of violence (though a vague, generalized one). Is there someone who could find out enough about where it's coming from to make a meaningful report to authorities? -- Why Not A Duck 22:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if a report needs to be made, after all "everyone" would mean every country, etc. needing to be contacted. In this case, WP:RBI. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on this it's from school. I would be thinking blocking anonymous edits, and advising the school of what their little kiddies are doing might be a good idea. ►BMW◄ 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

After this IP's next block, I think they'd be eligible for an abuse report. Going by the standards over there, generally 5 blocks are necessary to report a single IP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I schoolblocked it for 6 months, and disabled account creation from it as well. There is no history of useful edits from that address, and a long string of vandalism. Let the school ask for access; perhaps they will police their children a bit better afterwards. Horologium (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this is just stupid vandalism. Reporting it to the FBI and having them have a little chit-chat with the punk who wrote the hoax threat would likely prevent any further ones. Making such a threat is a felony, afterall. Bstone (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And that, is why I think more credible threats should be reported, because even though it will most likely be a joke, you still get to imagine the reaction of some dumb kid when two big guys in suits show up to interrogate them--Jac16888 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, mercenary zero tolerance policies really work, and overreacting in the name of "scaring people straight" is as psychologically healthy as it gets. Badger Drink (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know the closest FBI branch in that area that handles that juridistion because its a major offence this person committed. They made a terriostic threat which is a felony in the United States. And we should not take threats lightly and follow WP:TOV afterall , or atleast notify the Foundation on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be the Newark field office, as the IP geolocates to Template:City-state. For future reference, this page will help you find field offices, provided you know the state where the IP originates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Can someone please protect this article on the wrong version to stop the edit war? Science Apologist restructured the article based on an old proposal of his which he claims nobody opposed. (Two editors opposed for good reasons, but they didn't oppose; and now I oppose and several others do as well.)

I also think someone should beat ScienceApologist with a cluestick, especially for this (calling me a "homeopath", justifying his edits with a conspiracy theory instead of rational argument) and this edit comment.

After some back-and-forth, QuackGuru has jumped in, complicating matters further by making unrelated changes. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment on the talk page. See WP:PSCI. QuackGuru 00:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue (to save work for people) is that there is a group of editors who want to distinguish between things that scientists officially label as pseudoscience, and things that have only been labeled as pseudoscience by skeptical groups such as CSICOP -- homeopathy happening to fall into the latter group. SA opposes this split as artificial, as do I -- it's really all just pseudoscience. Hans is trying to turn this content dispute into an issue of civility, baselessly in my opinion. looie496 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find WP:RS that calls it pseudoscience, it doesn't matter if that source is 'scientific' or not, does it? Scientists might invalidate via studies or ignore these theories but just not happen to use the word pseudoscience in that instance. So plenty of sources might call homeopathy pseudoscience, you don't need to argue over the use of CSICOP. On the other hand, it sounds like you are arguing about whether CSICOP is a reliable source, or that fans of various things are trying to say that any sources that aren't in scientific journals, or any source that calls them pseudoscience, is invalid. Sticky Parkin 03:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The situation has cooled down. Sorry for having spammed here, I wasn't aware of WP:RFPP. To make sure that this thread can be archived I will not respond to the above two statements, although it's tempting to explain why they are mistaken. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Friendly compromised?

Having just provided a welcome/warning (first edit appears to be vandalised) - I note that when I used Friendly it signed my name incorrectly and pointed to the Artichoke page - see these two diffs. Does anyone else have this problem?--VS ^talk 00:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's actually the user Artichoker. Go figure. Synergy 01:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Artichoker, in trying to subst the template, mistakenly broke it, but User:Bidgee fixed it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Gwen? --VS ^talk 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Game Revolution and spamming reviews

I'm not sure where to post this. I'm not requesting help, this is more of a heads up and I suppose it could be good for admins to know this. After reverting another SPA accounts addition of GR reviews to various articles, I realized it wasn't the first time I've seen this kind of account. I'd have to dig and dig to try and find earlier diffs because I think the last time this happened was about 2 or 3 months ago (but the memory is a little fuzzy). Latest user is here [56]. I occasionally see it pop up on my watch list as I often watch list one or two new and popular video games. I'll see a GR review link added and check the red link user who added it and find they've joined simply to add GR reviews to multiple articles and not make any other contributions. Obviously just here to promote GR. I usually revert them, but I'm sure I've missed plenty if they never landed on an article I've watch listed. I highly doubt that so many random fans of GR are just creating accounts to drop their reviews on a handful of articles and then do nothing else so its probably someone with a relationship to GR doing it. Not really much for the COI board as this account will likely never edit again.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving this to AN -- not really an incident here. looie496 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if it'd be worth taking the time to try and find the old incidents of this and if I can find them consider blacklisting the site (I'm sure this is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen it happen).--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon

I feel I was wrongly banned what do, I need to do to get it removed from my record? Fru23 (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hack into the database. looie496 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It can't be removed but you can get an admin to annotate it (write something else in the log) saying the past block was wrong. But in reality that's very rare. Sticky Parkin 03:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You violated 3RR and another admin upheld it. It was the second block for edit warring on the same issue. Looking at your contributions from the last day, it looks like you still haven't gotten the point. The fact that you've been blocked twice and have only been here for two weeks speaks volumes. --Smashville^talk 03:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he could also study the difference between a block and a ban. They are not the same thing. He was blocked (temporarily), not banned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I only see a block, not a ban. Personally, I'd dismiss this, the block was clearly warranted. — neuro^(talk) 05:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

The Requests for Page Protection page is backlogged. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 27, 2008 @ 04:50

Editor 'warning' me will always change BCE/CE to BC/AD

See [57] -- I'd warned him for doing this on Druid, so this was his response. Can someone else at least point out to him what will happen if he actually does this, so he doesn't think it is just me? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Massive automated rephrasing by User:Hmains

I need a second opinion. User:Hmains is using an automated tool to mass-change “First World War”, the preferred form in British and Canadian English, to “World War I”, a more common name in the United States. I believe this is contrary to WP:ENGVAR and WP:SPELLING, not to mention a very bad way to indiscriminately impose one's preferred style. He's edited close to 1,000 articles, and refused to stop when I tried to discuss it. Thanks for your attention. —Michael Z. 2008-11-27 06:49 z

He is violating WP:ENGVAR. Noted on his talk. — neuro^(talk) 07:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

He has changed hundreds of articles claiming that American related pages should be changed, yet British subject areas have been amended. Will reverts be completed on all changed pages? CorrectlyContentious (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-iterating knowledge George, i was just querying whether i am allowed to undo the edits, and if there was a faster way as i noted above that there is 100+ and im no "wikiwizz" as yet, thanks.CorrectlyContentious (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Gaiaguerrilla

Incivility/personal attacks, see contributions. Clark89 (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice

Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You who browse through the AN/I pages may remember my last two(or was it one) report on this user. Following the discussion, he was blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment. I knew he wouldn't really notice the block, as he does not edit frequently. He has not taken the block to heart, and if you review, he just reverted all of my and Grz11 reversions of his personal attacks on the talk pages of IPs, with the edit summery of reverting vandalism. This user does obviously not get it, and should be blocked, in my opinion, indefinitely for disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you did not assume good faith just now. That's one of the rules, right? You said I didn't notice the block, but I did. So, not only did you assume bad faith, but you assumed erroneous facts. You report on this board every single time I try to edit. I've been here for maybe a month, and you report me all the time. You have made false statements about my editing, and you reverted my talk page comments, which is vandalism. In fact, you engaged in so many acts of vandalism that you should be blocked. Now, I can't even work on an article because I'm having to deal with ANI reports, deal with you reverting my edits, and deal with you putting deletion tags on the article while I'm working on it. Good grief. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm done assuming good faith with you. You removed our message to your talk page calling them attacks, when they were no such thing. In my earlier reports, I provided evidence of your actions. So far you have provided no accounts of the vandalism I supposedly committed. I suspect, given your actions here, that you're trying to make some kind of point, or that you're trolling for some kind of response. Either way, your edits to IP users' talk pages are completely out of line and against policy, you have been warned against doing so once, and yet you disregard that and do so anyways, again and again. You have so far been nothing but disruptive.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at all the reverts you just made. Those are all vandalism. Removing my comments from talk pages is vandalism. Not assuming good faith, egregiously and admittedly, on your part here is enough to warrant a block. You're running around to administrator talk pages asking for me to be blocked, reporting me here numerous times, trying to delete my pages, blanking my talk comments -- isn't there some rule against harassing, wiki-stalking, forum shopping, or something? Just let it go. Why are the same two or three people attacking me every time I try to edit? What have I done wrong? Is this how Wikipedia works? Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you really should read up on personal attacks. When I removed your comments to the user talk pages for IPs, that is not classified as vandalism. Users are allowed to remove personal attacks directed at editors, and the way you warned those IPs is classified as a personal attack. There is a reason that warning messages are templated. From your recent edit to my talk page, I can see that you already know about templates, but refuse to use them, as indicated by your most recent attacks on the talk pages of IPs.

Removing personal attacks is not vandalism, and lastly, do not use mis-leading edit summaries.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)JoJ, this is frustrating for you because you don't seem to want to actually learn our policies around here. You were blocked earlier for your reverts, and Daedalus and Grz spent their time trying to change your uncivil edits to IP talk pages while you were blocked. You returned and immediately reverted all of their work, calling it vandalism and basically saying that even though you were blocked for those reversions and comments, that you were right in your actions. I left a message on your talk page which you quickly deleted, so it doesn't seem like you want to discuss things. You don't engage in talk page discussions, and you just templated a regular because you didn't like his reversion of the edits which got you blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting but I believe that this was vandalism, and this was vandal reversion. Just because Jayhawk uses nonstandard vandal warnings like this doesn't mean that his vandal fighting is vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First, again, I must ask that only the truth be involved in this discussion. I do engage in discussions, so there is no reason to make that kind of false statement. Secondly, I am learning the rules quite well. I am creating articles, reverting vandalism, and warning users. In turn, I find well-established users actually aligned with the vandals -- removing warnings from their pages. If you really cared about the vandalism, why not replace my comments with a template or a warning of your own? It seems to me that you're much more interested in harassing me than stopping their vandalism. And, yes, that last statement failed to assume good faith, but I don't know why I should be handicapped by the rule if apparently no one else in this discussion is going to be. I seriously have no idea what I have done wrong. In fact, my edits since returning have been even better than my previous edits. I've also pointed out where other people engaged in vandalism and reverted it. Why don't you guys go have a happy Thanksgiving and get off my back? Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at this edit also.[58] What purpose did that edit serve? Really? It didn't add to the conversation in any substantial way. All that comment did was served to try to inflame an already messed up situation. If anything is a personal attack, that is a personal attack. It's not only an attack on me, but it implies a falsehood. It implies I have not edited constructively, when I have. I have been trying to create articles and revert vandalism since I got here, and I have been met with hostility. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@WereSpiel: It's not the vandalism reversion that is the vandalism, and to be specific, we're talking about this users' interactions with other users. It's that JoJ is personally attacking the vandals on the their respective talk pages. Do not forget, WP:CIVIL is a policy, a policy that this user has continuously broken, and a policy that they continue to break.

@JoJ:So far, as a review of your account, and I shall provide diffs if asked, you have issued ultimatums to several people who have disagreed with your behavior, myself included, telling us to resign. You're barely been here a month, and you're telling us to quit because you disagree with us? Not to mention that edit you left on Jimbo's talk page, telling him that his time as a Wikipedia admin or whatever his job here exactly is, is running out, and he should just step down. You've been nothing but rude since you got here, and when an admin warns you against personal attacks, you go ahead and make one anyway on the second thread about you that's been on this board. You're then blocked. In that personal attack, you make several ultimatums with the result of resignation by the party the message is directed at, and you then accuse each of us of vandalism, with no diffs provided in the least. When you accuse someone here, on Wikipedia. You provide a diff of the revision that shows the activity, otherwise it could be interpreted as a complete fabrication meant to get a response, or a block on the user you disagree with.

You then claim that the accusation I make about you concerning Jimbo's talk page is false, despite the fact that I provided a diff in my first report about you. After your block is over, and you return to your page, you then remove several messages me and other editors left on your talk page, with mis-leading edit summaries claiming they are personal attacks, when in fact, they were not. I don't know if you read my message or not, but for anyone else reading this, let me bring it to light: This user claimed that a piece of evidence I cited in my first report, then cited again without a diff in the second report did not exist. I went to his talk page and linked him to the diff that he claimed did not exist. What's more, in the diatribe that can now be found in the archives for this board, the user claimed that I was ready to resign,(I meaning me, Daedalus), and that Gwen Gale's interference steered me away from that action. The second part of my message on his talk page clarified that I indeed never had planned on resigning, and that this information that he claimed to have had(but of course, did not) about me resigning was entirely false. To reiterate, he removed this message from his talk page claiming it to be an attack. I am through assuming good faith with this user because of his actions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Daedalus969 (talk · contribs), can you explain your complaint, using WP:DIFFs and permanent links to substantiate your claims. Complaints posted without specific evidence may be considered personal attacks. Jehochman ^Talk 11:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)As background, no one has denied that JoJ's edits to fight vandalism have been useful, however weird his refusal to use the standard vandalism warnings has been. He got into trouble originally with a weird edit to the Jimbo Wales talkpage [59] that brought him to ANI. From there, he called for the resignation of two editors who questioned the edit [60] [61]. His refusal to use the standard vandal warnings also called him into question of crossing the line into personal atacks, and that led to the previous ANI discussion, where JoJ was blocked for 48 hours by Gwen Gale after a rather impressive display of personal attacks and wikilawyering. [62]

After his block, JoJ's first actions were to reinstate all of his previous vandalism warnings, referring to the actions of the editors who fixed the edits as "vandalism," which probably started his return on a bad note with the editors who tried to correct the problems earlier. Dayewalker (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus, here you accused me of vandalizing my own talk page in your edit summary. That was against the rules, because I did not commit vandalism on my own talk page.

Here you vandalized a talk page by removing a legitimate warning. Even if you felt this warning was somehow in bad taste (which it wasn't), why wouldn't you just replace it with a better one? Why enable vandals?

You have also repeatedly misquoted and mischaracterized my comments about Jimbo Wales, and then you have mischaracterized my defense of them. You keep acting like I think blanked pages magically disappear from the history. That's not true. My concern was that you were misquoting my comments about Jimbo Wales.

You've committed vandalism and engaged in so much incivility during your interactions with me, that I really have to recommend a block. I think it would prevent you from doing this to another editor again in the future. Over at your editor review page, I have to say that it looks like you have a long history of questionable interactions with other users. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First, that was a twinkle edit summery, an edit summery that is created automatically by the script when in use. Secondly, and I quote: You knew this day was coming. Thirdly, I've committed vandalism? Where? Oh, do you mean my reverts of your personal attacks on several IP users' pages? Removing personal attacks is not vandalism. Fourthly, incivility? Please provide a diff, less that actually be an attack.

Lastly, you called for several users' resignations because they questioned your edits, and you called for me to quit Wikipedia because I filed a report about you? Do I have to quote the numerous times you attacked me and other editors in that archived rant?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@Jehochman: - Here they are:

• Telling Jimbo his time is running out
• Telling me I should resign, this happened after the first AN/I notice I placed about this user concerning the above diff
• The second time this user has said another user should resign, because the user disagrees with how JoJ had been editing
• JoJ's gratuitous personal attack on me and a few others,
• The last edit to his reply, from the diff noted above, As can be seen here, the user makes a few false claims, and, I believe a quote is in order: To my dismay, this ill-conceived venture by Gwen Gale appears to have strengthened the resolve of Daedalus. That editor previously appeared content to resign. Now, buoyed by the misguided reassurances of another editor, Daedalus has renewed confidence. That confidence will likely be manifest in edits that continue to degrade the quality of Wikipedia.
• Misleading edit summery
• One of his personal attacks directed at an IP. Vandal or not, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are still policies.
• Here he claims that removing my notice is removing an attack, despite the fact that my notice is not an attack
• Same as above, but with a different user's(read: admin's) message/warning

I believe that is all for now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent edit by Daudalus969. It really sums up his (or her) false accusations. He listed [this as a personal attack. I think we can bring the witch hunt to a close now. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed a lot of the IP warnings and the vandalism that they were responding to and I'd agree that some were incivil. But my concern is that many if not most of Jayhawk's non standard warnings were as appropriate as this, and all seem to have been "courtesy blanked" whether they were appropriate or not. I've started a dialogue with Jayhawk on User talk:Jayhawk of Justice#Template warnings about his use of warnings, can I suggest that we don't revert his nonstandard warnings unless they are uncivil? ϢereSpielChequers 11:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

His most recent warning was not a breach of WP:CIVIL, so I found no need to revert.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)We probably should calm down a bit on this one. JoJ has done some weird things in the past and doesn't seem to understand how policy works around here, but if he's willing to calm down and use the standard vandalism templates (as WRC has explained to him) things should be okay for now. Daedalus is a tireless vandal fighter, and he's obviously a bit upset at seeing a user who has already made several strange statements about him and called for his resignation return to the same type of behavior that led to his block, and revert all of his edits. It's easy to see how things got sideways here. Dayewalker (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Daedalus doesn't seem to understand how the policies work either. He has engaged in vandalism, page blanking, false statements, failure to assume good faith (which he admitted), and misleading edit summaries. And, that's just during this conversation. How was this appropriate? That edit contained vandalism and a misleading edit summary, and that was just minutes ago. Is a block not in order? Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain edits to pages that are about me. That's my editor review, a review that I requested. So far your edits appear to be rather pointy, rude, and you have attacked me and several others several times. I removed your message from my review because I simply don't trust someone who keeps telling others to resign and quit, not to mention your long strings of personal attacks, and your behavior. Notice how I let other users' comments who disagree with me remain on the page, this is because they are established users who are trustworthy, and know the policies, like those about civility and personal attacks. If after this discussion, and maybe many more months pass, and you actually do contribute constructively, I could probably see that if you made a comment, it would remain there, but as of this moment, you might be something else, and I'm not going to have someone who has been so rude to me and others question my editing ability.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in what you just said justifies blanking or using false edit summaries. At the risk of being accused of making a personal attack, I have to point out the hypocrasy of your claim (not you personally, just your claim). You are saying you can blank statements on pages about you and give misleading edit summaries, but you are upset at me for allegedly using misleading edit summaries on my talk page (an accusation I deny). You are doing the very same thing you are accusing me of. What am I to do? Not only do I get in trouble for following the plain language of the rule pages, but I apparently cannot even make edits of a similar nature to my own accusers? This is baffling, in deed. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Jayhawk, Wikipedia has its own ways of doing things. If you're going to get along here, you're going to have to learn more about how the word vandalism is used on en.Wikipedia and be very careful not to make any more personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting straight from the Wikipedia page on vandalism: "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism." This edit by Daedalus969 was vandalism. He blanked my post from a talk page, other than his own, and it did not contain spam, vandalism, or a personal attack. He has done this numerous times. This, Dayewalker, is why I am frustrated. I am trying to follow the rules. I expect to eventually become a better editor, but it is frustrating to have people tell me that the plain language of the rules do not mean what they say. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you read that entire page? I reverted you because that edit can be considered uncivil, and a personal attack, and removal of personal attacks is not considered vandalism.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And, what about this? Again, more vandalism on your part. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To Jayhawk of Justice

Jayhawk, while it can be useful to leave a hand typed message as a warning (I often do this myself), you may want to use the standard user warning templates for a while until you become more acquainted with Wikipedia policies. You definitely need to read No personal attacks, Don't bite the newcomers and Civility before you do any more patrolling.

To the others here, a user may remove warnings from their own talk page. That is a good confirmation they have seen the warning. If there are further problems, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 12:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I can't accept any "results" that don't call out Daedalus969 for his blatant, unapologetic violations of Wikipedia policies. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

JoJ, you appear to be trolling, either accidentally or not. I'd suggest backing off and quietly editing articles constructively. Patience, when it runs out here, runs out swiftly. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, this is an edit I made. It has been reverted, and people are maintaining that edits such as that one constitute personal attacks and that blanking edits such as that do not constitute vandalism. I certainly must reject any claim that I am trolling. In fact, the mere mention of the word is completely out of line. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayhawk, things have gotten stirred up here enough. I don't think you're trolling, but it may look that way to some editors. Daedalus' edits aren't vandalism, because he's clearly trying to help. Most of your IP messages are not personal attacks, but their wordings are a bit unsettling to some editors: Please think about using templates instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The telling people to resign for no reason, the WP:DEADHORSEing here, the attack on Jimbo, the calling long-standing editors vandals... that's trolling. As I say, you may be doing this by accident. That's why it'll be good if you got on with some real editing and veered off the road you are currently on. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I had reasons for telling people to resign, but I haven't asked anyone to resign or brought up Jimbo Wales sua sponte since returning from my block, so those don't even apply here. I'm saying a long-standing editor engaged in vandalism, because he did, in fact, engage in vandalism. That someone is a long-standing editor prevents him from committing vandalism is a non sequitur. I must also reject the idea that people can attack me ad nauseum (loving the Latin right now), but if I respond to these criticisms I'm beating a dead horse. That's garbage. It really is, and I adamantly reject in totality the substance of your claims.

Daudalus is more likely the one who is trolling. As soon as I returned to Wikipedia today, he immediately began undoing my edits, putting my articles up for deletion, and reporting me on WP:ANI, which I believe he has done three times now, and reporting me on admin talk pages. Why can't he leave me alone? And, I must also reject Gwen Gale's claim that he wasn't engaging in vandalism. He was. I quoted the definition of vandalism, and then I showed where he broke that definition. This was after a quite untactful comment by Gwen Gale about my own understanding of the rules. She could have conceded Daedalus had done wrong or that he needed a vandalism warning. Instead, she...you know what. Why continue? This is ridiculous.

You know how I know it's ridiculous? Daedalus is on the side of the vandals. He's removing warnings from their pages. If he was such a staunch opponent of vandalism and he disagreed with my warnings, why didn't he replace them with acceptable warnings? I'm not playing this game right now. At this point, I've got one word for this entire thread, and that one word would probably get me blocked. I'm done. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)