Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562

My userpage

Resolved

My userpage(not my user talk page) was recently vandalized by a user name Smartie12. You can see the edit if you go to the edit history of my userpage, since I removed it. This is the edit that was made [1] I would like something done about this, even though I removed it and left a note on the user's talk page, I would like an administrator to do something. Thank you. Abby 82 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked that account. Crum375 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also tag it for CSD if you don't want to leave a blank page, since you didn't have a user page before. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost sounds like some kids in the same class/school though, doesn't it? Blocked user doesn't get that this isn't WP:MYSPACE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I never even heard of this user before. I have no idea who the person is, and I'm in University. I'm an editor for many articles, and The Baby-Sitters Club happens to be one of them. Abby 82 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what's CSD? And how do I request it? Abby 82 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD HalfShadow 17:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all of your help. Abby 82 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, again

Extended content

Everyone walk away. Now. lifebaka++ 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Um, no. We have some DICK issues we still need to work out. For one, the MFD issue is still open, and Tanthalas' admin review is coming up. -Stevertigo 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Both of you said things. At this point nobody cares who started it. Would it not be better to just drop it and move on? Evil saltine (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Yes it would. Collapsed again. Everybody go and do something encyclopedic. Rd232 talk 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) See also: Talk:Barack_Obama § "National Socialism" Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [2] I really hope I don't have to write an explanation. The latter two bullet points put my point across better than any paragraph of wiki-legalese ever could. Sceptre (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I cannot see where you have informed the user of this report? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I closed the MFD and deleted the page. Was there any other admin activity you required? Spartaz Humbug! 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC) ? It doesn't appear to have been deleted yet Spartaz. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Deleted by Chris G. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Restored by Chris G. wtf is going on? MickMacNee (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Ah ha. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I fouled the close - too used to the script I use for closing AFDs I guess. Its gone now and I reclosed the MFD. Its still snowing and the page is never going to go into mainspace in the format it was in. Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Now deleted by Spartaz. Isn't this like, wheel warring or something? Seriously guys, get your ducks in line. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC) How can it be wheelwarring. I see two admins who speedied it and then reversed themselves when they saw the original speedy request had been rejected and one admin (me) who closed the MFD under snow and deleted the article under due process. The next stage for anyone who wants to contest this is to open a discussion at DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC) An 'attack page'? Really? About the only thing attacking Obama in that page was the title if you try really hard to assume bad faith, the content was actualy an attack on Conservatives if anything, and could well have been the making of a good article/section. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Anyone that sees value in that insipid coatrack of an attack article has no business being a Wikipedia editor, to be extremely blunt about it. Haven't heard a peep from Stevertigo since the ArbCom case ended, this is an odd sort of acting out. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Bull shit, to be even more blunt. It was called an attack page denigrating Obama, yet it was nothing of the sort. Unless you are of a mind to automatically assume the title was an actual judgement. Have you read the content? It is not an attack on Obama in any sense of the word, unless or until someone proves it gives massive UNDUE weight to the accusations, and thanks to Fox news half the world knows these comparisons have been made over the healthcare bill, that is obviously not the case. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC) You're assuming good faith when there's no good faith to be assumed. Steve's POV-pushing was the reason RFAR/Obama articles was opened. This is just a run-around process and his sanctions to create a coveted "Criticism of..." article. Sceptre (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Maybe you should include such details then when filing an ANI report, instead of stating that you don't think you need to say anthing. If anything, why didn't this go to AE if the Obama case is relevant? Infact, I'm unsure even what you were requesting with this posting, deletion of the draft or action against steve or both? MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC) And on looking it up, you and Steve recieved identical remedies for whatever you two got up to on Obama's article's, so I think anybody is entitled to assume good faith or bad faith equally on either of you. 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Because I think the facts should speak for themselves when I present a user seriously suggesting an article covering comparisons of a person to Hitler. And the ArbCom remedies did not reflect the disruption caused at all. The equality of sanctions is only because, I feel, that AC wanted to look politically neutral when they didn't really need to make the remedies equal at all. Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) It should probably have been called Obama and the national socialism analogy to avoid the inevitable kneejerk reactions though. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) "othercrapexists" isn't exactly a compelling argument, mick. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Who's making an argument, I'm merely saying that might have been a better title to forestall the kneejerk reactions. MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Tempting to just delete it now but, in all honesty, it will save a great deal of otherwise inevitable wikilawyering and general kerfuffle down the line if the MfD is allowed to run its course. CIreland (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) There's someone sensible among you? And you wrote this an hour ago - amazing that noone else here had the sense to find your comments sensible. -Stevertigo 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Spartaz Resolved  – No admin action necessary. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Note: User:Neurolysis is a partisan in the related MFD and thus has no business closing this ANI thread. -SV Spartaz twice now has early closed an in-progress MFD discussion. His response to my request to reopen and restore the relevant non-BLP, draft, userspace subpage was "no." I'd hate to pull a Sanger here, but if we are going to let 12 year olds be admins, can we at least set some ground rules? Its bad enough we have MFD's where people obviously don't read what they vote to delete. -Stevertigo 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I think you got lost on your way to DRV and I'm considerably older then 12. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Its not a DRV issue at this point. It's about you, your pre-emptive/interrupting/disrupting action, and your non-responsiveness - such that might demonstrate the need for people to be at least.. <this high>.. to be an admin. 14 maybe? -Stevertigo 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) That was the most inappropriate comment I have read in a long time. You should really think before you speak, Steve. — neuro(talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Well, if he hadn't acted out of line, he wouldn't be in tears right now. -Stevertigo 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Wasn't this just being discussed above? In other words, it wasn't necessarily out of line. I would suggest some striking on the inappropriate comments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Where is this discussed above? And how is this above discussion somehow a validation of the appropriateness of nullifying another discussion? -Stevertigo 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The correct venue to discuss the close of a deletion discussion is DRV. ANI is for drama and since you decided to preemptovely reverse my first close without the courtesy of even telling me on talk page I would suggest that you would do well to look at your own contribution to harmony and promoting good faith. Where are you getting the nonsense about my age from? I',m not crying, I'm not upset and I'm not a teenager. You make yourself look stupid carrying on like this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1) (Was added to above comment, but preempted by conflict): You can of course redeem yourself by just doing as I requested - what I shouldn't have had to request in the first place. 2) You had early closed the MFD just as I was posting my comment there. I did not need to inform you on your talk page - I noted my reasons in the comment line. 3) "harmony and good faith" - don't premptively close things and you will also be a contributor to these.-Stevertigo 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Or, you could have saved us said drama by not creating such a piss-poor article that you knew would never have made its way into mainspace in the first place. I fail to see how your actions today can be described as anything but trolling. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) "A piss-poor article" it is not. It is a non-BLP, draft, in my userspace. And I fail to see how wanting to make at least one comment on the MFD before it getting deleted is "trolling," or how what your doing now can be anything but. -Stevertigo 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) You must be kidding me. A partisan in an MfD? Now I've heard it all. — neuro(talk) 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Well you did make a comment there did you not? Hence, why pretend to be neutral here, such that would give you standing to close this thread also? -Stevertigo 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) All I see is you acting like a total dick, Stevertigo. I'm closing this thread before you do something stupid to get yourself blocked. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) That comment means I just reversed your thread closing, and you got yourself your own ANI section. -Stevertigo 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) well, technically he got himself his own subsection. just saying. Syrthiss (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) To throw off a quick reply to Steve, at no point have I pretended to be neutral. You might want to check on your use of the word 'partisan'. — neuro(talk) 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Good. Then the point of all of this is: Don't close threads while they are still running, for whatever reason. This is a principle that goes way back to the beginning of talk pages: Don't alter other people's comments, and don't try to derail discussions by being a troll or a process dick. -Stevertigo 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC) User:Tanthalas39 User:Tanthalas39 wrote: "All I see is you acting like a total dick, Stevertigo. I'm closing this thread before you do something stupid to get yourself blocked." - Violates WP:DBAD and maybe also WP:NPA. -Stevertigo 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) See meta:Don't be a dick. lifebaka++ 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) User:Stevertigo wrote: "if we are going to let 12 year olds be admins, can we at least set some ground rules?" - Violates WP:DBAD and maybe also WP:NPA. — neuro(talk) 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Lol. You've got to be fucking kidding me. Tan | 39 15:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (ec)You mean the "Telling someone “Don't be a dick” is usually a dick-move" part? The key there Steve is that it says "usually"; it doesn't say "always". You're in a hole, bud. Stop digging. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) No, telling someone not to violate DBAD is not the same as what Tanthalas said, which was to call me a "total dick." I of course am doing my best to refrain from using similar language. -Stevertigo 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Man, just drop it and walk away. DRV the MfD close if you feel like it, but continuing here isn't gonna' make anything good happen for anyone. lifebaka++ 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Don't get your threads confused. This one is about Tanthalas' foul NPA-violating mouth.-Stevertigo 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) If this fucking thread is about my fucking mouth, you've been fucking misinformed that Wikipedia is somehow fucking censored. Get over it. Tan | 39 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Keep talking. -Stevertigo 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Will somebody please collapse this mess? — neuro(talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Why? It's almost an Arbcom case. -Stevertigo 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRV

As there is no appetite to resolve this here, I've filed a DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism. It might be helpfull if some kind soul does the temporary restore jazz, to help those without magic powers to see for themselves what was and was not on this page and why it needed to be spirited away into the night with such haste and accrimony. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest against the temp restore, simply due to the number of people already shouting BLP. I am happy to email the code from the last version upon request, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest

This was intended to be a "This user is doing something really and obviously inappropriate in an area subject to special sanctions for violating BLP" thread that needed no explanation. But obviously BLP doesn't apply to the President of the United States! To be honest, I'm extremely dismayed at people even considering covering these claims. Our legal counsel will be crying himself to sleep again... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war/COI on WDTW-FM

User:Joemama993 has repeatedly been adding a list of former airstaff to WDTW-FM, claiming his own experience with the station as a "source." Despite being told several times that such editing is unacceptable, he has continued. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Joemama993 has edit-warred on articles. He previously continually added broadcast schedules to the pages, in clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR and after being repeatedly told so, until he was blocked. It finally took a stern warning from myself to get through to him on that. Joemama993 obviously, though, has a problem with edit-warring that needs to be addressed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at this and I'm rather dismayed at the messages Neutralhomer and TenPoundHammer have left for this guy, nobody has taken the time out to explain, in clear, calm language, what the problem is, Neutralhomer has threatened to start reporting Joemama993 for vandalism if he adds in a list of former presenters, which isn't in keeping with our policies here on vandalism, whereby we don't label editors trying to improve the project as vandals, no matter quite how bad their editing may be. TenPoundHammer is more diplomatic, but goes on about the user potentially pulling usernames out of his ass, which to my mind, isn't helpful either as it's tantamount to accusing the guy of making stuff up and adding it to Wikipedia. The impression I get, when I read the warnings left for this chap, is that someone has come in, messed up and they're getting a telling off, there's no real impression of the guy being given good quality, friendly advice and being welcomed to Wikipedia - the fact he's still making the same errors whilst putting in what looks to be a considerable amount of time, would suggest he doesn't understand what the problem is with his edits (as indeed, does his edit summaries). If there's a reoccurrence of these edits, I would strongly urge someone to leave some friendly advice rather than some more warnings, explaining more fully what the problem is with the unsourced edits. Nick (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Joemama993 had previously gotten several very calm notices from another user, an admin, and disregarded them and continued to add schedules in clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR. My warning was meant to be as stern as I possibly could be as an regular editor and it worked. User:Joemama993 has stopped adding schedules to pages. Sometimes people need a good stern warning (a verbal kick in the ass if you will) to set them straight. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

Resolved

AFD closed as keep by Nick. Cheers, I'^mperator 00:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)‎ out of its misery, or at least keep an eye on it? There's only one way it's going to go, and the discussion is starting to veer over the thin line separating "strong discussion" from "crazy". – iridescent 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed as keep - just after I finished adding sources to Watford Gap to make sure it's not deleted! --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The return of Mavis789

Having been previously blocked for the same offence, User:Mavis789 has returned and picked up where she left off [16]. Surely a permanant block is required? Dale 00:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

'Permanent blocks' do not exist, and assuming you are talking about an indef, I would say that that would be a bit over the top at this point in time. I'd rather see more focused attempts to discuss the issue with the user -- perhaps such a thing has already occurred, but if so I am missing it. — neuro^(talk) 06:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSN was closed for this reason — a tendency to aim for excessively long bans when a shorter one would do. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jim Fitzgerald and copyright violations

User:Jim Fitzgerald has committed several copyright violations, and refuses to acknowledge any issue with his behavior, much less correct it.

• In one case, he basically copied an entire paragraph from a news story into two articles, with hardly any change of phrasing, passing it off as his own (not a quote or anything): [17], [18]. Compare to source here.
• In another issue, he copied a block of text, again, basically verbatim, into a talk page, as his own text - not a quote, without credit - [19], compare to source here. I told him, in our discussion on that talk page, that this is wrong ([20]), but he refused to listen.

I've warned him on his own talk page - [21], but he refuses to acknowledge any wrong-doing on his part. His talk page has another, unrelated, copyright violation warning (I haven't checked it). Please deal with this user. Maybe he'll listen to an administrator.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, he doesn't understand image copyright either (not that I'm an expert, but he's uploaded screenshots - which can be used "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", and then put them in a gallery at Kin-dza-dza! with no attempt to discuss them. I'll also point him to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm "the Israeli Education Ministry's budget for special assistance to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds severely discriminates against Arabs." (my strike) does look rather too long a phrase to include. I'm sure I've read somewhere that six words is often treated as the notional limit on unacknowledged quotations.

Having said that, I'm hopeful that things will resolve themselves. When I raised am issue with Jim previously, he thought about my comments and then undid his original edit. Maybe the fact that you two are involved in a content dispute at the same article makes it more difficult. However, I would suggest explicitly indicating the problem phrases on the talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's way worse than that. That entire edit is a particularly poor close paraphrasing of the source (see, for instance, "The Ministry published town-by-town data...", or "..institutionalized budgetary..."). And, of course, the entire paragraph he copied into a talk page, which wasn't even really paraphrased, but without any attribution etc. I saw zero willingness to cooperate, so I'm not hopeful. It would help to have someone discuss this with him, as he simply chose to attack me instead of listening. okedem (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

IP troll harrasing Israeli editors

86.157.70.95 (talk · contribs) has decided to question User:Ynhockey (an admin) and User:Jaakobou whether any of them took part in Operation Defensive Shield, "carried weapons in that geographical area, or have any family members, or close acquaintances, carried weapons in the area or trained to carry weapons potentially to be used in this area." IP's curiosity is based on, according to him, the potential conflict of interested in editing the article. In case the trollness isn't clear at first glance, IP hasn't asked any of the other editors inline with his POV is they were connected to the area. Suggest blocking for a week. Looks like some banned/blocked editor who found a new IP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've done exactly what I should do according to the Book of Rules, ask the individuals concerned whether they have a conflict of interest. If there are other editors who may have a conflict of interest, naturally they should be asked too. I am not a banned editor. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit was to WP:RSN, the second edit to WP:ANI,...........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to RSN after seeing an entry in talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Recent where there would seem to be simple bigotry against an Egyptian newspaper. That led to me to Operation Defensive Shield, where it was obvious that questions needed asking. Brewcrewer told me it was vandalism, I found that the Conflict of Interest policy instructs me to do exactly what I'd done, ie ask the individuals. I used to edit under my real identity until I lost my password - I don't think I'd ever been banned or blocked for anything. If I've done anything wrong, then please tell me how I should do it correctly. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been having some odd behavior on said ODS article. Another IP (209.6.238.201 (talk · contribs)) reintroduced an old article version, which hasn't seen article daylight since 2007, 5 times[22][23][24][25][26] and then asked a second editor (Tiamut) to edit war for them,[27] which the second editor did[28] despite being recently warned for just that type of behavior.[29][30] Tiamut went on to remove long-standing content from the article with a, seemingly, mocking edit-summary.[31] The IP continues, while this issue is being unattended, to revert and remove information about "nine terror attacks between March 2-5".[32]

The original version edit-warred into the article by the IP, btw, was introduced by two banned troublesome editors. The two editors are seemingly mimicked by the two new IPs as both were (a) fighting for the same problematic version, as well as (b) both repeatedly asked "COI" queries in which they suggested I was some type of war criminal. One of them, PalestineRemembered, kept asking these "questions" -- e.g. We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes")[33] -- even after he was admitted under forced mentorship. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) +++clarify 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I also ask admins to take a look at the related ANI section on this subject closed earlier by User:Sandstein (and then recently archived for some odd reason)? I feel as though there is an attempt obfuscate the issues here. Some editors are simply reverting text without discussion. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, the two editors that you think are banned are in fact neither banned from Wikipedia or currently under an ARBPIA topic ban. If that is your reason for opposing the edits you need to come up with a better one. nableezy - 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Attempted outing?

This was raised at the fringe board. At User talk:Momusufan Xellas (talk · contribs) is accusing Paul H (talk · contribs) of being a fringe Atlantis researcher named Robert Sarmast. Now I know Paul H and can assure everyone he isn't Robert Sarmast. I know Sarmast's username (he explained who he was to me in an email, and did it in a way that makes me pretty sure he doesn't mind others knowing, but I'm not sure of the etiquette here), and he hasn't edited under that username for quite a while in any case. Xellas has been blocked before for edit warring on Location hypotheses of Atlantis. If I didn't know one of the editors I'd probably have blocked Xellas again for PAs and attempted outing, even though he's all wrong on that. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Dougweller. Please be aware that with an incident like this, policy is to not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information, or mention the personal information that was given (only a diff is necessary). This is so we can effectively purge the personal information. I think Xellas was probably unaware of the policy regarding posting personal information, and it was purely speculative, so I'm going to give him just a stern warning if no one objects. What he did is grounds for a block, but I don't think that would help the situation (blocks are preventative, not punitive). Thanks again. Evil saltine (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That did come out pretty patronizing, didn't it. Sorry about that, I forgot this is an admin board. Evil saltine (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Xellas has posted this in more than one place, and I don't and didn't think what I wrote would cause a problem for any innocent editors. He needs warning about the PAs as well as the outing issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

86.9.139.98

This account seems to exist only to edit the Lincoln disam page and quarrel with consensus Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So far the IP has only risen to the level of minor snarkiness, and I've left a "cease and desist" request on the talk page. I don't think any sort of formal warning is called for at this point. Looie496 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RPP Backlog

Resolved

There is a bit of a backlog at WP:RPP, if an admin or two could take a look it would be greatly appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It appears to be caught-up for the moment. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV Backlog

Resolved

There is a bit of a backlog at WP:AIV, if an admin or two could take a look it would be greatly appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Caught up for the moment. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

IP troll harrasing Israeli editors

86.157.70.95 (talk · contribs) has decided to question User:Ynhockey (an admin) and User:Jaakobou whether any of them took part in Operation Defensive Shield, "carried weapons in that geographical area, or have any family members, or close acquaintances, carried weapons in the area or trained to carry weapons potentially to be used in this area." IP's curiosity is based on, according to him, the potential conflict of interested in editing the article. In case the trollness isn't clear at first glance, IP hasn't asked any of the other editors inline with his POV is they were connected to the area. Suggest blocking for a week. Looks like some banned/blocked editor who found a new IP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've done exactly what I should do according to the Book of Rules, ask the individuals concerned whether they have a conflict of interest. If there are other editors who may have a conflict of interest, naturally they should be asked too. I am not a banned editor. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit was to WP:RSN, the second edit to WP:ANI,...........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to RSN after seeing an entry in talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Recent where there would seem to be simple bigotry against an Egyptian newspaper. That led to me to Operation Defensive Shield, where it was obvious that questions needed asking. Brewcrewer told me it was vandalism, I found that the Conflict of Interest policy instructs me to do exactly what I'd done, ie ask the individuals. I used to edit under my real identity until I lost my password - I don't think I'd ever been banned or blocked for anything. If I've done anything wrong, then please tell me how I should do it correctly. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been having some odd behavior on said ODS article. Another IP (209.6.238.201 (talk · contribs)) reintroduced an old article version, which hasn't seen article daylight since 2007, 5 times[34][35][36][37][38] and then asked a second editor (Tiamut) to edit war for them,[39] which the second editor did[40] despite being recently warned for just that type of behavior.[41][42] Tiamut went on to remove long-standing content from the article with a, seemingly, mocking edit-summary.[43] The IP continues, while this issue is being unattended, to revert and remove information about "nine terror attacks between March 2-5".[44]

The original version edit-warred into the article by the IP, btw, was introduced by two banned troublesome editors. The two editors are seemingly mimicked by the two new IPs as both were (a) fighting for the same problematic version, as well as (b) both repeatedly asked "COI" queries in which they suggested I was some type of war criminal. One of them, PalestineRemembered, kept asking these "questions" -- e.g. We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes")[45] -- even after he was admitted under forced mentorship. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) +++clarify 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) +bb, 24hrs hasn't passed Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I also ask admins to take a look at the related ANI section on this subject closed earlier by User:Sandstein (and then recently archived for some odd reason)? I feel as though there is an attempt obfuscate the issues here. Some editors are simply reverting text without discussion. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, the two editors that you think are banned are in fact neither banned from Wikipedia or currently under an ARBPIA topic ban. If that is your reason for opposing the edits you need to come up with a better one. nableezy - 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire

I am echoing what Georgewilliamherbert has said and laying the ground rules. Once the protection for the page ends on September 11, any person that restores the article or replaces the redirect will be blocked at increasing increments as is standard practice for edit warring until such time that a clear consensus has emerged. Any editor who disputes these ground rules please feel free to get the blocking policy changed. If you cannot get the hint after the page being protected three times and cannot come to an agreement and cannot be mature enough to simply leave the article be, then its clear that protection is not helping. Start working together. Thank you.

Seddσn ^talk 01:13, 5 September 2009}}

This is a blanking of a Top priority and High priority article with a personal attack in it. If you look through the history, a group of five editors, Alefbe, Kurdo777, Dbachmann, Folantin, and Fullstop, have been pushing for a removal of the Persian Empire page in various ways.

The first time this was undone was by Wizardman. This was reverted by Folantin, claiming that there was consensus. The page, before her revert, reveals Dbachmann at 14:05, 15 August 2009 stating that the page should merely be renamed, R'n'B at 09:26, 21 August 2009 saying that "rather, there is a historical succession of different states within the same (or similar) territory and culture that have a clear relationship to each other" and arguing for the page to be met with a better summary style but kept. Then there is BritishWatcher at 14:33, 21 August 2009 saying that the page should not be blanked.

It is clear from the talk page that there was no consensus at the time. Afterward, myself and others, including Shoemaker's Holiday, NuclearWarfare, Xashaiar, Warrior4321, Dekimasu, etc (at least 8 in total) stating that the page should not be turned into a disambiguation page or a redirect. There have only been five editors claiming that it should be, and they are constantly edit warring and fighting against consensus. Folantin, Fullstop, and Dbachmann have a very long history of interacting and working together to push the same views on multiple pages as you can see here and on their talk pages. Alefbe has a long history of pushing his POV at various Iranian related sites and Kurdo777 is a Kurdish POV pusher with an anti-Iranian agenda that has been criticized for using sock puppets and violating our policies on content many times before. It seems clear that these users would rather edit war and attack others in order to push their POV than actually deal with consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not about content dispute. Alefbe (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Ottava's claims are clear examples of Ad hominem and should be addressed according to the Wikipedia policy (this is the only part of the dispute which is relevant to the admins). Alefbe (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava is just trolling and should be sanctioned. He has no interest in Iranian history whatsoever. He's just there to disrupt because he has a grudge against me over his failed RfA (this can be documented with evidence). The one feature members of the "cabal" he is alleging have in common is that they have all spent a lot of time contributing to articles on the history of Iran. The same cannot be said about some of Ottava's "supporters". It's time for a ban on OR for his constant violations of WP:POINT.--Folantin (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you honestly suggest that you have the right to WP:OWN a page and tag team simply because you work in an area a lot? Furthermore, you edit warred to promote this POV on a lot of pages I am involved in. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Ottava, you have a grudge against me. That's the only reason you are there. Articles are generally best edited by those with some knowledge of the subject. You have demonstrated a woeful grasp of the most basic facts of Iranian history. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN applies to groups of editors just as much as it does individuals -- even people who in your view have a "woeful grasp of the most basic facts of Iranian history" are allowed to edit there by default. Ottava and others have the same right to edit such pages as you. — neuro^(talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise stalking was allowed now. --Folantin (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a page that I have seriously edited for a long time. As can be seen, Folantin came onto the page at 15:45, 21 August 2009 and altered the title away from "Persian Empire" on a link with an edit summary (→1730s: sp. per Wikipedia article. Persia=Iran). It was reverted after Wizardman restored the Persian Empire page back to what it was. She reverted again with an attack on my understanding of 18th century history. As you can see, there is no "stalking" going on. However, Folantin does have a history of going to pages I edit and disrupting. This can be seen at Ludovico Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd been editing articles relating to Ariosto long before you turned up, e.g. [46] --Folantin (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you never showed active interest until after I was expanding the page. Making one little change is far different than attacking someone who was fixing the page. Hell, you never showed any actual active interest on that page besides some of the most minor changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have provided more than enough sources on the talk page verifying my statements there, and if Arbitrators or anyone else in high status would like to query me on my academic background and possible post-graduate classes I may have taken in the area of the topic to verify that it is not just some "random" subject for me or something I don't know about, they can feel free to email me. Most Arbitrators should already know my personal information, but I can forward more information verifying this in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No you haven't, because there's no way the following statements (a brief sample of your gaffes) can be justified: "The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD." Again: "The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." And when did the "Ottoman conquest" occur? In 1800 AD apparently: "Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD." --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided many sources verifying my claims. But ANI is not about content, it is about actions and edit warring. Please stay on topic instead of trying to derail this like you did with any discussion on the Persian Empire talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Constant page blanking and edit warring is not a content dispute. It is a major policy violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

all there is to say about this is that Ottava is trolling the page (and now forum-shopping about it), but is about to hit 3RR, which is why we have 3RR, so the problem is going to take care of itself. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why would redirecting the article Persian Empire to an article on the "first" Persian Empire make sense? And secondly, why was the edit summary "reverting unproductive edit from unproductive editor" used? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Clear evidence of Ottava's trolling. When I pointed out the use of "Persian Empire" in the current version of Encylopaedia Britannica, he stated, "Britannica is not a reliable source. It is a tertiary source. We use secondary sources." [47]. A few days later he started a section discussing how he was going to use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source. So the up-to-date Britannica and Encyclopaedia Iranica (dismissed by Ottava as "not a reliable source") are irrelevant, but a 100-year-old work is worthy of consideration? Ottava doesn't actually care what he says. He just wants to create drama and get his way no matter how much time he wastes.--Folantin (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• The 1911 source was used to point out a pre-modern source. There is a major difference from using an old source to show how the term used to be used extended back into history and a modern source in order to claim how the source -only- should be used. Furthermore, why do you keep trying to dodge from the edit warring aspect and the lack of consensus for your version while edit warring to keep it in? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of OR's grudge against me. Significantly his very first edit to Talk:Persian Empire was to accuse me of "disruption" (even though I've edited at least a dozen articles on Iranian history) and call for me to be banned [48]: "However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Wikipedia to put a page in place". This is clear violation of WP:TALK, yet it is a threat Ottava will repeat many, many other times in the course of the debate. (of course, he's made worse threats during the course of the same debate, some of which have ended up on ANI [49]). --Folantin (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we not consider the reversion of an Arbitrator in good standing, Wizardman, as disruptive when he makes it clear that there was no justification for a large scale blanking of a page on the talk page? Folantin, it is clear that your behavior was highly inappropriate and no amount of deflections or the rest can hide from that. You edit warred a vandalistic act against an Arbitrator in good standing without even having the decency to try and talk about it first. That is highly inappropriate conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually understand Wikipedia? Arbitrators have no more authority over content than anyone else. Wizardman was not there as part of ArbCom, he was there as a private editor. He made no contribution to the discussion on the talk page before he reverted me. I asked him to do so because the article was undergoing an overhaul [50]. I haven't edited the page itself in two weeks so your constant demands to have me "banned for edit-warring" are simply evidence of your harrassment of me. --Folantin (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is this - you can bash me all you want, but you have no grounds to claim that Wizardman was acting inappropriately. As such, you have no argument to justify your actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava -- would you please listen to me if I make a suggestion? -- When you encounter someone who disagrees with you on something, large or small, content-related or policy-related or anything else, would you please strive to treat the editor with whom you disagree with dignity, respect, and decency, in accordance with the Golden Rule and, I believe, our policies? I see you shrilly calling for various people in the last couple weeks to be banned, and in one case you threatened to call someone's school because you'd "discovered the new Essjay" -- please, please, please dial it back before something bad happens? Do you really want other people to treat you that way? Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, you are not a neutral party, so please don't pretend to be one. Your characterization as things like "shrilly" do poorly for you, as they don't represent anything close to the truth. And "threatened to call", that is a fine way of completely misrepresenting a situation. What I want is for people like you to stop violating our rules, making false accusations, and making up things simply to defend a friend. It is 100% obvious that the five listed were edit warring in a blanking of a top priority page. Your ignoring of that is telling. You and Folantin and anyone else can try and hide from the issue, but it is blatant to any objective observer. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What's blatantly obvious is that you are prepared to disrupt Wikipedia in the pursuit of your own grudges. It's obvious it's personal. Here are a selection of your comments about me: "You are a troll and you should have been banned long ago." [51]. "Folantin, I am going to call you a liar" [52]. Bizarre accusations that I am a Georgian show you are desperate to smear me with anything that comes to hand [53] [[54]--Folantin (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, are you saying that Wizardman is now under my payroll and that the page was originally created just to spite you, and that his revert was to do the same too? Once again, you are trying to hide from the fact that you are a disrupted user that edit warred on that page and that you have a history of doing that to articles at the fringe noticeboard and elsewhere. If anyone needs proof to see how badly Folantin tries to manipulate things, check the claim that I said that Folantin was a Georgia ("accusations that I am a Georgian") with the link. I never said anything about their ethnicity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(We will return to The Young and the Relentless after this commercial break)

Geez...no kidding...I honestly don't even know where to begin here. Help! --Smashville^talk 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about blocking Ottava Rima for a short period of time for personal attacks and disruptive editing? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support this based on the other events of the last 24 hours, alongside this. Jeni ^(talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Jeni. Tan | 39 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to state my opinion. And I have expressed it in a reasonable and civil manner. Are you trying to censor me? Jeni ^(talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to censor you. Perhaps censure you for jumping in to a discussion that you weren't involved in and waving your "I support a ban!" flag about an editor with who you clearly have a grudge. It's possible to be technically civil but ultimately disruptive. Tan | 39 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't suggest I have a grudge without providing evidence to back it up. Its only reasonable I notice this discussion, after all, ANI is still on my watchlist from the previous Ottava thread. This just hammers home the need for action. Jeni ^(talk) 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus has a long history of tag teaming with Folantin, which can be seen at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And the smears keep coming. --Folantin (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that he did not edit that page? Are you claiming that you two have not worked on many topics together? That you two haven't spent a lot of time at the fringe noticeboard together? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How utterly predictable. Indeed, some of Folantin's interests overlap with mine, and we've edited some of the same pages (I bet you could count the number of overlapping _articles_ on your fingers, though). Exactly how does this prevent me from forming an opinion that Ottava Rima is a tendentious editor whose personal attacks are irritating and block-worthy? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Some? You sure do have an odd definition of the word. It doesn't take much to see that glancing at most of those pages show a lot of constant backing each other up, answering for the other, etc. You aren't a neutral editor in any kind of capacity but quite the opposite. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is definitely a good one to see how neutral you are to the users here. Or this one, another fine meat puppeting. Or this, surprising how so many of the same names keep appearing. Another. I can go on. There are many wonderful ones and this hasn't even touched the noticeboards that have a lot of reinforcement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's awesome that statements like "you aren't a neutral editor in any kind of capacity but quite the opposite" and unsupported accusations of meatpuppetry aren't covered by WP:NPA. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"and unsupported accusations" I'm sorry, but those links are clearly visible for everyone to see. That means that you are lying or you failed to see what you were responding to. Either way, your comments are inappropriate and make you look very poor especially when the links show that you have acted highly inappropriately for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and now an accusation that I'm a liar. Thanks for maintaining the elevated tone of discourse around here. Pray tell, what highly inappropriate behavior are those links supposed to show, exactly?

Also, if you're going to accuse me of failing to see what I was responding to, you might want to note that I said "I bet you could count the number of overlapping _articles_ on your fingers". Now, your little "wikistalk" page might show that Folantin and I have more _articles_ in common than I thought, but I don't see how our editing of Athena, Cadmus, Orpheus, and Corinth is problematic. I'm sure you'll come up with something, though!

And I repeat, even if I share editing interests with Folantin and Dbachmann, how does that prevent me from coming to my own independent opinion that you're a tendentious editor who engages in unjustified personal attacks? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The point

The matter has been ignored: 1. the Persian Empire page is still blanked as a redirect against consensus. 2. this has been edit warred back in against consensus. 3. the page was protected many times because of this edit warring removal of the page. The five users listed above are intent on edit warring to their version no matter what and not discussing how to actually improve the page. The page is a top priority and high priority page, and overwhelming consensus is that an encyclopedia article is needed on the term. WP:VAND makes it clear that blanking is the large removal of content from an article without discussion and going against our policies. This fits and these individuals are edit warring in a vandalistic action. This must be addressed by admin. I would recommend either blocks or probation against people blanking the page under threat of a block if they do. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No the matter is your appalling behaviour once again. Since ANI is the chocolate teapot of Wikipedia noticeboards, I imagine this will end up being marked "resolved" with no action taken against you because you seem to have carte blanche to behave however you like. ("The page is a top priority and high priority page." Um ,it's been marked for clean-up and unverified claims since March. You only saw it as a "priority" once you noticed me editing there). --Folantin (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I made you, Dbachmann, and Alefbe edit war and blank a page against both consensus and our policies? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid it, a sourced article of a well known empire shouldn't be redirected. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Uninvolved editor who just noticed this) --Rockstone (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You really should have read the arguments on the talk page before you did that. The whole page is simply a content fork of History of Iran. Far from being "well sourced", it contains multiple errors. --Folantin (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Folantin's claim that this is a content fork or copy of the History of Iran page has been pointed out as 100% wrong, since it covers material from History of Afghanistan and many, many other pages that the History of Iran page does not. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: ANI is not the right place for discussing the content of pages. For that, you should go to their talk page and read arguments of others and then elaborate your justification there (before doing any drastic edit in that page). Alefbe (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Alefbe just edit warred on the page again. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflation of two issues

There are two issues we need to seperate here, because the matter is getting confused...

1. Should the article "Persian Empire" be redirected to the Acheaminid Empire, or should the old article which discusses all various empires which have occupied the area of modern Iran be there instead.
2. Has Ottava Rima engaged in personal attacks and incivility

I posit that the main problem here is that, from what I can tell by looking at the talk pages, and most importantly per WP:PRESERVE, there does not appear to be a compelling consensus for replacing the old content with a redirect, and without preserving the old content in another article. If the Persian Empire title SHOULD be a redirect, then something needs to be decided with how to handle the content that was removed in making it a redirect. Thus, the gist of Ottava Rima's objection is compelling; the redirect does appear to be a problem. AND YET, I find that Ottava Rima's behavior here is a major problem; in that this user is clearly engaging in unaccepatable personal attacks in trying to defend their position. Calling other editors names like "POV pusher" is unacceptable. In conclusion, the article should probably not be a redirect, thus I agree with Ottava Rima, and yet I find his behavior to be reprehensible in the way that the issue has been handled. --Jayron32 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The content is available elsewhere at History of Iran, Achaemenid Empire etc. etc. --Folantin (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I kinda see that. Let me change my proposal then; the Persian Empire should probably redirect to History of Iran, since THAT article is the one that covers all of the various states that have been known to history as "Persia". I think the major concern, since WP:PRESERVE does not seem to be as big of a problem as I thought, is the singling out of a single Iranian empire to be the target of the "Persian Empire" redirect. Why not just redirect the article which describes ALL empires in the area of Modern Iran, and let the reader figure out which "empire" they want. Now that I see that most of the content WAS redundant, I can see where a redirect would be a good idea, but the target appears to be a problem. --Jayron32 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Persian Empire deals with the History of Afghanistan and other pages and cannot be redirected to the History of Iran nor is the content the same. Folantin's claiming of this over and over has been proven as incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"n that this user is clearly engaging in unaccepatable personal attacks" NPA says that a personal attack is only one that does not focus on action. POV pushing by definition is an action. POV pushing is -exactly- what happened, as edit warring and blanking of pages based on a POV that is not accepted by consensus is POV pushing. Jayron, please read WP:NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NPA states clearly to comment on the content, not the person. If you feel that the content that they propose violates WP:NPOV, then state "This content violates NPOV and should not be the way it is". When you call someone a name, then you cross the line, regardless of what that name is. You will stop calling people names, which is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You can raise problems without resorting to name calling. --Jayron32 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, commenting on the person would be calling them ugly or stupid. Saying they are pushing a POV is describing an -action-, not a physical attribute. And calling someone a name? Please, there is no way you can stretch that one, as there is even a major essay about calling something exactly what it is when they are violating a rule. I think you need to refresh on your policy understanding. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering and policy wonkery. Your smears (e.g. the ludicrous allegations about my membership of Project:Georgia) are clear evidence you came to that page as part of a personal vendetta. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Ottava). Essays, even popular ones, have no bearing on the application of policy. NPA, which is policy, clearly states "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." (bolding mine). Saying User:X is a <BLANK> is never acceptable, regardless of what <BLANK> is. Just because you do not want your actions to be personal attacks does not mean they are not. Insofar as refering to other editors as "POV-pushers" will only escalate conflict, and serves no purpose except to disparge the people who hold a different opinion from you, this action is not good. Repeatedly claiming over-and-over that such behavior is perfectly OK does not make it so. --Jayron32 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, did I say essays had weight? I did not. So why would you mention such a thing? It is quite simply that NPA makes it 100% clear that it does not deal with what you claim it does. NPA requires an attack on their -non- Wikipedia self. Characterizing -any- on Wiki action is not a personal attack. To claim otherwise is so absurd that if you honestly believed the above to be true, I would ask you to risk your admin status by putting yourself up for recall and state that you believe the above to be what NPA stands for. You will be opposed so fast and removed from admin status that Wikipedia would probably be better to have one less admin with such a poor grasp of the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was getting ready to do it, but looks like Tan got to it first...the page has been protected while we settle this here. --Smashville^talk 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed: Topic ban

The page is protected again. I propose a topic ban for the editors involved in the edit-warring and most contentious elements of the discussion, for a period of one month, enforced by block if necessary. These editors are Folantin, Ottava Rima, Alefbe and Dbachmann. The pages effected are Persian Empire and Talk:Persian Empire. Unfortunately, there has been little if any progress during this extended dispute. It has been personalized to an extent that resolution is unlikely to occur with the current cast of involved editors. Nathan ^T 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the history again. There is a clear difference between my reverts and the constant tag teaming destruction of those. Furthermore, I had the vast majority of consensus behind me, and WP:VAND includes a nice section on -blanking- which says that reducing the page is vandalism. Check the Edit war page to see that reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Nathan, my revert is the same as yours, as you said: "(Reverted to revision 310386236 by John Kenney; This version has the most support; please don't remove 90% of the text of an article without advance consensus. (TW))" So, if you want to lump me in with a topic ban, you would have to lump yourself in. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have presented arguments based on my knowledge of Iranian history on the talk page with sources. I have made major contributions to most of the articles on the Safavid shahs of Iran. I have not edited the article for two weeks. Why shouldn't I be allowed to contribute to the encyclopaedia on a topic I know about and on which Ottava has demonstrated his complete incompetence? Alefbe and Dbachmann have also edited many Iranian pages. I find your suggestion a ridiculous application of the fallacy of middle ground and I don't regard you as a neutral party to this case since you have been in e-mail contact with Ottava. --Folantin (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

@Nathan: You and Dbachman have both reverted that page once. The difference is that Dbachman has been previously invloved in Iran-related pages and you haven't. Also, Dbachman has elaborated his proposal in the the talk page and has justified it (but you hadn't elaborated your justification before reverting that page). So, how do you justify your proposal? Alefbe (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've received one e-mail from both sides of the debate, and sent one short e-mail in response (not to Ottava). I have participated in the discussion, if not (in my opinion) as a party to the dispute. I don't propose the topic ban merely to prevent edit-warring - that can be accomplished by protection. The purpose of the topic ban is to separate the people for whom discussion has consistently been heated and personalized. I'm not arguing that all parties are equally culpable, making a claim on personal knowledge of the subject or determining whose expertise in this area is superior. The idea is to allow the article to be discussed and improved without inflamed and personal debate, not to punish any editor for any specific infraction. Nathan ^T 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about personal attacks, they should be addressed according to the Wikipedia policy and those who have committed that should be warned or blocked for that. Your topic ban proposal doesn't solve anything in that regard. The thing is that by looking at your proposal, it's obvious that you have listed those who have participated extensively in its talk page and you have forgotten that among those who participate in edit war, those who have elaborated their reasoning are more justified. So, among Dbachman, you, Durova, Rockstone35 and others who ahve participated in reverting the page, drastic edits of someone like Dbachman is much more justified than edits like [55] [56] and [57]. Alefbe (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The "personalisation" began with Ottava Rima, as has been clearly demonstrated. That, coupled with his extreme incompetence in Iranian history, should have been enough of a clue to admins. But, as we saw with the lack of action regarding the John Kenney incident arising from the same page, Ottava has carte blanche' to behave as he likes round here. --Folantin (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Such a topic ban is moot anyway, as the page is fully protected for a week, if these issues continue beyond that week, then perhaps its a better time to look at it. Jeni ^(talk) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not moot, as the proposal extends to the talk page, which isn't protected (and is putatively the primary way of resolving the conflict). Tan | 39 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the context of the discussion and the history of the debate, banning Nathan himself (from that topic) is much more justified than banning Dbachman. Alefbe (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In which case the protection is a better option than the topic ban, as it allows these users to try to discuss the way forward! Jeni ^(talk) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there. I was merely saying that proposed topic ban isn't "moot", as it would make a significant difference in the situation. Tan | 39 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the history so people can see who did what, when, and what fell under our policies as appropriate or not:

• 16:43, 20 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 16:02, 21 August 2009 Wizardman Restores page.
• 16:03, 21 August 2009 Folantin Deletes page.
• 20:17, 21 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page.
• 20:52, 21 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 13:42, 23 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page after getting consensus against the removal of text.
• 15:29, 23 August 2009 Fullstop Deletes page.
• 16:06, 23 August 2009 NuclearWarfare Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 17:37, 23 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 23:04, 23 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 23:12, 23 August 2009 King of Hearts Protects page.
• 07:53, 27 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page when it comes out of protection saying "The old crappy version is so full of misinformation that cannot be useful in any sense"
• 15:36, 27 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page saying "subjectivity is not a justification to commit vandalism by blanking the page"
• 18:37, 27 August 2009 Kurdo777 Deletes page and claims "cleaning up a poorly written page, is not vandalism"
• 19:22, 27 August 2009 Nathan Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 19:25, 27 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
• 19:44, 27 August 2009 Durova Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 21:06, 27 August 2009 NuclearWarfare Protects page.
• 14:40, 4 September 2009 Alefbe Deletes page as it comes out of protection.
• 14:43, 4 September 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 15:32, 4 September 2009 Dbachmann Deletes page with a personal attack as reason.
• 19:55, 4 September 2009 Rockstone35 Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
• 19:59, 4 September 2009 Alefbe Deletes page claiming that uninvolved users have no right to restore the page.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

None of this even exceeds 3RR. None of this addresses the problems with the content/duplication of content discussed at length on the talk page. --Folantin (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is not three RR. Per the page: "Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." Consensus was for keeping the page and not blanking it. The actions in destroying the consensus determine version over and over was edit warring and an act of vandalism per WP:VAND. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that the editors have formed "grudges" agaisnt each other. Even when a editor makes a valid suggestion, it will be shunned down one way or another by them, because they want only their suggestion to win. Warrior4321 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• A useful alternative to a topic ban might be a voluntary editing and discussion moratorium from the same editors; eliminates the element that seems punitive, but accomplishes the same goal of allowing the content discussion to continue unimpeded with personal disputes. An agreement like that could conclude this thread and provide some respite for these editors, if nothing else. Nathan ^T 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Or how about we impose normal consensus based restrictions in which people don't remove wholesale content from a page after 9 people have said that such actions would be inappropriate? In any normal situation, Alefbe would have been blocked multiple times along with Folantin for even daring to blank the page in such a manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, would you stop trying to make these "it's six of one and half a dozen of the other" proposals? I don't trust your judgement. ANI could have stopped this problem by cracking down on Ottava Rima after the disgraceful John Kenney incident. It chose to do nothing about him. Again. The debate was over before I and others even had a chance to take part in it [58]. --Folantin (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed two methods that both have a chance at solving the dispute over the article; neither allow one side to "win" the dispute, because that isn't the point. If you believe that there is a superior alternative, then post it with your evidence and rationale. I think you'll agree that its unlikely that anything will be resolved through talkpage discussion if the participants stay the same, so unless you prefer that state of events some change is necessary. Nathan ^T 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Because there was nothing even though you keep trying to claim their is. It is just one more event in a pattern of things you've been making up. You do realize that it is against the rules to do such, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin - I see a bunch of bad behavior, on all sides. None of you have anything to be proud of here. If this is not otherwise resolved and the edit warring on the article continues next week when the current full protection expires, I for one will willingly disruption, edit war, or personal attack block any or all of you as required to end it. None of you are currently showing the type of collaborative attitude required to actually work on a consensus solution moving forwards.

I Support the proposed one-month topic ban. At this point, if you cannot participate constructively, don't participate at all. Find another topic for the next month if you can't be civil and collaborative. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One month topic ban against whom? and based on what? Alefbe (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see this subsection's first paragraph. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that. Please see my comments after that. In particular, if you are talking about edit war, how do you justify a ban against Dbachman (while his involvement in edit war is not more than Nathan himself or users who have not elaborated their justification for their revert, such as Durova and Rockstone35). Also, if you are talking about personal attacks, how do you justify a ban against me? Alefbe (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not asserting that each of you has committed all of those offenses. I am, however, asserting that all of you are behaving unconstructively, and I support the proposed topic ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You support banning me from participating in that discussion. You should present a justification for that. You haven't presented any example of personal attacks or disruptive behavior on my part. Other than personal attacks and disruptive behaviour in talk page, what can justify banning a user from participating in a discussion? Alefbe (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is justified. The involved editors are not equally at fault, so this proposal is not equitable for them; nor is it going to result in the best outcome for the article its readers. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought we were supposed to be encyclopaedia. Punishing editors with long histories of working on Iranian history topics for, er, editing an article on Iranian history really sends out a good message. --Folantin (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Laying the ground rules

I am echoing what Georgewilliamherbert has said and laying the ground rules. Once the protection for the page ends on September 11, any person that restores the article or replaces the redirect will be blocked at increasing increments as is standard practice for edit warring until such time that a clear consensus has emerged. Any editor who disputes these ground rules please feel free to get the blocking policy changed. If you cannot get the hint after the page being protected three times and cannot come to an agreement and cannot be mature enough to simply leave the article be, then its clear that protection is not helping. Start working together. Thank you.

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:13, 5 September 2009

I don't agree with this unilateral statement. Presumably, the proposal above was a proposal--something that we're supposed to discuss, and come to some sort of consensus about. I don't think the discussion has come to a consensus yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think month long topic bans are going to work here if three weeks of protection doesnt. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The way we have for preventing changes is page protection. In this case it is not a general content dispute, but a dispute over one particular change--the redirect. Saying that after pp ends that someone will be blocked for changing back to the other version edit--the only edit in question--is extending the protection indefinitely. I can understand people get frustrated over this, but Seddon's proposal goes beyond what an admin should do. This discussion does highlight the major gap in Wikipedia procedure--our lack of a good binding way of resolving conflict disputes. Nor do I agree with the attempt to foreclose an agreed settlement by archiving the page. The discussion is not over, and I have removed the archive tags.I think placing them was premature. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, we can have a discussion on that, but I think the lack of resolution is remarkably obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC) .

This is not permanent - Seddon put it as until such time that a clear consensus has emerged which I support. If all the parties involved can agree on a mutually acceptable compromise way forwards then the issue is done and over with. If they cannot, the communities patience for this reaching ANI over and over again is reaching or at the limits of "nice doggie" and the stick is coming out... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll respect the reversion of the close and ask for one other non-involved admins opinion. I would point out that my close statement with regards to the blocking was only enforceable until a clear consensus is formed. I do not believe ANI is the best place to form a consensus on content(for countless reasons) and the recent poll (as part of an rfc) started at the talk page should be the method to resolve this. I do not see this discussion here resolving anything at this time. We should allow the parties to use the 6 days to get somewhere.

I also agre completely with your statement that This discussion does highlight the major gap in Wikipedia procedure--our lack of a good binding way of resolving conflict disputes. This is a clear weakness in our dispute resolution process and "enforcing" consensus which is subject to change is difficult. That is something that we need to address.

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus take 2

Even though there was a clear consensus of 9 people saying not to turn the page into a redirect or a disambiguated page and only 5 people saying to turn it into one, this has been ignored by all of the administrators above. Seddon, DGG, and Georgewilliamherbert, for example, do not acknowledge this. As such, I have started it all over again. If admin are willing to ignore the clear consensus that comes out of this Straw Poll (as they seemed to want to ignore the one that came out of the before polling along with a connected RfC), then I have no other recourse than to scream and pull out my hair (or really cuss a lot and send angry emails). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

what you have, rather, is the opportunity to try to prepare a sound and irrefutable argument. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It was sound and irrefutable. The case should have been open and closed with blocks against the five listed for constantly blanking a page against consensus. It seems that the admin corps really dropped the ball. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The case has been reviewed. If I were to actively intervene and treat everyone with a content-blind behavior-centric response, you'd be blocked along with them. You are pushing too hard and behaving too disruptively Ottava. Please stop doing so. You are not innocent of wrongdoing in this. We're giving everyone a breather on the topic and article by full protecting, and an extended one by taking those of you most combative in the incident out of it for another month with the article ban (maybe). The alternative is behavioral blocks which you would find yourself on the receiving end, among others.

Wikipedia uses consensus and not majority vote because we do not want situations like this where a majority feel empowered to break rules and abuse the situation because there are more of you. Consensus is getting along with the people who disagree with you - and entirely the opposite of your behavior here. Consensus, civility, not making personal attacks, and not disrupting things when you don't immediately get your way are important.

ANI is not a hammer to beat down your opponents. If you begin to try to use it like a hammer, the things it hits will not be the ones you point at, necessarily. We are assuming that the full protection and proposed topic ban will get the message across to everyone and that an outbreak of reasonableness and civil discourse will ensue. If that is not what happens, the hammer will probably come down. Your thumb is currently under the hammer, along with others'. If you feel like squashing yourself, continue the way you have been going.

Community patience nearing end. Caution. Do not proceed further. Work it out. Assume good faith and move forwards, not backwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is -never- a push too hard against clear vandalism. There -was- clear consensus and it is obvious that they -don't- want to discuss it. Did you bother to actual read the discussion and see how every time there was a chance to correct the aspects of the page they instantly reverted back to edit warring and pushing for a redirect? Those are some of the oldest ploys around. ANI is a hammer to stop edit warring, vandalism, and the destruction of this encyclopedia. When Wizardman first reverted Alefbe, it should -never- have been reverted back by Folantin. None of the edit warring should have happened, and Wizardman or any of the other administrators should have handed out blocks from the very beginning against anyone even thinking about blanking that page. I am quite confident that if this went to ArbCom, there would be clear evidence that I had consensus for my actions and that the five listed above went out of their way to troll and vandalise the page simply because they could not stand that they did not "win". That is a severe abuse of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, ANI fails. A clear case of stalking and nothing is done about it. Ottava's comments (e.g. "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less") show he has no knowledge of even the most basic facts of the subject but is just there to troll. This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social networking site. --Folantin (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Folantin - Please see my comments to Ottava. These apply equally much to you. Either stop doing anything near each other, or work within the policy and community standards to cooperate, get along and treat each other with respect, etc. Continuing to fire salvos back and forth on ANI is not appropriate at this time unless you are seeking to be blocked for the weekend.

The combined lot of you have about exhausted my patience and I believe I speak for the community here (though others can refute and comment, of course). I am at this point fully prepared to end the sniping with blocks if the collective "you all" cannot act in an adult, responsible, constructive, and respectful manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tried avoiding this guy since his RFA in April. I've presented clear evidence of his stalking. This place is a joke. --Folantin (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Many, if not all, uninvolved administrators are now acutely and painfully aware of what everyone involved is doing. You have stated that you feel he's stalking. You do not need to say that again. You do not need to call him a troll, period, and should not have in the first place. Insulting Wikipedia as a whole ("This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social networking site.") and the administrator community ("This place is a joke.") in the process of continuing to push Ottava's buttons and visa versa is not a good long term Wikipedia survival strategy, either.

If you believe that any of your behavior here was a good thing, I suggest to you that your judgement is impaired by the stress of the situation, and that you may want to walk away for a bit and come back when you are feeling better about it and can work more constructively to avoid unnecessary conflict.

As I said several times above - this uninvolved administrator has seen about as many buttons pushed in this series of incidents as he is willing to tolerate without starting to block people. If you stand up and start pushing buttons after several explicit warnings along those lines - what exactly do you expect to happen next, and why are you doing that?

Perhaps this needs more uninvolved admin mediation on specific talk pages or some such. But what it does not need is any more disruptive incivility, personal attacks, insults, and assumptions of bad faith. Stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to end the conversation here then the correct procedure is to mark this as "Resolved", not to threaten all and sundry with blocks on no rationale but your own patience. I suggest you do this. (ANI is not the "administrator community" as a whole. Most of the decent admins I know are disgusted at its ineffectiveness. With good reaon. Plus, I can say what I like about Wikipedia. I've been here long enough to know this place has been going down the sink over the past year or so. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia based on accurate content. Clearly, it isn't). Now you can mark this as "Resolved". --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Update: Whatever the case, I'm done here. I will be taking no further part in this ANI thread. (The failure of admins here to do anything about the attacks on the completely uninvolved User:Akhilleus is duly noted). --Folantin (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A 9/5 ratio is much too marginal to be used as a consensus for a controversial decision. And ottava rima doesn't seem to have read up on WP:VANDAL: "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW".·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

64% support of the original page is not enough to keep it from becoming a redirect? Maunus, there is no possible way to make such a claim as that. You are either wrong, and you will strike, or you are just making things up. And blanking a page from 60k to a redirect is -not- a content dispute. It is a bulk removal of information. WP:VAND has a section on "blanking" which you need to read. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting is not blanking - and 64% is barely a majority, and by no means a consensus. I have participated in enough redirect discussions to know that even 10 to 2 is not necessarily a consensus. Consensus is based on arguments not numbers.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Blanking is the wholesale removal of text. To claim that redirecting a 60k page is not blanking is so absurd that words cannot describe it. To claim that 64% is a "bare majority", when people pass RfA with consensus on that is so unbelievably absurd that it takes all of AGF to assume that your comments above are not intended to be purely disruptive. There is -no- possible way for someone to make such claims honestly. There was no argument that could override the community's opinion there that the page had to stay. There is no way to claim there was. The fact that you would even attempt to suggest that there was and rationalize such inappropriate blanking is so awful that I will be sure to list you as a named party when this goes to RfAr just so ArbCom can analyze how absurd your comments are and hopefully keep you from ever having the power to enforce them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note how my single comment above has prompted Ottava to hound me on my talk page and threaten to have me desysopped, merely for disagreeing with him, this clearly doesn't speak in his favour. I would second a topic ban in his case, if not a complete ban for disruption.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement? No, it is because you have stated comments that are 100% against our wikipedia policies and completely dangerous. You claim that we did not try to include them. Did you even read the talk page? There is no way to change their mind when they keep edit warring in a deletion of the page. That is 100% pure vandalism. Your lack of recognizing that would suggest that you are either unfit to be an admin or your account is compromised. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lets make one thing clear - Jimbo Wales started this whole system in order to make an encyclopedia. It is our job as participants here to do whatever it takes to build and maintain an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not some whore that we can use, abuse, and toss to the side. It is unacceptable for any member who is honestly here to build the encyclopedia to allow for a top priority page that deals with a notable term that has appeared in hundreds of thousands of sources and documents to simply just vanish because a tiny minority of people simply do not like the content of the page. Not only would such a thing violate just about every single one of our policies, it turns Wikipedia into an utter laughing stock. Admin at Wikipedia are obligated to stand up for Wikipedia's policies, and any admin not fighting to protect this encyclopedia does not deserve the term or the title. Any user who does not want to protect the content at Wikipedia is at the wrong place. As one of the most prolific content editors, I have put thousands of hours, thousands of my own dollars, and incredible effort into building this encyclopedia. There are many people just like me that want to make this something worth while. We accept Jimbo's desire to make Wikipedia great. We do our damnedest to ensure that these peoples are excellent. It is a shameful to see so many people just passively allow any tiny group of people free reign to destroy this place. This is not some obscure topic. This is not some tiny store, some obscure faculty member, some song no one heard of, or anything even close. This is one of the most important historic terms. I am sure that every single person here would probably have some page that if they saw an IP address turn it into a redirect because they claim "it sucks", they would revert it on the spot as vandalism. And yet no one, not one person, has had the guts to defend this Wikipedia by blocking five vandals that are dead set on destroying this place and making it known that Wikipedia is not a place for games, not a place to push some wacko POV, not some whore to be treated like shit. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take off the Spider-Man costume. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree! Singularity42 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Polite suggestion

"It's not what you do. It's the way you do it." - Mae West

Take it from someone who's seen a lot of arbitration cases; this dispute is currently inching toward RFAR. If it goes there that will not be fun. To both sides of the current dispute: even if you're 100% right about the content issue (which of course you are), that won't weigh at arbitration. It'll be the slow edit warring and sniping that the case would examine. The case will waste weeks or months of your life, guaranteed, and you may end up sanctioned as a result of it. There are better ways to resolve the matter.

1. Find a mediator, dig up sources, and pretend that the absolute euphemism on the other side of the dispute is a reasonable person. If you're right and they're really expletives deleted then they will show their colors and your own graceful reasonableness will reflect well on you. If they aren't quite so bad then maybe you'll actually reach agreement.
2. Walk away from the dispute. Let the article be wrong for a while. Most of the public does realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Weeks or months from now, once tempers have settled down, it'll be easier to resolve things then. This is far less burdensome than squandering the same weeks or months on arbitration.

Sincerely, Durova³¹¹ 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Endorse that... --Jayron32 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Me too Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jspearmint

I have blocked User:Jspearmintfor creating at least three hoax articles which I have nommed for deletion, Letchworth Corset Riot, Garden City (album) and Sebastian Openshaw, and inserting text in other articles which I am still rooting out (I just got done with Spirella Building. This seems to be a sophisticated series of hoaxes that may require action from admins at Commons as well. However, as a first step, could someone check my work and either endorse my block or no? I fear that since I have made the noms, it could be argued I should not also have blocked. I feel, though, a block without warning was needed to avoid further subtle damage to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not unreasonable. If he requests unblock I would offer a {{2nd chance}}. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't; I've already caught another of his usernames, User:Deliciouscakes, that had done the same thing earlier. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit concerned that we didn't unblock him, if he is really super cool like he says. Perhaps we should reduce it from indef to 200 years? And insist only that he serve as much of it as he can.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The indef block seems especially well-deserved. When WP starts to fill up with fake information, our days are numbered. His deleted contributions show that he has been contributing hoax material since 2005. He seems to consider this amusing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the real shame here is that if's working alone, that's he a really good writer and it's a shame he's wasting our time and his with this nonsense. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I told him that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with an unresponsive IP editor at List of Bakugan: New Vestroia episodes

For the last month or so, I've been having a problem with the IP editor 24.80.121.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at List of Bakugan: New Vestroia episodes. Despite repeated warnings not to do so, the editor keeps adding summaries for unaired episode which cannot be verified. The editor has repeatedly failed to engage in any discussion (Talk:List of Bakugan: New Vestroia episodes#Episode summaries) and repeatedly removes an editorial note about not to add a summary for unaired episodes, sometimes doing so preemptively.[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] What makes this situation more complicated is that the editor only edits about once a week when the episode list needs updating. If the editor could at least acknowledge the issue, then we would be able to work things out, but the editor has been completely unresponsive. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackbooted Thug

On July 12, 2007 User:MatthewSMaynard made Jackbooted Thug, and made it a redirect to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, diff. Thanks to the alertness of User:IvoShandor, I was made aware of this and have changed it to a redirect to Thug for now. I checked the 3 most recent months for hits on this title. The most were 27 in June 2009, while July and August had only 11 and 12 hits each.

My initial thought was just to delete the page altogether, but I thought I would wait and ask here for consensus. It does not get a lot of hits, but it does get some, so perhaps it should stay as a (protected?) redirect.

I am also wondering what sort of actions beyond a warning (if any) should be taken with regards to User:MatthewSMaynard. After I post this I intend to leave a note on his talk page directing him here. A quick check of his recent contributions shows he is not very active. I have not gone through all of his contributions to look for more nonsense like this, or his talk page history to see if he has received warnings.

Your thoughts? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The user ID was created almost exactly 4 years ago. The "jackbooted thug" redirect was created in summer of 2007, as you noted, so a warning about it seems a tad late. The user has had a grand total of 2 edits in 2009, so either he's mostly editing under a different user, or is just an occasional drive-by. He's obviously a gun lover, which his latest edit indicates, and hence I don't think it's a compromised account. But it bears watching. A warning at this point would be a more generic warning to watch out for POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a valid redirect using a valid search term. In the firearms community, the BATFE is almost exclusively referred to as a group of jackbooted thugs. This is a notable term as its use in a fundraising letter from the NRA caused President George H.W. Bush to resign his membership in that organization. Why does the redirect so trouble you? L0b0t (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a POV-pushing term. Can you demonstrate that its origin and sole usage is by the NRA? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec w/ Bugs) There's likely an article to be had on this. Meanwhile, if sources can be found to support the redirect and the article itself notes the term, it can stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just checked and neither the word "jackboot" nor the word "thug" appears in the current version of the ATF article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To put the jackboot on the other foot, how about if we create a redirect for Redneck gun-freak to National Rifle Association? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, if the sources are to be had, which is to say, if the term has become widely noted as popular jargon for members of the NRA (or whatever), it can be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point of the "Neutrality of redirects" section at WP:REDIRECT, but at some point there is a line drawn between non-neutral terms to direct users to article and outright pejorative attacks. "Jackbooted thugs" doesn't seem to be specific enough to any one group or movement, it is more commonly used to refer to any group, government, organization, etc...perceived as heavy-handed or oppressive. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sources would at least need to show that such a term was widely used/noted in published coverage of the topic to which it was redirected, such as Dittohead. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Bugs, your redirect sounds fine too except for the obvious fact that most NRA members are not southern or even English farmers in Southern Africa (redneck comes to us from rooinek, a Boer slur against the English) Having several friends & family members who are FFL holders, I can assure you that the BATFE (esp. in the 70s-80s) acted like stormtroopers, showing up at one's house in the wee small hours, handcuffing license holders to chairs while agents conducted inventories of license holder's firearms. This situation got so bad that Reagan made a campaign promise to do away with the BATFE (he broke his word). Then in 1995 (IIRCC), Wayne LaPierre sent out a letter in which he referred to BATFE agents as "Jackbooted government thugs." Now, as far as I an tell, the term jackbooted thugs has been used since (at least) the 1960s to refer to oppressive appendages of officialdom so the term itself could use a discrete article or at the very least a mention in BATFE, Thug, Jackboot, etc. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The incident is actually already covered at Jackboot so I will change the redirect to point to that article. L0b0t (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To redirect such an obviously biased and inflammatory term to a government agency is nakedly obvious POV-pushing. Some of us consider the NRA itself to be the "jackbooted thugs", but that's another story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could balance things out out redirecting Floyd R. Turbo to the NRA. PhGustaf (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Freakin' A, Bubba. I was also thinking maybe we should redirect "Treason" to "Confederate States of America". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to redirect Open Dates in October to Wrigley Field. --Smashville^talk 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is fair and proper to create helpful redirects to perpetuate rhetorical hyperbole, there are a number of helpful lists out there: List of ethnic group names used as insults, List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity, List of religious slurs, etc. The subject redirect may be entertaining in some sense, but really, should WP be selling woof tickets? Steveozone (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Man. I was all like, "what the hell is a woof ticket?" when damned if woof ticket isn't a blue link. Obviously there are gaps in my education. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, thar be some gems out there. If you didn't know it, but get it having read it (before writing it), ain't Wikipedia grand? [ ;-) ] Steveozone (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole episode is pretty silly. A quick Google News Archive search will show the RS references to the term from 1995, even if the memories of many here may not extend back that far. L0b0t's quite correct: it was a notable incident that should be covered somewhere, although covering it in Jackboot, as opposed to the NRA and/or ATF articles seems counterintuitive. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point out for those who are not members of the US gun/anti-gun lobbies - jackbooted thugs in most of Europe is/was a term used to describe German soldiers/the German army in both world wars (jackboots being worn by the German army in both WWs, and thugs relating to such behaviours as the shooting of Edith Cavell, which didn't go down too well). This is the reason the term 'jackbooted' is offensive in the first place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'd say only in the US will 'jackbooted thugs' make people think of the NRA/ATF whatever. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The redirect to Jackboot seems absolutely the right one to me, and the article, as well as discussing the article of footwear, should (as it does) cover the social and cultural references which have gathered around it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I find it hard to believe that anyone would defend the original redirect when it is such obvious POV pushing, nice work on this one everyone.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

(I apologize for the long post, but this is a six-month long problem and I just don't know how to explain the issue properly in less words.)
This whole matter is getting out of hand. I recently "dared" to enter a talkpage dispute with User:Imbris on Talk:Hey, Slavs [70], and now I'm a victim of stalking and disruptive behavior. After I initiated the discussion on Talk:Hey Slavs, I've been unable to work on anything. I've been followed around to an increasing number of articles yesterday (SR Croatia, Template:Infobox SFRY, Independent State of Croatia, Template:History of Croatia) and all my edits were reverted and I've been forced to start long ridiculous discussions over such nonsense as the color of a template. User:Imbris believes I am on some "sinister agenda", and perceives any edit of mine as "communist propaganda" (non-nationalists are often called "communists" in the Balkans), no matter how silly and meaningless.

The main focus of all this is the small and insignificant Hey, Slavs article, on which for almost six months continuously four or more users were trying their best to convince User:Imbris his new disputed edits are factually incorrect. RfCs were called, to no response, which prompted us to request informal mediation. User:Dottydotdot got involved and after a while recommended that Imbris' edits be mostly removed. However, he then proceeded to ignore the decisions of the informal mediation (and the opinions of virtually all other involved users) on the grounds that "not all other WP:DR steps were taken", and that this supposedly invalidates the mediation :P. Everything proceeded as usual until finally everyone else got bored and frustrated and more-or-less gave in to User:Imbris' demands. Now I plunged in again in the hopes of ending this once and for all. I got Wikihounded on everything else I do. I am completely unable to contribute, as all my edits are now "opposed" on the ground they are "communist".

It is important to understand that User:Imbris never, ever agrees to any proposal. If you prove him wrong on one point, he will cook-up another reason to oppose everything that's done. (On Talk:SR Croatia the issue was first WP:NAME, now its "fabrication of information" by use of WP:NAME). One is almost frightened of him ever "joining in" as you know it will not end for months, and you will be unable to do any work on the article. You literally have to be "careful not to cross him".

Long, long story short, we seriously need someone who can decide on this and enforce the decision on these articles. Its been bloody six months already :P. I also feel that the behavior of User:Imbris is deliberately disruptive, stalking, and highly detrimental to article quality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• To at least prevent further pointless revert-warring on Hey, Slavs, I have fully protected the article - the 3rd time this has been necessary in recent months. This is clearly a deeper issue, though, and there is clear evidence of following edits here. (Edit): However, this is ridiculous - an edit war (in which both yourself and Imbris both broke 3RR) over the colour of an infobox? Oh, please. Black Kite 09:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking doesn't really help - the damn article will have to be unblocked eventually. I think we need serious involvement on the part of one of you guys... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in regards to Template:Infobox SFRY, both red and blue look very nice. But I personally might have blue instead of red. Is anyone willing to argue that red is actually a better color for the template?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And just in case anyone was thinking about changing the infobox to a different color, I think we can safely say that it won't look good in orange (and possibly not in yellow either).--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I previewed the template with some colors and yellow looks worse. Green is not bad. You know, I did say to keep the infobox as blue earlier but purple looks actually pretty good for the infobox. Anyone agree?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a black template would be great --Notedgrant (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, black is a bit too plain for me. I still say blue (like it is) or purple. But that could just be my opinion.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, every time I see DIREKTOR's name pop up on pages I watch, there's usually someone there accusing him of being a communist. One new user went so far as to post on Jimbo's page complaining that DIREKTOR was using Wikipedia to spread communist propoganda. AniMate^draw 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, except that I honestly am against communism. :P Fervently so. Not that I think "communism is not allowed on Wikipedia" as some of those guys seem to think, its just my position: I am not a communist. Like I said, in ex-Yugoslavia if you're not a nationalist you must be a communist (or a Serb, if you're Croatian :).

That stupid color dispute is the perfect example: its an infobox about a subdivision of a socialist state. The subdivision map is red, the flags are predominantly red, and the insignia is full of red stars and such (some subdivision flags are altogether red). So ten months ago I changed the color to socialist red (among other edits) - I was trying to improve the template, Now its "non-consensus communist propaganda". I also fixed up the black and gray on Template:Nazism sidebar and Template:Fascism sidebar - was that Nazi propaganda? I feel like I'm Flora and Imbris is Merryweather from the Sleeping Beauty... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw AniMate, that post on Jimbo's page was by User:Formyopinion. Its an account created about a month ago. The new user's interests include: accusing me of communist POV-pushing on User talk:Jimbo Wales,... and that's about it :P [71]. Its a sock of some guy I reported trying to get back at me - I get that all the time. The "people" accusing me of communist propaganda are likely one guy trying to get me banned :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I perhaps wasn't verbose enough in my post. I saw that post as part of the campaign of harassment you were describing, not as legitimate. My advice is to file a checkuser to see if these are connected. Hmmm, now I remember why I refuse to edit articles in this area again. Good times. AniMate^draw 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't know how to proceed? Do I go through WP:DR every time I make an edit? It appears Imbris only "accepts" mediator conclusions if all previous steps of WP:DR are tried (no matter how silly it is to go get a 3O for a six-month long dispute with 5 involved Users). On Talk:Hey, Slavs#Serbo-Croatian version I proposed we both agree on mediation and adhere to the results regardless of what they may be. That was September 2nd. The proposal was completely ignored. I then asked the guy about that five more times during the past three days. I also posted the question on his talk [72], and I even posted a note in the talkpage topic below [73]. Its pretty obvious he's deliberately ignoring the proposal, I can't imagine why.

Do we take all this to MEDCOM? At first I was reluctant since all this is so trivial, and it seems to me pretty obvious that Imbris is opposing all these Users out of little more than spite. After a while, though, I was desperate enough to suggest it, but Imbris then declared he "won't accept" MEDCOM mediation for some reason... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note advocating mediation on his talk page. If he declines, I suggest you come back here with a series of diffs. The picture you painted in your first post is pretty broad, and specifics are needed for any type of action to be taken. AniMate^draw 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Malke 2010

A while back, I blocked this editor for persistent disruptive editing. He was given a second chance by another admin, which is fair enough. However earlier today, in response to a note on my talkpage, I dropped a note onto this user's talkpage warning about various incivil postings he had been making - the diffs are on the conversation at User_talk:Malke_2010#Your_edits. The editor refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem, instead making vague accusations about the behaviour of other editors - though despite me asking a number of times for diffs, he has failed to provide them (instead pasting large amounts of text onto my talkpage which were largely irrelevant). Eventually I disengaged, seeing that the user was unable to accept that they were editing problematically. His replies to my disengagement were this and this, calling myself an the other editor "toxic turds".

Other admin eyes would be welcome, not necessarily to block but to make it very clear what the problem is - as I can only see this problem recurring otherwise. Black Kite 13:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lets have another administrator look into this. Oh I certainly acknowledge that there is a problem. Black Kite is harassing me by threatening to block me because his friend Justafax has an obsession with getting me blocked from the Karl Rove page. Black Kite has an obvious bias against me and when he demanded I show him proof that Justafax was being harassing and uncivil towards me, I posted the evidence on Black Kite's talk page. He deleted it immediately. Justafax has gone to my talk page and retrieved material I deleted and then posted it on the Karl Rove discussion page. If I had done something like that, the outrage would be blinding. I don't want this Black Kite mediating any arguments or discussions regarding Justafax et al. They go to him directly, by the way. Obviously they are friends. The bias is offensive. It's a ganging up on me, and it's patently unfair. I'm sick of these ad hominem attacks. I want to see something said to them for a change. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And please, all the truly horrible things Justafax has said about me on the Karl Rove talk page has been conveniently archived, so you'll have to go back into the history and find it. He's called me a sock puppet, a joke, he's been dismissive, he acts (and I must say VsevolodKrolikov as well, act like I have no right to edit the Rove page. And please, no more applying the rules to me and not to them. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Malke did not edit wikipedia following her block until today. She didn't attempt to edit a page or find a way of working with people. Instead among her first actions were calling Jusdafax "civility cancer" and a "sick individual" who should be "banned for life" and accusing me of being a sockpuppet, an accusation which she has since repeated, and another editor, who removed her abusive posts, a "vandal". Malke has been given ample opportunity to learn how to work co-operatively with others and consistently failed. I think Black Kite has been commendably patient given today's events.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) To the best of my knowledge, I have never interacted with either Justafax or VsevolodKrolikov before today. (2) The reason I removed the wall of text from my talkpage is that it was merely a copy and paste of your talk page archive which provided no commentary to back up your complaints at all (not to mention that it screwed up the format of the page). I have four times asked for diffs showing Justafax's incivility, even if it was relevant to your own, which it isn't. (3) If I had "an obvious bias" against you, I would've blocked you for the "toxic turd" edit summary straight away. The fact I've brought it to here shows that I actually have an interest in this being resolved without this happening. Black Kite 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. . .If I had gone into your friend's talk page and retrieved something he'd deleted and then posted it on another talk page, your reaction would have been blinding. I think your tone and the words and dishonesty from you speak volumes about your agenda here. I am justifably angry that Justafax is continuing to attack me even when I've not been around. The real issue is Justafax, not me. You're just blowing smoke around to cover up for him.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact you are still attacking other editors (me, in this case, by calling me dishonest, though I could care less) with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and the fact that you still appear to think that calling other editors "sick", "cancerous" and "turds" is someone else's problem, needs little further exposition. I'm not going to comment further, because there is little point attempting to refute accusations that are conjured out of fresh air, doing so only gives them a legitimacy when they have none. Black Kite 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Justafax apparently has his own complaint page, he is that awful

There is a section regarding Justafax at the wikiquette board. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Malke 2010, if Justafax's editing is a problem here, then please provide diffs to justify your accusations. You don't expect us to just take your word for it do you? Even if you are correct, it does not justify your behaviour pointed out above. Please keep discussion civil and without personal attacks. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just to let the admins know, this section as of this edit is both unacceptable and dishonest. Malke 2010 took several edits and placed them together to make a sort of makeshift User RFC on Jusdafax and in doing so included statements that were made regarding Malke's behavior rather than Jusdafax's. I advocate a topic ban for Malke if he's going to engage in this kind of behavior. Soxwon (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding a userlinks template to allow this editor's contributions to be viewed:

• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When Malke's last block was lifted, this was presumably on the understanding of improved behavior. The above cited edit from September 6, "People like Justafax, a very sick individual, should be banned for life" does not represent improved behavior in my view. The present ANI discussion would be a good opportunity for Malke to express contrition or promise to behave better in the future. Instead, we see even more evidence of a WP:BATTLE mentality. I suggest an additional one-week block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours. I have no objection whatsoever to that duration being adjusted as seems appropriate, either if there is some genuine sign that this contributor intends to work within policies & guidelines or if there is ongoing disruption on his or her talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Given Malke's recent comments I agree with this block. Evil saltine (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Malke has requested unblocking, with the message "Mea culpa, mea culpa. I'm truly sorry. I should not have done that and I do apologize to one and all. I won't do it again. Scouts honor. Thanks for the consideration." Evil saltine (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of WP:OUTING violation

I'm being accused here of WP:OUTING. Any further questions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is keen on taking administrator action, so perhaps this is a discussion for WP:VPM or WT:OUTING.  Skomorokh  19:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for not notifying me of this thread. i think this is a blatant case of outing. you posted a link to an outing site that lists a wikipedian's alleged real name and city/state. the site is a blatant attack page. i won't link it here but it can be found in the link listed by sarek. if any admin action should be taken, it should be that of an oversight. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that oversight is deemed necessary, be sure you get the two diffs TSC posted yesterday linking to the site in the course of complaining about me linking to the site. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What policy supports this?

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. Tim Song (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What policy supports that personal attacks made in long AFD debates are alright? I keep on getting told that constantly. If there is a policy for it, I want to see it. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are none. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess the personal attack rules are twisted around many times by editors. Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Pointing to a specific incident of personal attacks, or a specific incident where someone told you that, would be helpful. WP:NPA applies everywhere, and while long AfD debates can get heated it's never acceptable to cross the line from arguing about content to attacking people personally. ~ mazca ^talk 22:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

True. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The situations ended a while ago, so I don't think that it's necassary to bring it up. I was scared to take them to ANI (I did once and failed), because of the many editors saying that it was alright and getting mad at me for complaining about it. I had a nice discussion with Edison about it on his talk page, so you can look User talk:Edison if you want to see the incidents (Found my answer there after I posted this in ANI). Joe Chill (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please mark this as resolved? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light

A bunch of us are (at the least, I am) getting rather annoyed by one editor who makes a series of bizarre claims such as that the speed of light is not defined as 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light ceased to be meaningful after the 1983 definition of the BIPM as being exactly 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light defined by the BIPM is not the "actual" speed of light but rather some "unrelated" conversion factor between lenghts and time, and so on. For scale, the long talk page you'll see is the result of 9 days of these discussion, which are now simply repetitions of old ones (which are now archived, even if they are 2-3 weeks old at best). This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe. Looking for advice (wheter admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes things around here travel at the Speed of Smell. Anyway, WP:Consensus is key - and article content disputes are rarely actionable 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having encountered him on these pages a few days ago, you certainly have my sympathy. Jehochman told him that he was from that Talk page back on 19 August, so if he continued to edit it after that date he should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS -- unless a later discussion on that page reversed Jehochman's ruling. (I stopped following the matter a couple of days ago, so I don't know what the situation is with him currently -- beyond the fact he is contributing under borrowed time.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the complaint concerns Brews ohare (talk · contribs), who seems to be continuing User:David_Tombe's fringe arguments and has made close to a 1000 edits on the talk page over the last 45 days. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare Your assessment of the situation is incorrect. I have pushed absolutely no fringe viewpoints unless you consider NIST BIPM and J Wheeler as radical. In serious discussions like this one, it behooves you to get your facts straight. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after posting the above, I had a look at the actual discussion, in disbelief that David Thombe would so brazenly ignore that ban -- only to find what Abecedare described: David Thombe had not posted to the thread since Jehochman's page ban, & Headbomb had confused Brews ohare with him. (Or else he knows something about the two that none of the rest of us do; if so, I suggest he share it for the rest of us to evaluate -- or admit his mistake.) On the other hand, these accusations below of a "lynch mob" orchestrated by a Wikipedia cabal reminds me of the first corollary to Extreme Unction's first law. -- llywrch (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

llywrch: Veiled implications that a sloppy editor's confusion between D Tombe and myself indicates some subtle connection does not reflect well upon you. As for assessing whether there is in fact a lynch mob at work, or at least a bunch of editors that refuse to follow the rules of normal WP discourse, these matters are not settled by cute aphorisms or Aesop's fables, but by looking at the facts. I do not believe a lynch mob is normally considered to be a conspiracy (a feeding frenzy is more like it), so Extreme Unction's first law is not pertinent here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So how would you explain his confusion while assuming good faith? If it was a mistake, he should have apologized before now. As for my link above, it was simply a gentle way to let you know that just because a large group of people are opposed to your view, it does not mean there is a lynch mob, either metaphorically or physically. But we are growing weary of your repeated insinuations of its existence. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is your behavior, not someone else's. And, call it a lynch mob, or a gang, or a gaggle, or a crowd, there are a bunch of hectoring, haranguing editors that are impolite, make denigrating sneers, and who do not try to address the issues at all. Whether they are in cahoots, or feed off of each other's horrible behavior, the result is the same: no attempt to deal with substantive issues, just more harangue. Brews ohare (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposed lead to speed of light by User:Abtract found here is technically correct and yet conveys all that other editors wish to say. However, under the leadership of Martin Hogbin no attempt is being made to discuss this proposal, but instead Martin Hogbin is calling for a lynch mob to railroad his own incorrect wording into the article. Numerous explanations and reputable sources challenging Martin's wording have been presented and quoted on Talk:Speed of light, and Martin and his colleagues simply refuse to deal with them. Headbomb should have a better understanding than he indicates following a recent (brief) technical exchange with me at Talk:Speed of light concerning a different subsection.

The point for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not this argument over content, but that there is no argument over content. I have repeatedly tried to get some consideration for my opinion that the present wording is contrary to published experts, and provided sources, and no discussion of sources takes place. What happens is hectoring and attempt to impose majority rule (majority of editors, that is). My repeated attempts to get consideration of sourced opinion is being steamrollered by a lynch mob that cannot deal with it. What is needed is enforcement of WP protocol to address published sources, and to avoid repeated hectoring as a method to squelch ideas.

Discussion of the lead proposed by User:Abtract found here should be mandated. The excitement of mob rule should be squelched. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, here we see a malicious allegation in an attempt to get another player sent off the field. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know what Brews was arguing about. So I decided to investigate the matter. The first hint I got that Brews was right and that Martin Hogbin was wrong, came when Brews was eager to explain his position to me, whereas Martin refused to discuss the matter with me. Martin clearly didn't want to reveal his agenda. It took a while for me to work out the subtlety of the argument, but I eventually realized that Brews is absolutely right. The 1983 definition of the metre has had a significant impact on physics, and that needs to be elaborated on in the speed of light article. Brews is not pushing any fringe theories. Rather, those who are trying to prevent Brews from clarifying a very delicate point, are actually engaged in trying to hide the history of the subject. It's time that the editors who bring these malicious allegations to AN/I are themselves subjected to closer scrutiny. David Tombe (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be another attempt to create an imposed consensus by eliminating the dissent. That isnt what a consensus is about. Frankly, I never would have thought to examine the speed of light article except for the fact that the lynch mob seems to think it is in danger of being overthrown. Then after seeing what they are protecting, I understand the need to squelch any dissention. It is a gigantic mess. So, instead of looking for new people to behead, I suggest that you fellows take a close look at yourselves and get busy fixing the article that at present is a morass of confusion.72.64.63.243 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are such experts, let me ask you this: If I were driving my car at the speed of light, and turned on the headlights, would anything happen? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: With the lights on, you might see the error of your ways?? Brews ohare (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so you don't know the answer. I thunk so. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We can only take action against Brews, if we first have a consensus on the talk page that the discussion on the revant issues are closed and that any further discussions would be reverted on the talk page. If Brews were to start a new discussion that is very similar then we could revert that. If he were to revert that change or keep kicking off new discussions that we would ahve to revert again and again, then we could come here and raise this issue.

But the current situation on the talk page is not like that at all. In fact, other editors are still starting discussions on related issues, see e.g. here Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue about content, but behavior. After being admonished a couple weeks ago by an uninvolved admin for "a blatant violation" of WP:OWN, Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility, plus created a content fork of the article outside of consensus or prior discussion. As for myself, who has contributed minimally to the article or discussion page, his opinion is that I am disqualified to contribute to the page. My response to this personal attack is here, as I saw no need to add to the toxic environment at the article talk page. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Shuba's claims that "Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility" is unsupported, and his frivolous attitude is well described in his own words, quoted here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The only people that come running to AN/I to get their opponents blocked from a debate on the talk pages are those who are not confident about their own arguments. It is gross cowardice to try and win an argument by getting the opponents blocked on the basis of empty allegations such as 'incivilities', 'disruption', and of course the all time favourite 'assumption of bad faith'. This thread is yet another case of it. Unfortunately a precedent has already been set that demonstrates that this shameful tactic can be successful. Tim Shuba has now entered the debate, and he has already demonstrated that he knows very little about the topic in question. His major contribution so far has been to delete a paragraph in the history section which deals which the convergence of the directly measured speed of light with the speed of light as determined indirectly from the measured values of the electric and magnetic constants. This was perhaps the most significant fact in the entire article, because it dealt with how James Clerk-Maxwell concluded that light is an electromagnetic wave. That is easily the most important historical landmark in the history of the speed of light, and it has now been deleted by Tim Shuba who is posturing as a poor innocent victim who has only contributed minimally to the article. David Tombe (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have upgraded David Tombe's page ban to a topic ban covering anything related to the speed of light article.[74] If there is any further gaming of the rules, disruption, or advocacy of theories about the 1983 redefinition of the meter, blocks should follow. Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite my lack of sympathy for David Tombe, I'd like to point out that this is misdirected. Except for his posts here & on user talk pages he hasn't been contributing to anything related to the speed of light -- & there only because because he can't defend himself unless he mentions it was for his edits to his topics -- for his last 100 edits. Except for a few edits to luminiferous aether, they've all been to articles on Canadian currency. He has been staying away from the topic. And as for editting user talk pages, unless he's been posting to them after being told not to, I can't see how that's become an issue. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Jehochman should be censured for this unwarranted act of a topic ban on D Tombe which has absolutely no justification whatsoever. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if my opinion on this matters. I pointed out here that an editor was violating an ArbCom ruling, & was brushed off with the same reasoning that would allow David Tombe to make these edits on Talk pages. Maybe my ability to reason is defective, maybe I need more sleep, or maybe Wikipedia policy is enforced more rigorously for some than for others. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Speed of light (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

There are suggestions above that Brews ohare has engaged in tendentious editing at Talk:Speed of light. Can anybody present a selection of diffs to substantiate that claim? Brews ohare, why is your editing any different from David Tombe's? Why would you expect different treatment if you commence editing in the same style? Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, You clearly haven't investigated this issue at all. David Tombe (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Brews ohare is in good faith, that he (like Tombe) believes that what he is saying is correct. However, he keeps repeating the same argument over and over on Talk:Speed of light, and it is getting beyond tiresome to keep dealing with him, although I just made another attempt here. I count 16 talk page edits by Brews on 31 August (UTC) which isn't over yet, 32 on 30 August, and 25 on 29 August. He edited the talk page 578 times in all of August, which puts him in first place by a comfortable margin (Martin Hogbin is in second place with 225).[75] Scanning the Talk page, with all the back and forth, would give you a better idea of the character of his participation than diffs; I added the talk page info as the third item under this section's heading. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned Brews ohare about his behaviour here: responses can be seen in this talk page section. Physchim62 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised you wish to advertise your attachment to me of sentences you have fabricated all by yourself. Very sloppy, at best, actionable at worst. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

His comment about your username was uncalled for. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Fabrication of fake evidence is more acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why I am singled out as "keeps repeating the same argument over and over", instead of those that respond over and over (in effect, not their exact words) "We don't have to agree with sources Wheeler; Jespersen;Sydenham; we don't have to support OUR views; we are RIGHT."? I have written a carefully sourced presentation of my views in the subsection of speed of light - Speed of light by definition - which has not been accused of being "crackpot science" or "fringe viewpoint" (and various other complimentary terms) even though it proposes exactly the same viewpoint contested. This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead, come what may, whatever its merits. I have explained sufficiently to them that their proposed lead is poorly conceived, and very readily understood to contradict the subsection Speed of light by definition. These editors don't care about that.

As far as I am concerned, these editors are free to mangle the introduction as they wish. I will not address this subject on my own initiative any longer. If I am asked about it however, I will state why I don't like it. That is not "pollution of the Talk page" (another complimentary term), it is just being polite. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Brews' is quite welcome to take a voluntary wikibreak from Speed of light whenever he/she likes.

I hardly need to look through thousands of contributions: after all, Brews has made more than 500 contributions to Talk:Speed of light in the last month [76]. It is sufficiant to look at the arguments that he/she makes at each occasion. The proposed lead is not in contradiction with the section on "Speed of light by definition"; Jesperson is in favour of fixing measurement units to fundamental physical phenomena, just after the passage that Brews decides to quote; "This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead" is hardly the case, given the length and depth of the discussions.

Brews' editing statistics alone support the case of contentious editing; anyone who wishes to look further (brave as they would be) need only look at the pages to which this editor has attached his/her attention. Physchim62 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you so much Physchim62 for your apologies regarding fabrication of evidence. Your theory that statistics can demonstrate contentious editing is pure nonsense, and your reading of Jespersen is illiterate. Brews ohare (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, 583 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light during the months of August 2009… 428 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light 15–31 July 2009… It's interesting that I have to go back from 15 July to June 10 to find Brews' previous comment (the last of 37 comments he/she made on the page in just over two days). Anyone else wishing to contribute to these pages must read through tens if not hundreds of kilobytes of Brews' comments (often very repetitive, but you can't know until you've read them) before then can hope to add to the discussion. This manner of editing is obviously not constructive, it is simply spamming, the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster.

I said that I found the gap before 15 July in Brews' comments quite interesting: what happend on 14 July? This complaint was raised at WP:AN/I, concerning a separate article but similar behaviour (I quote: "The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users!") and also concerning Brews ohare. The gain for the editors at Talk:Centrifugal force seems to have been the loss for those interested in Talk:Speed of light!

I think it is time to call time on Brews' disruptive editing. If it can't be done here, I shall take the matter to a forum where it can be done, and I shall not be so indulgent as to limit my request to articles related to the speed of light. Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to present a little more than the number of edits as evidence of my causing trouble? Please don't invent them. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of edits *are* evidence of causing trouble ... not automatically actionable, but the article talk page is clearly being subjected to unusually high activity from a small set of users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So I should not correct grammatical errors, punctuation or add second thoughts to a response because that increases my count? I should limit myself to one edit a day, and respond to all and sundry in a listed sequence within one edit. That would fix things, eh? OK, if that works for you. Brews ohare (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More comments from Headbomb

Ilywrch: First, I did not confuse Brews Ohare and David Tombe, as you claimed. In fact, I specifically mentioned that this was not the same case, see my words: "This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe". Please don't put words in my mouth. If you hadn't, a lot less drama would have ensued. I came here looking for advice, not heads to be chopped.
Brews/David: I am not a "sloppy editor", nor a "coward" and do mind WP:NPA. I'll leave it at that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Then mention the person you are complaining about, not who that person behaves like. Your sloppy writing caused any Wikidrama here, & if didn't understand what you wrote you need to accept at least part of the responsibility for that. And I only responded after it appeared that no one else would offer advice -- so kindly turn down the attitude when my only motivation was trying to help. -- llywrch (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mentioned Brews because I wanted a neutral look at what was going on. I take no responsibility for people reading something else than what I actually wrote. There's no need for personnal attacks, so please refrain from making them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb - Perhaps you will take responsibility for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and only the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Is that how things are best done? Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The material is simply there to push your POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior than the fixed value definition. Stating that this does not belong in the speed of light, or anywhere for what matter, hardly consists of incivility. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb: I do not have and never have expressed the POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior to the fixed value definition. Please re-read my remarks. What was said was the the pre-1983 definition was an example of a definition that allowed the measurement of the physical speed of light because the metre was based upon wavelength. The 1983 definition allows more accurate length comparisons, but makes the speed of light an exact conversion factor beyond reach of measurement. Your interpretation of my statements is a non sequitor of the first rank; please learn to distinguish between what is said and what you want to believe. You create the impression of deliberate distortion to enable wild accusations.

That out of the way, I propose that you apologize for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and making the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Brews ohare (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, If you wanted a neutral look to your complaint, then why did you drag my name into it when I haven't edited the speed of light article since 12th August? David Tombe (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has degenerated into a full blown edit war over the Speed of light article again. This article and its talk page are an object lesson in how not to Wikipedia. —Finell (Talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war: there is a simple hijacking of the page by an unruly mob that does not use the Talk page, removes sourced material without comment, makes nasty pejorative comments to get the temperature up, and insists upon a narrow stance contrary to sources. Very professional, very understandable, if you are a hit man. I hope this example is useful in getting WP to adopt a process with appointed editors that can eject those that behave this way. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not just referring to you, Brews. The Talk page is very much in use, but not in productive use. The same people who are arguing about everything on the Talk page are reverting each other's article edits and substituting their own singular visions without any semblance of consensus at to many issues. That is what I understand to be an edit war. No one has hijacked the page any more than anyone else; it's a free-for-all. One issue on which there is broad consensus, though, is that your contributions to the article and the Talk page are misinformed and are not supported by the sources that you cite over and over, and that your behavior is tendentious. —Finell (Talk) 04:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, The blame for this mess lies squarely at the feet of administrator Jehochman. Administrator Jehochman likes to voice his opposition to 'gaming the system'. But he has gamed the system himself in this case, by imposing sanctions on only one side in the dispute. That has given encouragement to the other side, and hence we are seeing bold warnings coming from the likes of Physchim62. This biased action from administrator Jehochman, which I understand was carried out arbitrarily against the wikipedia rules, has given the likes of Physchim62 an unwarranted sense of righteousness which makes him assume that everybody is going to believe that his side in the dispute is correct, without any doubt about it whatsoever. An impartial administrator attempting to end this edit war would either have dished out sanctions equally on both sides of the dispute, or else protected the page from editing until things cooled down. David Tombe (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I will look into the edit war. It would help if editors on both sides posted diffs as evidence. David Tombe, you are violating your topic ban when you comment on a dispute about speed of light. Next time you do so, you will be blocked. Attacking the administrator who sanctions you is a common tactic, one we understand how to deal with. Please understand that I'm not a robot. There's an actual person behind the screen name. Imaging that you're sitting at a coffee table with the person when you post and try to speak as you would in that situation. It will help you get along better. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I may not always agree with what has done Jehochman (see above for an example), but I will support him on this point: you never get positive results by attacking an Administrator. Instead, you will end up like a player who argues with the ref: thrown out of the game. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be in fact what happens; but one hopes that justice can be seen to happen, that decisions are balanced, that appeals are possible, and that decisions will be supported by even handed argument and evidence. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I also posted this on the wikiproject physics talk page:

"I think it would be helpful to discuss this with Brews again (he asked me to get involved on my talk page a few days ago, but I was too busy then), but this time with one new rule: Citing from sources is not allowed. So, we have to discuss from first principles and explain everything when challenged from first principles. This removes the freedom to interpret what some source says in some arbitrary way. Because most contributors are experts in physics, this can work. If someone is not an expert and makes mistakes he/she will be disqualified more easily (precisely because you can't hide behind sources)."

So, this means that we can see some very lengthy discussons with Brews again, hopefully more productive this time. Count Iblis (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have placed an argument at User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example). It does have sources, but I believe they can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion, because all that is needed is velocity = distance/time. The key sources are to the original definitions from the BIPM and NIST. If there is a sourced point that requires some first-principles support, that certainly can be looked at. That discussion page can be used to present comments. Brews ohare (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you submit speed of light to WP:FARWP:FAC and get feedback from uninvolved editors how to improve the article? That might be a good path forward. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, how many times to these two have to wind up causing massive WP:TLDR situations all over physics article talk pages and ANI? I can't believe these two are here again, and no doubt will once again jam up this page with so much blah blah blahing that they will once again succeed in paralyzing the conversation. Please guys, don't reply to me as I won't be checking back here and don't want you all over my talk page again, I just thought that needed saying. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman: Speed of light in no longer an FA, so it is not eligible for WP:FAR. Furthermore, WP:PEER usually doesn't work well with technical science articles. And regardless of what any outside review concludes, Brews would continue his harangue that everyone else is wrong, or doesn't understand the issues, or is following the party line of the cabal of mainstream physics.

So, to all of you, what is the solution for dealing with someone like Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continues to push his WP:FRINGE POV, though he denies that characterization; who filibusters at Talk:Speed of light, with 506 edits to that talk page since 1 August,[77]; who repeats the same argument again and again, despite near-unanimous consensus that his point is fallacious and that the sources he cites do not support his position; who harangues other editors who disagree with him on their talk pages—including mine at User talk:Dicklyon (under several headings; Brews started 6 discussion topics on Dick's talk page); who refuses to listen to reason and will not respond directly to others' arguments or questions, except by repeating his own thesis; and who will not desist despite overwhelming consensus against his position, which he dismisses on the ground that nobody else understands or has the "courage" to speak out against mainstream physics. And Speed of light is a replay of Brews's and Tombe's performance at Centrifugal force. Count Iblis's proposal to have even more "very lengthy discussions with Brews again" is, in my opinion, π radians from the correct direction. Isn't more than enough enough? Isn't a topic ban in order, as it was for Tombe? —Finell (Talk) 12:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell is beating his own drum, which is that Brews ohare is a nut case. That is his thesis, and any relation to WP speed of light is just to serve as fodder for his crusade. He picked up this banner from a few other editors and made himself drummer boy. He has never pointed out specifically any wording or argument that I have used to justify claims that I express a fringe point of view. What I have done is try to get sources and argument to replace ideés fixe and found that no amount of sources or arguments can succeed. It doesn't help that Finell continually picks things to argue about that either have not been said or say something different than he thinks they do. Brews ohare (talk)

Well had someone explained the problem above as directly & succinctly as you just did, Finell, maybe Brews ohare would have been topic banned by now. (I'm just a lowly Admin, so I don't know if I have the power to do it & since I'm involved it might be best if I don't try.) Until someone who has that power & is uninvolved comes along & topic bans him, tell him to stay off of your Talk page. I think you have the right to limit your exposure to an editor who is behaving in that manner -- as does any Wikipedian in good standing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Direct and succinct, perhaps, but largely fabrication. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2c: I am a completely uninvolved editor w.r.t. the page and Physics wikiproject, but did happen to take a look at the discussion at Talk:Speed of light a few days back. In my opinion, Finell's description of the situation is exactly correct. The problem, is not that Brew's take on the speed of light is incorrect, rather it is a idiosyncratic reading (none of the sources he cites, actually support his position) and he is insisting that it be given (undue) weight in the article, including the lede sentence. Here is the gist of the problem as I see it:

Consider an editor insisting that we need to replace all uses of the term velocity on physics pages by "speed in a given direction" - the replacement wouldn't be wrong, just undesirable, non-standard and, ahem, plain crazy. Analogously, Brew has argued ad nauseam that c = 299 792 458 m/s is not the real speed of light in SI units, it is just the "SI conversion factor" and that this viewpoint should underly the writing of the Speed of light article. Again unjustified, non-standard, and plain crazy.

There is a bit more but hopefully you get the idea. IMO a topic ban or (at a minimum) restriction on talk page posts are long overdue. Abecedare (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare describes a content dispute, and characterizes it as "six of one, half-a-dozen of the other". That is not the case. The basic issue is one of explaining the implications brought about by introducing time-of-transit ratios rather than length ratios for determining lengths. Brews ohare (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think so far my proposed soluton is working ok. On the physics project talk page we have had some excellent input. Unfortunately, I still didn't have too much time yesterday (I'll try to give my own input later today). What we need are more first principles arguments like the one by BenRG, TimothyRias etc. see here.

What we do not need are comments like by Dicklyon saying that:

"Arguing from first principles has no place in wikipedia; we're about reliable sources. What's not OK is for Brews to push an interpretation that he has no source for; he has sources for bits and pieces of info, all of which is acceptable content, I think, but not for his idiosyncratic synthesis from those sources."

Because clearly that doesn't work. You don't get to the bottom of the conflict this way, as I explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

His comment was correct. We can't just throw out WP:V because it's "too hard". We're not all physicists and we shouldn't pretend to be. Evil saltine (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No he was completely wrong. Also, most contributors on that page except he and a few others have studied physics. And it were these people who by arguing on the basis of sources alone caused the discussion to go on and on in circles for a very long time.

WP:V is important for sourcing the final agreed verion of the wiki article. Discussions omn the talk page should not (necessarily) be shot down on the basis of WP:V alone. You have to be able to argue based on the whole body of a physics theory to correctly get to the bottom of what a source really indends to say. Simple quotes can be taken out of context. In the particular case of this discussion, I asked Brews to forget about his source and present his arguments form first principles, so that I can at least get a chance of what he means.

Of course, he can look things up in his source, what I mean is that he cannot say that X is true, because source Y says so. Instead he has to say that X is true and then dexplain why by, perhaps looking up in source Y what the argument is. If Y cites Z, he has to go to Z and in this way reduce the argument to a trivial statment based on the basic theory. So, he has to present the full argument from A to Z on the talk page, right in front of the other editors some of whom are professors, Post-Docs, and Ph.D students. Count Iblis (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that each source should be considered in context of the entire body of knowledge, as long as multiple sources may be used as part of that. I think Dicklyon was mainly responding to your statement "Citing from sources is not allowed." Evil saltine (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis has a very good point here. Arguing from first principles can straighten things out. More than that, a reliance on sources to the degree that simple syllogisms are unacceptable, and exactly the same wording must be found in a source is ludicrous, but often practiced when blows begin. And add to that the fact that many topics exist where the same exact wording is used with technically different definitions: then a source vs. source exchange gets nowhere.

So far as I can see the main problem with Count Iblis suggestion is that it works only among parties that are interested in getting to the bottom of things. The far more common experience is ego-tripping in which one or several editors want to score points, and will go to any lengths to do so, or form a WP:TAG TEAM. One symptom of these behaviors is the use of pejoratives to describe the opposite views (without any attempt to identify the criticized text, but only broad generalities, mostly incorrect, about what was said) and also vilification of the opposing editors, all known symptoms of WP:PUSH. For some reason this type of cat-calling is so much fun it attracts other editors like flies to dung, and soon they are all enjoying repeating each other, buzzing about, outdoing each other in extravagant invective.

Possibly a stricter enforcement of sticking to the discussion and not using cat-calling could ameliorate this problem. Brews ohare (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Arguing from first prinicples" is an extraordinarily bad idea. In addition to being an essentially endless time sink (the filibustering mentioned much earlier in this discussion), it almost invariably leads to prohibited synthesis. Article contents, language, and arguments should reflect what reliable sources say on subject, not some wikipedian's argument from first principles. This is essentially Archimedes Plutonium redux. Quale (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. "Arguing from first prinicples" is vital on the talk pages to remove WP:SYNTH and WP:OR from the articles themselves. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Arguing from first principles on talk pages leads to talk pages like Talk:Speed of light. This isn't helpful for improving articles. Quale (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, the speed of light talk page proves my point. There was almost no discussion at all based on first principles there. What happened was that both sides were arguing from sources or other authorities (e.g. 1983 definition of speed of light). That caused the discussion to go round in circles for a very long time. Count Iblis (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There was very little discussion of sources. Most of it was just the editors' own reasoning. Evil saltine (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That discussion never went beyond the basic dispute: 1983 definition of the metre that fixes the speed of light and then Brews counters with a reasoning taken form a source. It was never a discussion based on fundamental physics. The discussions there went nowhere.

Doing away with sources will actually restrict how you can argue, because you can only base whatever you say on the laws of physics. That's what we did on the wikiproject physics talk page and within two days or so, the issue has been cleared up at least I now understand what Brews point really is. It doesn't mean that I agree with Brews, or he agrees with me, but I now know that the core of the dispute is metaphysical in nature and closely related to dispute between the three authors of this paper.

So, we could write a paragraph in the article based on that article about the dispute on whether or not the speed of light is really a fundamental constant and within that paragraph there is some room to discuss the issue raised by Brews. Count Iblis (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors confused about the issue could read the lead for the featured article from a few years ago, which seems to be nice and clear: "The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 186,282 miles per second). This exact speed is a definition, not a measurement, as the metre is defined in terms of the speed of light and not vice versa." - the current article talks about a fundamental physical constant. Thus the term is ambiguous - is it talking about the real measured speed of light or is it talking about the defined speed of light? Note that because a metre is also a defined unit (and uses how far light travels in a unit of time for that definition) that it is not possible to measure the speed of light in those units. This seems really clear to me, and I have no idea why other editors don't get it. Having said that, Brews needs to STOP, then formulate an idiots guide to why circular definitions don't work for measuring each other, then limit themself to a few edits per day to the talk page. And just not bother responding to people who are not helpful. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

NotAnIP83:149:66:11: Thanks. Very sane advice. I wasn't aware of the earlier version, which, as you say, seems very clear and sensible. Brews ohare (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"discuss from first principles"

I have a long experience with Brews and his attempts to "discuss from first principles". Yes, I am trained in physics and understand this stuff, though I'm not a physics expert per se. But Brews's logical reasoning from good starting points has in several cases in the past led to downright errors and to some strange idiosyncratic views. This is what we seek to avoid by WP:V. I thought that Count Iblis's suggestion to argue without sources was quite absurd in light of WP:V; and it would not settle anything, since even people with good smart logic can see things different ways. I have no objection to including all points of view on the topic in the article, if they are verifiable in sources. But Brews make up his own point of view, and does a lot of WP:SYNTH, and that's why he needs to be throttled. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, how can WP:SYNTH even be an issue if you (temporarily) do away with sources on the talk page and discuss from first principles? If you say that you caught Brews on an occasion when he did this and made a deduction that didn't follow from the agreed first principles, then this actually shows that what I'm saying was working. Anyway, I have seen many examples in wiki science articles were discussing from first principles did setlte disputes.

This lead me to write WP:ESCA. It is also based on the fact that many thermodynamics articles were flawed for many years. There was a lack of discussions on the talk page and certainly no vicious disputes). I'm sure that many students have read the flawed versions and have learned some flawed things (unlearning something that is flawed often takes more effort than learing the correct thing). Count Iblis (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban of Brews ohare

Above, Finell said,

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continues to push his WP:FRINGE POV, though he denies that characterization; who filibusters at Talk:Speed of light, with 506 edits to that talk page since 1 August,[78]; who repeats the same argument again and again, despite near-unanimous consensus that his point is fallacious and that the sources he cites do not support his position; who harangues other editors who disagree with him on their talk pages—including mine at User talk:Dicklyon (under several headings; Brews started 6 discussion topics on Dick's talk page); who refuses to listen to reason and will not respond directly to others' arguments or questions, except by repeating his own thesis; and who will not desist despite overwhelming consensus against his position, which he dismisses on the ground that nobody else understands or has the "courage" to speak out against mainstream physics. And Speed of light is a replay of Brews's and Tombe's performance at Centrifugal force. Count Iblis's proposal to have even more "very lengthy discussions with Brews again" is, in my opinion, π radians from the correct direction. Isn't more than enough enough? Isn't a topic ban in order, as it was for Tombe?

I am going to place a topic ban on Brews ohare from speed of light. This appears to be the consensus. Implementation of this ban will be delayed for a short while so that editors have a chance to comment here. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support the article / topic ban. This can be mediated going forwards if party cooperates, but direct involvement has failed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose; Brews' position can not be fairly characterized as a fringe POV. Clearly there are people here that agree with him. Are we going to ban him because the talk page is getting cluttered? That's what archiving is for. Evil saltine (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk page disruption is a very valid reason for a topic ban. It is possible for an editor or group of editors to post so voluminously that nobody else can conduct a discussion or achieve a consensus. Which people here agree with him? Your opinion is important yo me. In order to gauge it properly, can you specify how familiar you are with this situation? Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • User:NotAnIP83:149:66:11 for one; User:David Tombe listed a few others. I have been keeping up on the debate on Talk:Speed of light. Evil saltine (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, as I told David Tombe on my talk page, I'm going to wait until tomorrow and see if Count Iblis' attempt at resolution is successful before considering any further action. Obviously if the parties can agree to get along, then that's the best result. Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose; The problem is solved, in the sense that after some discussions with Brews on the wikiproject physics talk page, I have found a way to write what Brews wanted to write, but then in an acceptable way in the article (see my comments above for more details). Now, Brews presumably won't be 100% happy with that, but it is a precise sourced way of expressing his point. So, let's give this a chance. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am willing to give this a chance as long as nobody else objects strongly to dropping the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong objection Unfortunately, attempts by several editors to appease Brews or reach some kind of compromise only result in a reduction in the quality and accuracy of the article for no real benefit. The prime example of this is that a couple of editors have suggested that we do not mention at the start of the lead that the speed of light has an exact value when expressed in SI units. This is a fact that, as editors of an encyclopedia, we have a duty mention, as is done on Britannica and was done in this article when it was an FA. Other compromises have also been suggested, such as giving an approximate value at the start then giving the exact value later, but all these suggestions have nothing whatsoever with writing a good quality article, they have only the purpose of appeasing one rogue editor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am OK with Count Iblis attempting this. Brews ohare (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban involving the topic of the speed of light anywhere on Wikipedia, except, with the specific advance consent of particular users, for user talk pages or other pages in user space of those consenting users. The small participation here in not representative of the overwhelming consensus (although not unanimity), as a glance at the article's talk page reveals. This is not just a recent problem: Brews has been at this for most of 2009. Further, individual users don't decide what WP:FRINGE is; that is a matter of policy to be decided based on what reliable sources have published. A topic ban is consistent with Count Iblis's proposed solution. If Count Iblis wants to discuss Brews's points with him and to bring to the article or talk page what Count Iblis is willing to stand behind, with the support of reliable sources, he may do that despite a topic ban on Brews. However, Brews's persistent, long term, tendentious behavior both on the talk page and in editing the article and on users' talk pages is sufficient to require a topic ban to end the months of drama. I "[object] strongly to dropping the matter". —Finell (Talk) 06:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - ohare is verbose and can be rude in the way he challenges some editors but the rudeness arises out of frustration that others do not understand or agree with his point ... however, he does have a point (I won't go into it here because this is not the place to discuss content). Ohare is an enthusiastic, good-faith editor who uses sources ... isn't that what wp needs? The main reason this has dragged on is that Hogbin and others express their disagreement in a somewhat demeaning and challenging way (crackpot physics etc) but continue to respond. If ohare is so wrong, why on earth do they not ignore his talk page expositions (and they are a tad repetitive) or respond with something short like "This is against consensus" reverting his edits when they are wrong ... or maybe building on his edits when they are only somewhat wrong. Ohare could, of course, help himself if he changed his editing style so that he used the preview button more and didn't repeat himself as much and, above all, stuck to content rather than personalities. My suggestion is that a completely independent admin offers to mentor ohare but please not a topic ban, it may be that topic banning Tombe was a mistake, do not repeat it here. Ohare has a lot to offer; learn to live with his idiosyncracies and wp will be the better. Abtract (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is the first time that I have voted for the ban of an editor on WP but in this case I see no alternative. Contrary to Abtract's suggestion above and as the record will show, I have spent nearly a year discussing this issue and a related one with Brews and have even set up a page in my user space for this purpose. The real problem is not just Brews' persistent edits (just look at the history of the page) but the effect that it has on other editors. New editors who come to the page naturally want to help and promote the spirit of compromise, this is how WP works, but in this case it just starts the repeat of a old discussion and, worse still, a flurry of misguided attempts to compromise in the article itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved

As I explained above, the discussions with Brews on the wikiproject physics talk page have more or less solved the problem. I'm not sure why Jehochman chooses to quote an out of date posting where my proposal to start discussions was criticized when a few days later it did have results. Also the so-called "consensus" includes the opinion of non-experts who were responsible for the mess on the speed of light talk page in the first place. Count Iblis (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not placed the topic ban yet. If the editor and the other interested parties all agree that matters are resolved, then obviously the ban would not be needed. Can the relevant parties confirm what Count Iblis says here? Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the topic ban. Brews is sill adding his 'explanations' and 'clarifications' to the article all based on his personal opinions on the subject. Attempts at compromise do nothing but reduce the quality of the article. See my comments on this same topic above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I will vote neither to support nor oppose a topic ban, but the problem is very far from solved. Just to give a hint of the tendentious editing and incivility of Brews ohare, here are a few diffs. This is a small subset, and the quotes don't even get into the extreme ownership issues in the article & article talk page that have been ongoing for months now.

• "probably four or five editors who cannot tie their shoes steamrollering a flatly incorrect statement into the intro."
• "There is no consideration for sources, logic or whatever: you just have to round up a lynch mob and away it goes."
• "simply subject to sneers from the civilized persons pretending to be editors."
• "dealing with completely intransigent editors suffering from both idée fixe and groupthink, and no concept of sources."
• "It's probably tendentious of me, but I attribute this to a lack of desire to really engage the issues (and the brain) and instead a preference for adrenalin and artful put-down."
• "A number of them are incapable of thought, and the rest are uninterested"
• "It is a really disgusting display of mob rule. The only reason to remove it is vendetta, I am afraid."
• "It was a bit of an eye-opener to find that some cannot understand plain English, and that some want only to attack me personally, nevermind the topic."

Combined with the complete lack of respect for others in this project as shown above, Brews ohare's editing practices on talk pages are awful. He seems unable or unwilling to use the preview button much at all, adding to the problems. Also, he far too often buries the content and signature of another editor, as is evident here, here, and here. Whether he simply doesn't know that obscuring others' comments in this manner is extremely rude or he just doesn't care, I have no idea. Certainly in the case of the last diff, it might have made it harder for a reader of this board to notice and check the diff where I claimed a personal attack.

Then there is the beauty on the article talk page that I undid here where Brews ohare moved my comment to be sandwiched between two of his, given the thoroughly dishonest impression that I was responding to him. The fact of the matter is not only did I not, but the last thing I intended to do was directly respond to this out-of-control tendentious editor. Tim Shuba (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr Shuba, I think this is a lynchmob. I have seen a number of uncivil remarks and in fact most of the remarks made in opposition to Mr brews Ohare seemed to me to be mean and nasty, yet you are going to ban him. In my view he is the victim. This is in my opinion why wikipedia is a waste of time and users will never get a good experience here. You dont apply your own rules to yourselves but to people you want to be rid of because they seek to improve wikipedia instead of keeping it as mediocre as possible. You guys call people cranks and other nasty names, and nothing is done about those people. So I simply think wikipedia and the entire process is a fraud. When you ban editors it only demonstrates why wikipedia is failed enterprise.72.64.33.139 (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments linked by Tim Shuba are from particular individual's Talk pages, not from Speed of light, and were expressions of my frustration experienced at Speed of light in trying to seek counsel from these individuals. They were not on the Speed of light because they were pertinent to my difficulties, not to that article. If Tim Shuba wishes to troll for insults, that is his business. I do not see why conversation between editors about the state of things should be subject to article Talk page guidelines.

On the other hand Tim Shuba's reversion of comments by me on Speed of light are a clear violation of article Talk page rules of engagement.

Numerous violations of WP policy in the form of refusal to address content, personal attacks, reversions without comment, etc. have been tolerated by User:Jehochman in the case of Finell, Shuba, Hogbin & others on Speed of light. I have not done that. Why single me out for administrative action?

The claim is made that I make too many edits on the Talk page. All or almost all of these are response to comments. They are not more numerous than the comments responded to. A simple count of my contributions exceeds that number only because I have edited my responses to fix typos or reword things more carefully. Without those corrections, I have only as many contributions as response to others dictated.

What should be done to fix matters at Speed of light is to enforce the WP requirements that discussion should implement WP:NPA and discussions should address content specifically (not in vague philosophical generalities), not address contributors' personalities WP:Talk. Brews ohare (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why a topic ban is a bad idea

I planned to write this as a comment above, but my text was a bit large and I needed to make it even larger to prevent it from being confusing. It is more of a general argument about when topic bans would be appropriate and why in this case it isn't. For argument's sake, I assume in my argument that Brews is wrong about the text he wants to edit in. My argument does not depend on the actual dispute itself, simply on the way it has been handled.

So, let's then analyze what really is going on. You have, say, 6 regular editors and one of them is the "odd one out", in this case Brews, who has a different view, uses the talk page a lot to put his view forward. Then, given that this is the typical situation in so many other wiki articles (typically not physics or math articles, but go to any article on some political subject, and you'll see what I'm talking about), I don't see how the 5 would have to make such huge concessions to the text as Martin claims above. The truth is that there are disputes between the 5 as well and Brews actually does have some limited support for his views (e.g. User Abstract supports Brews on some points and Dicklyon does not agree with Martin on everything). This makes it impossible for the 5 to make a stand against Brews. But it is Brews who gets blamed for the mess on the talk page by the editors who are tired of the discussions.

I think a topic ban is only appropriate when the 5 would indeed agree on some text for the article and be able to stick to it and Brews were to constantly revert that text. Or, in case of talk page disruptions, the 5 should first agree by consensus that discussions on certain topics are not productive and will be reverted. This is what the editors on the Global Warming page have done. Occasionally some regular skeptic raises a topic (but usually it is an anon) which is reverted. If Brews were to edit the talk page against the clear consensus, then the first time that happens his edits could be reverted, the second time an Admin could be contacted to give him a warning, the third time he could be brought here and then a topic ban could be discussed.

Thing is that Brews' discussions on the talk page were, as of yesterday, tolerated. Thus there are no reasonable grounds for some of the involved editors to come here and demand a topic ban. If we go down this road, then that would make it more difficult to be involved in topics where the roles are reversed. Can I behave like Brews on the Homeopathy page, which is edited primarily by people who believe in Homeopathy and who reject the validity of scientific arguments that show that Homeopathy is nonsense?

If I never engage in personal attacks, but simply very patiently start to argue my point over and over again, each time trying to find another source, another scientific argument, but to all the others my arguments seems to be the same every time (because I essentially argue for the same position and then, if you are tired about me starting to argue my favorite topic, you won't take notice of a slight change), will I be topic banned too when a few of my opponents come here to complain about me? Count Iblis (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis: Your final paragraph is a completely accurate description. Thank you. The answer to your question about your being banned is: yes, absolutely. There has been no even-handed administration of justice here at all. There has been no examination of the validity for complaints either, just counts. D Tombe was banned in exactly the same way that I will ultimately be banned, and shortly afterward, no doubt, Abstract. There is a pattern here. Brews ohare (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this about the "c₀ as defined in m/s is a tautology" that is current on the talk page? I think that Brews ohare is splitting hairs in a way that may be inappropriate in some social settings, but seems to be quite appropriate and apropos for an encyclopedia. ;-)

Perhaps this is only the tail end of a longer conversation that I'm missing?

As a relevant side note: I see that Brews ohare has submitted a large number figures in related fields; and those figures appear to have been employed and accepted by consensus; so I think that Brews ohare is likely to know what (s)he is talking about. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I think this dispute is more than we can handle here. There are signs of behavioral issues that will preclude resolution by mediation. I'm hereby lifting my topic ban on David Tombe, and requesting that the parties seek arbitration. We need a panel of esteemed editors to review the matter fully and decide what needs to be done. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Brews is not alone in being the cause of trouble. Same with David Tombe. I've argued before that the two of them should be blocked or topic banned, when they were fighting each other in the centrifugal force articles. Now they're relatively aligned, and Martin Hogbin takes the other end of the field. None of them work toward compromise or consensus, and they torpedo every effort to settle on a way fairly incorporate all points of view. At speed of light, I think you'd have to topic ban the three of them to get that article to start to re-converge. An arbitration would have to include all of us, and would be a long painful mess, but it's probably what we need. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Irbisgreif and File:Ohranger.jpg

• Irbisgreif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• File:Ohranger.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When I signed on earlier today, I had an image deletion notification on my talk page from Irbisgreif (talk · contribs) for the above listed image (a screencap I uploaded nearly 3 years ago) because the article it was placed on was changed because content was split off from the parent article into a new article. It was an issue with the fact that it has a Divx watermark on it. I clarified the image's tagging and removed the tag. He then tagged it as being used to illustrate the article, to which I worked on the article to improve its usage and removed the tag again. He then (mistakenly) tagged it as possibly unfree. At this point I lost my patience with dealing with him removed the tag, and made a less than calm statement on PUI.

Now, Irbisgreif has the file up for FFD (IFD, whatever), saying that "Fair-use images that are used to illustrate are not considered appropriate on Wikipedia. It does not identify or provide critical commentary on the station ID, program, or contents. It serves only as a picture of the characters." The article text and image caption text now are sufficient to provide enough critical commentary in both areas. I do not know why he has persisted in wrongly tagging this image for deletion a total of four times today, but I do not need him doing the same to whatever other similar images that I have uploaded in good faith and have provided enough critical context in the articles to comply with the non-free content policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Irbisgreif seems to have a history of unwarranted requests for deletion - see user talk:Irbisgreif#speedy deletion declined: Bharatiya Grameen Mahila Sangh. — Sebastian 08:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Domer48

I think I've tried hard enough to resolve this, but it seems that User:Domer48 is simply unwilling to address the issues I've raised with him. My most recent attempt (which summarises the issues) [79] was met with this response. The background to this is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question which led to an WP:RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48), which failed due to lack of certification, though (as admins can see from the deleted page) not due to lack of concern on the part of others about Domer's behaviour. (And one user has since said he would have certified, but was away.)

At this point I'm not really sure what to do. I think the points I raised [80] are not really negotiable as principles, and some of the reasons why I asked Domer to acknowledge them can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question. But he seemingly refuses to do so, and even on the trivial point of indenting comments properly, seemed unwilling to engage (User talk history), even making an anti-correction here (removing a colon when he should be adding one) which looks rather like flipping me the finger - which prompted me to do the RFC.

So, now, I'd like one or more uninvolved admins to comment on this situation and on Domer's behaviour, and suggest what the hell to do. If the outcome of that is that it's all in my head and I should apologise, so be it. Rd232 ^talk 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge and collapse comments which led to premature archiving
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is not a hell of a chance that any admin will examine Domer'z conduct. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Whilst im no fan of Domer, i dont think formatting is really that important although its helpful if its done correctly, i know i dont always do it right. I think this is going to be another classic example of an attempt to take some form of action over a trivial matter which will produce no results at all except see another admin come under fire and Domers position strenghtened. This really is becoming an alarming pattern, i can think of atleast 3 other admins recently that have taken action or pushed an issue with different editors whos overall conduct clearly justified some form of action, but they do it in a bad way or use the weakest reasons to justify their actions and it leads to internal fighting between admins and the editor walking away being able to claim they are being unfairly treated and carry on with the same attitude. Ashame really :| BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC) The formatting matters, but only a little. It is a little bit disruptive to conversations and an experienced contributor shouldn't be doing it consistently wrong. But what matters more is the consistent refusal to follow practice when it's pointed out; and the fact that on even such a minor matter Domer has refused to respond constructively and discuss the issues people have with him (which, for anyone completely new to this, go well beyond the indentation issue - see [81]). If you will, it is (a la Watergate) not the crime, but the coverup. Rd232 talk 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC) I totally understand your reasons Rd232 and i dont agree with the comments which im sure will follow about you and your actions. I think your intentions are good, but the response you will get on this page will be the complete opposite of what you were intending or hoping for. Its going to get nasty, it always does sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Well Domer basically backed me into a corner by refusing to discuss the issues. I was totally prepared for him to sooner or later say "yeah, OK, whatever" and then carry on more or less as before, but not for a complete lack of engagement. Rd232 talk 16:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC) User:Rd232 The hounding is getting ridiculous now. If this admin can't step back from his relentless pursuit, then I think some sort of restriction may be needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) I see the fireworks have already started. I cant wait to see what the regular defender of Domer and certain other editors have to say when he arrives on the scene and finds out this is happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Oh good - CoM's contributions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive201#Question were so helpful, he's decided to comment again. Yay. Rd232 talk 16:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC) And in case it wasn't obvious from the phrasing of my original post, this thread is an attempt to get out of this death spiral where Domer essentially refuses to discuss these issues with me. Perhaps he will with others. Rd232 talk 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC) You are right to raise it, considering the RFC failed only because nobody else seconded your concerns about the very specific issue, Most responders agreed with your views on Domers actions or attitude in general. Although i see that RFC was deleted so people cant even view what took place on that page now where there were alot of good comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC) There is not a hell of a chance that any admin will examine Domer'z conduct. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC) merged unconstructive comments - see here for original context Have you ever thought that is might be the way you engage with him that makes him unwilling to deal with you. I know I certainly wouldnt last 5 minutes with your nonsense before I blew a fuse and got blocked. Brush that chip off yer shoulder and be a man for God sake.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC) If you could tell me what exactly you think I did wrong that would be more helpful. Rd232 talk 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC) wow, reverse psychology - yer some bhoyo MacNee!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Need a tissue?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC) *(I'd point out the irony here, VK, but wow...) HalfShadow 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Have you just taken to repeating yourself? User:Rd232 is acting like a spoilt wee brat and you are just backing him up because you are generally opposed to him. Grew up the pair of you. Is it any wonder any decent editors leave this stinking shithole?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) WP:NPA, VK. You know better than this. Horologium (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Tentative solution Based on their mutual sniping, insults, accusations of bad faith, and incivility in the thread above, I'm inclined to block all of the participants in the discussion above, for at least 24 hours. As an independent admin with no knowledge of any of the parties, I would welcome some sort of clear, concise, polite presentation of why that wouldn't be an optimal solution for Wikipedia. During their break, perhaps they could go read Unclean hands. Right now, I'm utterly unimpressed by the postings here by Rd232 (talk · contribs) Vintagekits (talk · contribs) HalfShadow (talk · contribs) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) MickMacNee (talk · contribs) Seriously. If any of the parties are intersted in resolving a dispute rather than fanning the flames, act like it. Otherwise, get off this noticeboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Blocking isn't an optimal solution. Just archive the discussion, and if they persist in reopening it... well we can always block then. AniMatedraw 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. And I cannot see one good thing possibly to come out of blocking an admin. Blocking seems like a knee jerking measure, a last resort if you will. Attempt resolution to all ends before going in with guns-a-blazing. –túrianpatois 17:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Umm can someone please explain what rule i broke here? so i know not to do it again. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Not everyone broke rules above. It just isn't a productive discussion and has zero chance of becoming one. AniMatedraw 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to accept the premature archiving, because that way madness lies. An admin asks for a review of a sticky situation, a few people comment not terribly helpfully (two pretty disruptively), and that leads to the thread being archived as irredeemably unproductive? No. Alright, since apparently part of the reason there was no comment on the substance was that I only linked to it instead of putting it here (ANI is always big enough anyway, I was reluctant to do so), I'll paste a summary below, taken from the deleted RFC. This summary of the dispute was endorsed by 7 users. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Details

Statement of the dispute I have no wish to go through the rigmarole of an RFC, but Domer's response here, and his response to my comment at Talk:Irish Volunteers suggests a determination to force a confrontation. I have come to this topic (PIRA and some related articles) with no prior engagement and little interest, and I have tried my best to move things forward, including sanctioning some problematic editors (one partly at the request of Domer!). It did not initially seem that Domer was a problematic editor, but as I've seen more of the topic, it's become evident that in some respects he is; although in view of a record of some useful contributions in what I've seen, and a very long history on Wikipedia (2 years, 13k edits), I'm very much hoping these issues can be resolved. Here are the problems I've observed. This is from a recent, limited period, and I can't comment on how long-term these issues might be.

Desired outcome Domer to

• follow community indenting practice (see guideline Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation and clarifying essay Wikipedia:Indentation which is linked from Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout)
• acknowledge that comments on his user talk page which imply the need for a response or acknowledgement do normally merit a response of some kind, either on his talk page or on the poster's. Deletion of such comments without response (especially without edit summary) is permitted by WP:Blanking but will often be considered a violation of WP:civil.
• acknowledge that his user talk page is the primary way for editors to communicate messages specifically to him, and that asking people to stop using it is inappropriate
• acknowledge that deleting others' comments from article talk pages is highly unusual, and that where personal attacks on him might merit deletion, he should not delete them himself (rather ask the poster, reply to the post appropriately, let others remove the comments, or ask for help).
• acknowledge that he should not take offence at good faith suggestions, even if they involve criticisms of his actions
• acknowledge that citing policy generically is not a substitute for substantive content discussion, and that generic citation of policy discussion participants are aware of is unhelpful and can be considered aggressive. This contrasts with specifically quoting policy where it is necessary to clarify particular points, or raising policy participants seem to have forgotten or may be unaware of.
• acknowledge that when in content discussions people repeatedly raise questions they characterise as key to the issue, then dismissing, evading or ignoring those questions is not constructive.

Description

1. Not sufficiently engaging constructively in discussion on the basis of being open to changing his mind. This takes the form either (eg Talk:Irish Volunteers#First Volunteers meeting) of ignoring key points made (in this case, that the first meeting of a group can't precede the publication which inspired it - in an argument about dating the first meeting), whilst repeating variations of his point, making the whole thing rather circular; and when the position becomes untenable, retreating into sarcasm and tendentiousness. Or else bluntly refusing to engage (and declaring an editor "a troll") [82] or else just not engaging substantively with the issue (Talk:Peter_Hart#Article_is_entirely_unbalanced; eg in that discussion)
2. Engaging in wikilawyering, citing policy that everyone is evidently aware of, to some extent in lieu of actually responding to points others make. Example: [83] Or (citing WP:NPA in a very formal way without obvious reason [84].)
3. Responding to attempts to discuss his behaviour (not always perfect) by seeking to find equivalent faults in others (no doubt not always perfect either) - even when this is clearly unhelpful and hardly more successful than a distraction. Example: a reversion of his deletion of another's talk page comments led to this unedifying exchange about a previous exchange where he'd left me a comment on an article talk page, and I'd removed it as the substance was recorded elsewhere and it wasn't relevant to the article, and responded to his point on his user talk page. This had satisfied him at the time, but suddenly it became an issue!
4. Taking offence at nothing. For example a reminder to indent replies [85] was deleted without reply or comment, but the fact of having reminded was used as part of this comment accusing me of "being very hypocritical" (because I'd remarked that his previous citation of sourcing policy was unnecessary). When I responded to the deletion without comment, he claimed "harassment" [86]
5. Telling people not to contact him via his user talk page [87]
6. Deleting others' talk page comments. [88] Albeit the comment accused two editors (including Domer) of gaming the system, I considered deletion inappropriate and unconstructive, particularly by one of the editors in question. My reversion of the deletion (together with a "let's move on and AGF" reply) was met with this outburst.
7. Failing to indent talk page replies appropriately, as demonstrated by this thread - WP:AN#Question (one of many examples - it is a fairly consistent pattern, despite repeated reminders, eg [89]), and then by this anti-correction (removing a colon when he should be adding one) seemingly demonstrating every intent to continue in this way.

Well I guess that's it - and that's basically from a few days at just three article talk pages (Talk:Irish Volunteers, Talk:Peter Hart, Talk:Dunmanway Massacre) and his user talk page. I hope that at this point Domer can do some soul-searching and appreciate a certain need to be a bit more forgiving, a bit more open-minded in terms of being able to change his position in the face of evidence, less eager to seek fault in others and and generally more willing to be collaborative. See desired outcome above. Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The RFC, however, failed due to lack of certification from a second user, which seems a combination of confusion over scope (see the deleted talk page of it) and an editor being away who would have certified. Afterwards, I tried again to engage Domer [90] in acknowledging that there were things he could do better, to no avail [91]. Since an editor refusing to acknowledge his faults - faults which are violations of various policies - isn't sufficient reason to ignore them, I wanted to bring the issue, for someone else to take a look at the situation and suggest a way forward. That might involve warning or sanctioning Domer. It might involve telling me I was wrong to pursue these issues, or that I was right but I should give up now anyway. Archiving the issue unresolved, without any comment on the substance, as happened earlier today, I cannot accept. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you're attempting to resolve a large number issues involving this user's interactions with other editors (including yourself). It also appears that there's a nontrivially-complicated background behind all these. Finally, it's not entirely clear what administrator action you're asking for us to take in your statement of desired outcomes. It strikes me that this is best suited to another forum; AN/I doesn't work well for extended discussion. If the RfC wasn't certified solely because a) it was originally drafted with poorly-defined scope and b) editors who should have participated were unavailable, is there any reason not to refile with a clear scope and in coordination with other certifying parties? Looking at the 'desired outcomes' you've specified, some need to have some additional explanation before I would be comfortable with endorsing them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll take another crack at RFC as an outcome here (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48), though I would have preferred an outcome that allowed me to walk away. Would it be permissible to undelete the old RFC (better if someone else did it) and get it certified? Or at least to userfy it temporarily to save people re-typing their comments? There were a number of comments and it would seem a bit bureaucratic to insist that these comments have to be made de novo. Rd232 ^talk 07:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, you know what, it's suddenly hit me that the amount of mental energy required to pursue this is incompatible with my current RL situation. I'll come back to it in future at some point if it's still necessary then. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal info posted

I have a concern that in the creation of Kristine kvalsnes, personal information (a phone number) was posted. I do not know if the information is legitimate, but I imagine it would be prudent to have this deleted from the archives just in case. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted now; if you feel it needs to go further, WP:OVERSIGHT is thataway. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea, frankly - just wanted to give y'all a heads-up. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Crin Antonescu and Crin Antonescu

A user who signs Crin Antonescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the Crin Antonescu article for a while now, turning the page into a resume and repeatedly removing referenced info on other areas of his life, while adding some peacock terms. WP:COI is a strong possibility - not necessarily him, but someone in his staff (note the picture upload), which is a pretty serious WP:POV concern, given that Romania is about to enter a presidential race. Granted, the article he replaced was not great, but how does this help? Can someone check and enforce the appropriate measures? Dahn (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Might want to consider taking this to WP:COIN; I'm notifying the party involved Cheers, I'^mperator 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Cheers, I'^mperator 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's okay :). Anyway, I notice the editor in question has stopped after my warning, at least for now. If this resumes, I'll follow your advice and go with COIN. Regards, Dahn (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need an Opinion

Resolved

 – Deleted them all, Snow--Jac16888^Talk 20:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:I am a jedi has created a "game" on his userpage. Found this while doing some Recent Changes partols. While it is on the user's userpage, games like this have been frowned upon in the past. Should this be nom'd for deletion or left be? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

NOM NOM NOM. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell 'em about the various free wikis out there. The game can be linked from the userpage. Grandmasterka 06:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you always die at the end. Good waste of time though. Deserted Cities 06:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Note left...now to OM NOM NOM the pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages NOM'd, user ain't happy about it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly consolidate them into one MfD? That'd make !voting and such a bit easier. Javért  |  ^Talk 06:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know how....I don't do many XfDs. If you know how to consolidate them, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this user was blocked for edit warring last year and apparently got himself embroiled in a dispute or two..then basically contributed a dozen edits in the next year and came back for this.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Homer, tell you what. You get rid of all the discussion pages for the other xfds, and I'll help you list them all on one page. Just make sure not to delete the primary one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the bulk of the MfD noms leaving the main page. You can take it from there. I, of course, can't delete the other MfD pages outright, you will have to find an admin for that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There, fixed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kcusseibbutelet

Kcusseibbutelet (talk · contribs) this user's only edits are to tag a bunch of accounts as socks, does this smell fishy? Triplestop x3 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the editor is tagging his own socks. Not sure whether that's good or bad. (Note that the account name is "teletubbies suck" spelled backward.) Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan, probably. The usual behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the "I Hate <Insert TV show>" vandal. WP:RBI. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Doh, I get them confused. My bad. → ROUX ₪ 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Child's information not wise to be displayed in Wikipedia?

Resolved

Other wikipedians have decided to let the child keep address and information on Wikipedia. Finland 203 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The child hates his school mate, Lewis Hamilton. His school address is displayed. Should the user's mommy be contacted and given a suggestion to remove the address? The user is User:RuleOfThe9th . Finland 203 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's not in the same class as Lewis Hamilton. No opinion on the school's address.--Atlan (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I notified User:RuleOfThe9th about this thread.Shinerunner (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove the school's address -- after all, it's not exactly secret. If you want to argue that he shouldn't mention the name of his school, that's more useful, but I don't think it's really defensible either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Edit warring

71.139.27.252, who then hopped to 71.139.17.190, 71.139.19.254, and currently 67.188.158.240 has been persistently edit-warring on the article in the "Errors" section, and has been having a case of WP:OWN.

Two errors were on a single page, so I just added 'Additionally, on the same page (70)' instead so that 'On page 70' would not be reiterated. Well, this guy keeps changing it back and does not discuss on the talk page. I told him SPECIFICALLY to discuss because of his engagement. But he keep reverting me about 20 times.

Is there a way to stop it? Chevy Impala 2009 (Sign me!) 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The information was so trivial, I deleted it - I hope this helps. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Eek, what a bunch of OR! Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem edits on three different IP ranges

Lately I have been coming across edits from three separate ranges of IP addresses all performing the same edits. For the past several months, IPs from 32.178.0.0/16, 166.203.0.0/16, and 166.217.0.0/16, have been adding original research (either adding color names to where they were not before or referencing actual species where they were not before) to the articles that I edit. Semiprotecting all of the possible pages where these edits could take place seems out of the question and would require semiprotecting entire categories of articles. The individual seems to hop about to multiple IP addresses in a day (the first four I list have all been used in the past 24 hours), and does not respond to any talk page messages.

• 166.203.145.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 32.178.123.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.203.97.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 32.178.199.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.23.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 32.178.109.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.149.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.82.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.173.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.203.156.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.65.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.15.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.249.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.203.71.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.153.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.203.202.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.200.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 32.178.214.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have been putting the IPs on WP:AIV whenever I come across them having been recently used. The work put in to clean up after these vandals (I had made an edit notice for one of the articles) is relatively too large when blocks which may disenfranchise users of mobile hotspots/mobile phones/similar items.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one comment -- if this is a user (group?) on a range of dynamic IPs, isn't it a bit off to indefinitely block one? — neuro^(talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I removed three of these from AIV so that they could all be addressed in a more uniform fashion. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Shortened the block to 31 hours. Enigma^msg 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not make that request to indefinitely block. I merely pointed out it was a long term vandal. It is definitely one user on a series of dynamic IP ranges.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• 32.178.215.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP was just used not less than five minutes ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I keep finding more IPs in these ranges having performed the exact same edits going as far back as April. Surely with all of these, more narrow ranges can be found to be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked that IP. I don't have experience performing rangeblocks, but I would think a rangeblock would be appropriate here. Enigma^msg 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Asked Nishkid64 to drop by. Enigma^msg 05:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There's too much collateral damage. A narrow rangeblock would seem ineffective, since this person's IPs come from all over the /16 range. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure about the collateral damage aspect? He just seems to be assigned new IPs in these three ranges that have never been touched prior.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. If you look at the IP contribs from that range, you'll see what I mean. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check any of the other edits on the ranges.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

32.178.201.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is yet another IP address used.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IP troll harrasing Israeli editors

86.157.70.95 (talk · contribs) has decided to question User:Ynhockey (an admin) and User:Jaakobou whether any of them took part in Operation Defensive Shield, "carried weapons in that geographical area, or have any family members, or close acquaintances, carried weapons in the area or trained to carry weapons potentially to be used in this area." IP's curiosity is based on, according to him, the potential conflict of interested in editing the article. In case the trollness isn't clear at first glance, IP hasn't asked any of the other editors inline with his POV is they were connected to the area. Suggest blocking for a week. Looks like some banned/blocked editor who found a new IP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've done exactly what I should do according to the Book of Rules, ask the individuals concerned whether they have a conflict of interest. If there are other editors who may have a conflict of interest, naturally they should be asked too. I am not a banned editor. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit was to WP:RSN, the second edit to WP:ANI,...........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to RSN after seeing an entry in talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Recent where there would seem to be simple bigotry against an Egyptian newspaper. That led to me to Operation Defensive Shield, where it was obvious that questions needed asking. Brewcrewer told me it was vandalism, I found that the Conflict of Interest policy instructs me to do exactly what I'd done, ie ask the individuals. I used to edit under my real identity until I lost my password - I don't think I'd ever been banned or blocked for anything. If I've done anything wrong, then please tell me how I should do it correctly. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How did the RSN lead you to Operation Defensive Shield? Who said User:Jaakobou was Israeli? Why didn't you ask User: Tiamut and User: Nableezy, the editors that you disagreed with, the the same question? Do you think any editor writing about the Iraq War should be asked if they or their relatives were involved in the war? I can't believe I allowed myself to get drawn into debating this issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been having some odd behavior on said ODS article. Another IP (209.6.238.201 (talk · contribs)) reintroduced an old article version, which hasn't seen article daylight since 2007, 5 times[92][93][94][95][96] and then asked a second editor (Tiamut) to edit war for them,[97] which the second editor did[98] despite being recently warned for just that type of behavior.[99][100] Tiamut went on to remove long-standing content from the article with a, seemingly, mocking edit-summary.[101] The IP continues, while this issue is being unattended, to revert and remove information about "nine terror attacks between March 2-5".[102]

The original version edit-warred into the article by the IP, btw, was introduced by two banned troublesome editors. The two editors are seemingly mimicked by the two new IPs as both were (a) fighting for the same problematic version, as well as (b) both repeatedly asked "COI" queries in which they suggested I was some type of war criminal. One of them, PalestineRemembered, kept asking these "questions" -- e.g. We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes")[103] -- even after he was admitted under forced mentorship. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) +++clarify 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) +bb, 24hrs hasn't passed Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I also ask admins to take a look at the related ANI section on this subject closed earlier by User:Sandstein (and then recently archived for some odd reason)? I feel as though there is an attempt obfuscate the issues here. Some editors are simply reverting text without discussion. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, the two editors that you think are banned are in fact neither banned from Wikipedia or currently under an ARBPIA topic ban. If that is your reason for opposing the edits you need to come up with a better one. nableezy - 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored this thread as it seems the bot didn't recognize a 5 tilda signature and archived too early. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Resolved

 – IP blocked Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit to User:Jimbo Wales that had some kind of disturbing "watch my 8 year old daughter die slowly & painfully" comment in it. I suspect it is mere trolling/vandalism, but I thought we are supposed to report here any time anyone mentions death of anyone in someone else's userspace, i.e. should an admin need to make an appropriate warning or if it is persistent block or if this has any legitimacy take additional action. I apologize if bringing it to everyone's attention here violates DENY, but whenever I see the "d" word, it just gives me pause. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like regular run of the mill vandalism. Nothing to get excited about. Block, for a while, of course.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP's been blocked for a couple of days. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Popup tool glitch?

Resolved

 – false alarm. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Everytime I use popup on User:Craftyminion, it says that the user is blocked, yet the user is able to edit. Is this a glitch or something?Abce2|TalkSign 00:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He's blocked. He's only editing his talk page, from what I can tell. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But he's also editing a RFA. Abce2|TalkSign 01:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, never mind.Abce2|TalkSign 01:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Another possible ban evasion by Bambifan101

Resolved

 – In other news, the sun rises in the east and water is wet...--Jayron32 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. It appears that he created another sockpuppet about an hour ago, which is just 30 minutes after his previous one was indefinitely blocked; see the relevant entries in the user creation log for details. When will this end? SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• The original account was created a year ago. Eventually he'll get bored or his mom will take the internet away. Until then there isn't much we can do except block most of SW bell and wait until people complain to their ISP. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  Blocked the last of those socks, and that original account was initially softblocked as a username violation - I've reblocked with autoblock enabled, account creation blocked. Not much more to do right now. ~ mazca ^talk 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  Resolving. --Jayron32 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

About a year ago, I worked with Collectonian and semi'd about four dozen of his favorite targets indefinitely. Sucks, yes, but better than blocking fifty thousand IPs. It worked for maybe six months or so; now those articles are probably either unblocked per RFUP or whatever and/or he's moved on to new ones. Perhaps I should do some research and try that again...? Tan | 39 02:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can spot some good targets that's a reasonable idea; but I've not seen any real core of articles in his recent activities. ~ mazca ^talk 06:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 98.227.203.33

98.227.203.33 (talk · contribs) probably a sock. Blocked but abusing talk page, what do we do about an IP abusing their talk page? Just change the block? I see that the probable sock is also editing as 98.227.201.60 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Setting the protection level on the talk to 'autoconfirmed' if the IP continues is the best plan of action, the 'prevent from editing talk page' setting for blocks is mostly used, for example, Grawp socks. — neuro^(talk) 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

New and unregistered, right? Part of the problem is that they are harassing DivaNtrainin (talk · contribs) - I've protected Diva's talk page for a day and will tell her to post here if the problem continues. This seems to related to problems at Copwatch. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Misusing of wikitools

Resolved

 – Twinkle removed, then blocked 24hrs, then blocked permanently as a sock of Princeofdark07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

A wikipedian user Sarangsaras is misusing the twinkle tool. i request admins to takeback the tool from him. he is reverting all my edits as vandalism which is clearly not. please see his contributions Special:Contributions/Sarangsaras please note that he is previously banned editor, i am very much sure that he is sock of User:Princeofdark07. i added sock tag in his talkpage, but it is removed by him without explanation [104] C21K^talk 06:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have looked over the edits and while I am not an admin (they are normally sleeping right now) I can say that Sarangsaras is clearly misusing TWINKLE. He reverted to this edit which is barely readable and called it a revert of vandalism. That wasn't vandalism, that was cleanup. Sarangsaras should be blocked for disruptive editing and his use of TWINKLE revoked and monobook page protected so it can't be readded. Just one editor's opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• User notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

what shocked me is, he reverted my 13 edits in List of people from Karnataka (which i tried to cleanup). see [105]. C21K^talk 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that completely changed what you had as blue links to red. Clear misuse of TWINKLE. I am monitoring his edits to make sure he doesn't do it again. If he does, don't edit war with him, you don't want to be blocked as well for 3RR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly misuse of TW tools. I also happen to warn the user. Privileges should immediately be revoked Kensplanet^T_C 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an abuse of Twinkle. Suggest removal. — neuro^(talk) 06:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours to let us conduct clean-up without him re-reverting. By the way, unless I'm missing something (possible at this time of a morning) his monobook.js and vector.js are blank. I can't see evidence in his contribs that he's installed Twinkle at all. ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the edit summaries says: ‎ "(Reverted 1 edit by C21K identified as vandalism to last revision by Sarangsaras. (TW))" The "TW" at the end, so he could have put it in there himself, it is possible, but more likely he had TWINKLE and removed it quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disabled his ability to use Twinkle while you were blocking - I agree with the block, too. The edit summaries list TW but could have been manual - I find the situation odd that way... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorse suspension of editing privilleges. Acting in a manner that brings the concerned WikiProjects (as well as the wider Wikipedia project) into disrepute is not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle can be enabled in "My preferences -> gadgets", which does not show up in the monobook / vector .js files. decltype (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! 'scuse the ignorance (I've only been here for 5 or 6 years) but how do we disable a gadget for someone who's misusing it? ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 06:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[106] 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obscure, but useful to know! Thanks, GWH! ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Should we address User:C21K sockpuppet concern of User:Sarangsaras? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Can we have some diffs? ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  It was only addressed in the original post. I will let C21K know you are asking and see if he has any diffs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  He mainly edits in Bunt (community) and Tulu language. C21K^talk 07:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

all his other socks was editing on the same pages, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Princeofdark07. C21K^talk 07:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Identical edit summaries between Sarangsaras and Princeofdark07 (same grammar and punctuation errors). So quack quack... ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone please clarify me, is a indefinite blocked editor is allowed to create new account? C21K^talk 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but I've blocked his IP, which is static and he's the only one on it, so he can't do anything (unless he switches computer etc) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. C21K^talk 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/SophieOq

SophieOq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't have the memory to pinpoint whether or not this is one of our many "returning" Disney editors, but the pattern (hoax movies, odd changes to pages, specific subject matter) seems to be suspicious. I'm placing this here in the hopes that a more knowledgable admin can apply the duck test. IF it belongs at SPI then let me know and I'll move it over there. Protonk (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Editor notified. Protonk (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Most likely.Abce2|TalkSign 08:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. If a new editor comes in to do nothing else than add hoaxes to Wikipedia, then I am simply inclined to block it as a vandal-only account, sockpuppet or no sockpuppet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got a feeling that we won't be seeing the last of "you know who"Abce2|TalkSign 08:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeni and the Lincoln page

I had worked out a clear compromise on the Lincoln page between those who want to redirect Lincoln to Abraham Lincoln and those who barely want to mention Abraham Lincoln at all--mention Abraham Lincoln in the lead. At least one other editor signed on to this compromise, and provided ample justification as to why. Then Jeni and another editor come along and undo our compromise with just one little mention on the talk page that attacks us and accuses us of being America-centric. When I tried to enforce the compromise, Jeni started an edit war and accused me of not knowing POV and threatened to take me here Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a feeling this user would do this when I let him know that I would bring him here if he continued his POV pushing edit war! This user is making edits without consensus and has been reverted many times by a selection of editors, yet he won't take the hint that he needs to generate consensus before making such controversial edits (You'd think the reverting may just be a hint!) For what its worth, I don't mind bowing to a consensus either way, even if I disagree with it, its just that there is currently no consensus for the changes he is making! Jeni ^(talk) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jeni. You have to allow for others to join in. Not make a quick one hour discussion and change. Continuing to revert only escalated the matter. Reach consensus and then change. –túrian^patois 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, I think the problem is that you had worked out what you wanted as the compromise......and one other editor agreed with you. That's not the same as consensus to support the compromise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

When you've got both people and places with the same name, what's the normal protocol? Most if not all of the American cities called "Lincoln" were named for Abe Lincoln, so putting him afterward seems a bit out of sequence. The dilemma there is that presumably the British locations were named before Abe came along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agree with me, Bugs. For the record, the original compromise was between:

1. People who want Lincoln to redirect to Abraham Lincoln (several people)

1. People who want little or no mention of Abraham Lincoln (Jeni and a couple of unknown IPs)

The compromise was to mention Abraham Lincoln in the lead. I am merely managing it by reverting anybody who a)doesn't explain edits on talk page; b) vandalizes (which has happened at least once); or c) uses poor grammar (one editor left out commas). At least one of those reverts I made was vandalism or trolling, and none of them were discussed on the talk page. Also, remember that Abraham Lincoln is much more visited than any of the articles mentioned by a ridiculous margin Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The only part of it that is actionable here is the edit warring. What stands out for me is Purplebackpack89's 10 reverts in a few weeks, including 3 in 25 hours on 3 September, and 3 in less than two hours today. Hesperian 03:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Can I remind Purplebackpack not to bring the ins and outs of the content dispute to ANI, this isn't the place. I have started a discussion on the Lincoln talk page for that. Jeni ^(talk) 03:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Also note that another user has got involved with the edit war, continuing to edit against consensus. I am unwilling to revert anymore as I think that may take me past 3RR. Jeni ^(talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "agree with" anybody, I asked what is the normal protocol for a page where both people and places have the same name? Or is there a protocol? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reaching a agreement with extremely limited participation and then revert-warring to enforce the position is not consensus by any stretch of the imagination and reflects poorly on your judgement as an editor. Until you can demonstrate clear broad-based support for some alternative introductory lines, I suggest that the long-standing intro line remain in place (simply Lincoln may refer to: -- with no other elaboration). older ≠ wiser 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(multi-ec)Purplebackpack should not have gotten sucked into an edit-war (note that Jeni is equally guilty), but is correct on the content issue: it's idiotic that the dominant link by a margin of over 10-1 is hidden inside a table deep down the page. It is arguable that policy says the proper solution is to redirect to Abraham Lincoln with a pointer to the disambig, but pointing to the dominant article in the lead is a reasonable compromise. Hiding the link that 90% of visitors want is taking paranoia to an extreme. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the place to discuss the content dispute itself. Generate appropriate consensus on the talk page. Jeni ^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(more ECs than I can count) Seriously. This is no more than Argueing over the color of the bike shed. This is quite a WP:LAME issue to be worrying over. Its a disambiguation page. Insofar as Abraham Lincoln's name is on it, anyone looking for that article is one click away, and should have no trouble finding it. Otherwise, the level of concern on both sides devoted to this page is rediculously out of whack with the importance of said page to the encyclopedia. We could all use some tea, and to call the Mastodons back home and climb down from the Reichstag and take off our spiderman suits. --Jayron32 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at the talk page, I see no consensus or even a "happy medium" as you mention, Purplebackpack89, to make this change. Even if there was, a "happy medium" does not allow you to make any change. Even then, the amount of reverting taken place should have told you that consensus is clearly not for or against it, which means you guys should have discussed about this more before putting on your battle dresses and heading for the undo button. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(2Xec)This is more about the actions of the user, rather than the content itself, as I said, I have an opinion but I'll bow to the consensus, when reached. Also worth noting is that the user had the intention of edit warring from the start, per this diff.[107] For that reason I'd propose a short sharp block. A mentality like that is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia in my opinion. Jeni ^(talk) 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There's so much reverting going on, everyone is liable to be getting blocked pretty soon.

Then I can redo the page my way. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly had no intention of entering into an edit war, on my final revert I stated my next actions should it continue (which was bring it here). I merely reverted per the WP:BRD discuss cycle. If however, my edits are deemed to be inappropriate, I will take any sanctions made against me appropriately, but I feel I was acting appropriately in the circumstances. In retrospect, I perhaps should have bought this here one revert sooner, but we aren't perfect. Jeni ^(talk) 03:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 12 hours. This is getting ridiculous, and since there are other editors involved in the reverting as well, I think this would be best to allow (more like force) discussion. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the user has started inappropriately WP:CANVASSing on WikiProjects. I have no issue with him letting WikiProjects now, but he should do in a neutrally worded manner,[108][109] as I did while notifying WikiProject England.[110] This user is seriously starting to become disruptive now. Jeni ^(talk) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"A few Brits are saying that...."[111] If you agree, comment".[112] That's pure gold. :-D The sheer clumsiness of it just beggars belief. Hesperian 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeni's is WP:CANVASS as well,because she notified an English one without notifying an American one. That's partisan audience. If she didn't like it, she could've counter-commented. And did somebody do something to my talk page? The archive is on the talk page, and the new points from the last few weeks are gone Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that it is not possible to tell from her post where she stands on the debate. She is asking for people to join the discussion, whereas you are asking people to come support your side of it. Hesperian 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to mention this with my "canvass". Thus justifying it. I would now like to see this user blocked for continued disruptive editing. Jeni ^(talk) 03:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see clumsiness rather than malice here. It may suffice for someone to point out to Purplebackpack89 that they are behaving like a complete goose. Hesperian 03:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how much clumsiness is involved, as he refused to reword the posts when I bought him up about it. Jeni ^(talk) 03:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I said you could counter-comment. Besides, Hessy already fixed them.

Great. How long before this descends into "Soccer sucks!"... "No, American Football sucks"... "Cricket sucks!"... "No, Baseball sucks!" The last thing we need is ANOTHER pointless naming debate drawn along nationalistic lines... --Jayron32 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's called "Association football" you scoundrel! :-) Hesperian 03:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for us, you Brits would be living under the Third Reich ;-D Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC) loves jokes

Maybe it'll create political tension between UK and US? Rubs hands together excitedly ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cricket is a fine sport - lots of scoring, continuous action (except for the tea breaks) and plenty of intrigue. Soccer is... well, soccer is watching a bunch of guys in shorts kicking a ball from one end of a large field to the other. Tiebreakers are great. They should skip the 90 minutes of kicking the ball from one end of the field to the other, and just go straight to the tiebreaker. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if a successful compromise has been reached among the "warring" parties, on the Lincoln talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

On another note, can somebody explain to me why all my talk page edits since August 20, when I last talked about Lincoln on my talk page, have been rolled back? They even tossed my archive Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not rolled back, they're simply gone. Admin attention is needed here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins, please hold off on unprotecting the page until a larger consensus has been reached - as per discussion on the page. I'm feeling like Abe's messenger boy here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Purplebackpack89, there are no edits to your talk page after 20 August, as the history shows (unless they have been oversighted for some unknown reason) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh right...I got that page mixed up with a different one Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a sockpuppet, huh? Hesperian 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like "Plaxico" is just around the corner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My interactions with PBP89 haven't been pleasant at all. I have to say, PBP89 is again continuing his POV pushing and edit warring. He has done it in other projects as well. He doesn't care for consensus and the edit warring and this thread is a poor judgement of his decisions. IMO, he should try and cool down rather than going about and reverting. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 17:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Give another example. And how the heck is this POV pushing? I just want a guy with 10K hits a day who's in the core biographies to be at the top of the page. If I was POV pushing, Jeni was POV pushing in the other direction, especially on the Franklin page, which nows looks like the consensus on the Lincoln page (She accused me of breaking consensus when there hadn't been a talk page edit in yrs). And you guys forget that, among other things, I had to clean up typos and vandalism that included, "Lincoln was three feet tall and gay". PMLine, you're making baseless accusations that are practically WP:NPA. And Hessy, the "other page" is my page at Simple English Wikipedia. I also have pages in Simple Wikibooks and the French Wikipedia. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously false. There is no source that asserts Lincoln to be 3 feet tall. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. (I can't believe I just answered to "Hessy".) Hesperian 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher

This really isn't an incident, but Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs) has a history of adding nonsense to articles and having it removed (see add & revert, add & revert). He's been warned o f t e n about this, but claims to not understand. Is there anything that can be done? Deserted Cities 03:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about those bands. Is there any evidence of edits which are actually nonsense and not just apparent confusion about genre or addition of redundant text (such as a sentence fragment about a song being unreleased when it is on an article titled unreleased songs by blah). Like this? Are those the correct tour dates? I'm not seeing disruption here. Protonk (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is just someone without a great grasp of English trying their best to improve an article (and failing), such as in this series of edits. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, that lack of language skills means they don't appear to understand when people try to communicate what they're doing wrong. Black Kite 06:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The issue is, as Y2kcrazyjoker4 put it Chris is "utterly incapable of following directions or making a constructive edit". As I mentioned, he's been warned to stop adding stuff (generally genres but other stuff as well). The issue here is that Chris does not respond to most warnings on his talk page and doesn't discuss any changes he makes. But yes, some of it is absolute gibberish. Deserted Cities 06:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sidenote, someone should look over his userpage. There's some personal information on there which may not be a good idea. Deserted Cities 06:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok. I just couldn't really pick out what the immediate problem was from the posting or a quick glance at the contributions. Protonk (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I would just like to point out that all of this could have been solved long ago. The Laws of the Universe, clause 42 clearly states that "an individuals potential contribution in any field is inversely proportional to their expressed appreciation for Coldplay". The user has at least 6 userboxes expressing said sentiment. This rates about 8 on a scale of one to Gary Busey. --M^ask? 08:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like the user is very young. He claims to be in the 8th grade in the US school system which, as far as I understand, means he's probably about 13 years old. That could account for his failure to understand what's going on as well as his poor grasp of written English. --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Being a student in the 8th grade of the US school system should not at all explain a poor grasp of written English. If someone doesn't understand how to write properly by 8th grade he probably never will. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That statement indicates that you haven't graded many papers from 8th graders recently. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Will-I-Am Shake-Spears (NO RELATION TO BRITNEY) wus a early righter in english of poetry and plays and rightings that is wellknown for her many many rightings who are published a long time ago and even today still". Yup, did an article once on basic literacy skills between US and Canadian students. Good news is that US kids know their history a little bit better. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Australian Place TfD

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

A rather contentious TfD for {{Infobox Australian Place}} was closed by its own nominator today, as No consensus. Despite a caution which says quote unambiguously (and partly in red):

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hesperian (talk · contribs) changed the closure notice (erroneously, but fixed by Mattinbgn) to keep.

I was trying to withdraw nomination with a speedy keep. "No consensus to delete" I thought was formal for saying keep. I have a right to withdraw my nomination. Reporting me here shows a disregard for my attempted withdrawal. You shoul dhave consulted me and made me aware that I had not withdrawn properly. It did not need you lot and Protonk to overide but I tried to la to rest yesterday with my attempted withdrawal. I reserve my right to withdraw my nomination, I just got my wires corssed yesterday with how to do so and it was misinterpreted. With having Protonk's closure overiding my bad attempt to withdraw initially makes it look like I didn't try to lay the conflict to rest myself. I had actually removed my comments from the discussion to to avoid further conflict and I could see it was not helping the situation and to indicate that I respected their concerns and wanted them to see I meant good faith. This ANI report and continued trouble is really very unnecessary.. Himalayan 10:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While he may or may not have a point about the outcome, I believe he is clearly at fault to do that, not least as an involved editor (as am I), so reverted him per WP:BRD, inviting him, in my edit summary, to use due process if not happy. Instead, he has reverted again. I believe that disputant parties after a TfD should use due process, not edit war, so have brought the matter here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "erroneously, but fixed by Mattinbgn", actually the error is Matt's. He converted the original nominator's closure from "no consensus to delete" to "no consensus to keep", thinking that he was correcting me. Hesperian 02:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is it important that the TfD be closed as keep or no consensus? I'm just asking this because I'm tempted to re-close it as keep with a warning that participants don't get to close debates and other editors don't necessarily get to remedy that by refactoring others' comments. However if it isn't really important how it gets closed, we could just trout the users involved and let things be. That is, if this isn't part of a larger fracas. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Hesperian raised the same issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Biased TfD closure by nominator: requesting re-closure. And yes, the type of close is important as the close was clearly a case of attempting to flatter the position of the nominator. Andy Mabbett has a declared position on deprecating IAP some time in the future and a "no consensus" close furthers that position much more than the more accurate "keep" close. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• While I voted delete and am generally in favour of deleting or merging redundant infoboxes, I invite you to provide evidence that I have "a declared position on deprecating IAP some time in the future", or that that is relevant to my comments or actions here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The first part isn't important to me. I could care less what might or might not flatter someone's position. The second part concerns me. Would this be solved to the content of everyone involved if an uninvolved administrator simply reclosed the TfD without going to DRV and all that mess? Protonk (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• [EC again!] Anyone re-closing should note that the TfD did not run its full course, but yes; my real concern is to discourage editors from reworking closed TfDs to suit their ends, whatever they are. I don't believe that keep or no consensus makes any difference, should the matter be discussed in the future. "Consensus can change" being key. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes; that is precisely what I asked for at WP:AN. Hesperian 02:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• [EC] I wouldn't like to say how important it is, but I do know that the issue has been very contentious, with a lot of accusations of bad faith and ad hominem abuse, spilling onto VP and project pages. I did view the early closure as a conciliatory gesture from the nominator to "the other side", but perhaps I'm too closely involved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy is right about one thing: the entire discussion has been very contentious. There has been a lot of ill feeling and mistrust on both sides. And to cap it off, the nominator removed most of their comments, leaving other people's replies as incomprehensible nonsequiturs and generally falsifying the record of the discussion; and then inappropriately closed their own nomination, which was clearly being thrashed, as "no consensus". I undid the removal of commentary, and converted the closure to a "keep". Andy having disputed my actions, I took it to WP:AN. I don't think the accusation that I have acted inappropriately here is sustainable.

The nature of the close is important because many on one side of the discussion have a sense that the other side has been sneaky and underhanded in the way they have carried out their agenda, and the "no consensus" close by the nominator fits in with that.

Hesperian 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No you've got it wrong. I removed only my own comments initially from the discussion nobody elses to actually avoid further conflict and I could see it was not helping the situation and to indicate that I respected their concerns and wanted them to see I meant good faith. I only removed by own comments not for disruption but quite the opposite to try to resurrect the situation as the conflict was going nowhere and I wanted to end it. Himalayan 10:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Andy having disputed my actions, I took it to WP:AN.;": No, you reverted again, as shown in the diffs above, then went to WP:AN. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't dispute it. Lest you give anyone the impression that I have attempted to deceive on this point, I suggest you go read my WP:AN post, which predates this discussion, and which ends with "Andy Mabbett undid me. I undid Andy Mabbett. It's getting messy. Could a uninvolved third party please review and re-close." Hesperian 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I closed the discussion at AN. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

. Working on the close right now. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that someone uninvolved should close this TfD. An involved editor should never close, even for uncontroversial or unambiguous closes. I would have done so as an uninvolved and neutral established editor, but it's my sense that a WP:NAC on this would just potentially make it more ambiguous and subject to more reverts. An uninvolved admin closure would be best for due process and also for less drama, per precedent and common sense, even if not necessarily required by policy. — Becksguy (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the debate as keep here. Please read that close comment before continuing to prosecute this debate. It is my hope that this issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution chain, not through the more common method of waiting and re-nominating later. I will echo becksguy's comment above that involved editors should only very rarely close debates and should never take that chance to establish some strategic advantage for later closes. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the time and effort you put into that. Hesperian 03:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I realize that the close was very early, but given the effectively withdrawn nomination and the ancillary issues with the discussion itself, we are better off leaving the debate closed rather than reopening it. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The close is in general a fair summary of the discussion and thank you for taking on the task of the close. However, I do take some exception to your comment: "The general motivation behind the nomination--that parochial templates ought to be merged into or built from standardized underlying templates--is a laudable one. Fewer, better coded templates would be better than more specialized templates." That was the very question in point in the discussion. I am not convinced that this is the case and certainly the proponents of IS did not even try to make this case at first, deeming it to be self-evident. I would be interested to know why you feel this is the case, either here, or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Standardisation on Infobox settlement or on my talk page. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I may leave a comment there tomorrow. My main purpose in leaving that comment was to reveal as best as possible my bias on the subject. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Your new closing comment looks very well thought out to me. I originally noted it as "withdrawn by nominator" when I removed the TFD tag from the template, and added the 'tfdend' on the talk page. I have appended this to 'keep (withdrawn by nominator)'. As it has been noted before, it probably doesn't matter. I was glad to see the nomination withdrawn given the heated direction the discussion was moving. I would say this particular thread can be marked as resolved (in my opinion). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I left a comment on the VP discussion. I would also recommend that this thread be resolved if the involved participants feel happy (or as happy as they could reasonably be). Protonk (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay by me; thanks again. Hesperian 04:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The matter as it involves the closing of the TfD seems to have been dealt with to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks for taking the time to take a look at the matter and for your comments at the pump. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Part 2

Mattinbgn appears to have spoken too soon. Himalayan Explorer, the TfD nominator has reverted the closure and added his own comments.[113] I reverted his revert but then, he reverted me.[114]. I'm tempted to revert again but I suspect I'll just be reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you overwrote what I had actually tried to withdraw my nomination initially. I've retained Protonk's evaluation as it is a useful summary but the fact remains that it was a self withdrawal but wasn't done properly. The current version acknowledges it was a self-withdrawal by the nominator and the evaluation is given underneath by Protonk which is how I think it should be. I tried my best to appease the situation byt trying to withdraw my own nomination but the overide by Protonk and Hesperian had now made it look as if I didn't try to end the conflict myself which is completely wrrong. I just got my wires crossed with how to withdraw and somehow ended up closing rathe rthan stating withdrawal. I have a right to withdraw my own nomination. The reason why it is important that I withdrew my own nomination but so show people that I was very keen to end the conflict and ill feeling. I have aonly removed comments which since have overidden what I had originally tried to do, withdraw my nomination with a resounsing keep I've acknowledged that the right thing to do was to discuss with WP:AU, please see my posts to Orderinchaos. I've apologised for not respecting more of your concerns earlier, but at least I had the ability to apologise and try to resurrect the situation. I tried to close the nomination by myself yesertday to avoid a prolonged heated discussiion and the very reaosn I withdrew all my comments was precisely because a lot of them wer enot heloping the situation and detracted from my good faith intentions which I'm now discussing rationally with Orderinchaos. I have a right to withdraw my own nomination which is what I actually tried to do initially. The actions since has inflmaed what I had tried to put to rest myself yesterday and I was overidden on a closed debate that I started and I had ended. You just misinterpreted my closure. What I emant to say with Nomination withdrawn. Resounding strong keep I tried hard to appease the situation yesterday and end the conflict but this has further stirred up trouble unnecessarily. I actually wasn't aware with how many people were happy or connected with the template otherwise I would have spoken here first. Again I have apologised for not consulting you first but please assume good faith. This ongoing ill feeling is not helping anybody, despite the fact I respected your concerns by swiftly trying to withdraw my nomination. I don't know what I have to say for you to understand I actually mean well and would actually simply like to see good quality maps in your articles and actually try to help improve things rather than degrade them. Orderinchaos can see that actually I would like to move on discuss things constructively as I should have done initially and I've acknowledged this, why can't you? Please just accept that I withdrew my nomination with an obvious strong keep in the debate and would now like to work and discuss things with you without conflict. The template was swiftly kept, now we should discuss what should have been discussed before the antagonizing TFD. Himalayan 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Himalayan Explorer and also warned him/her about this disruption on their talk page. I am now going to mark this thread as resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawing nominations

Is it not acceptable for somebody who nominates an article or template for deletion to self-withdraw their nomination? Check out Line 122 and Line 172 of this. I clearly withdrew the nomination yesterday. I did so yesterday on an Australian place template yesterday but I got my wires corssed with how to do so so. Then I log in today and find not only my closure has been overidden but it has been stamped out and comments I myself had made which I rmeoved to try to reduce the conflict over the situation were restored and it was closed by Protonk. Since MSGD has reverted all attempts I have made to mark it as a self withdrawal which I had done before I myself was overidden which I had infact tried to do and has dismissed me as some sort of disruptive vandal. If anybody else here tried to withdraw a nomination themsevles as final and later find out somebody has completely disrespected that and overwridden it would they find this acceptable? When a user clearly makes a good faith attempt to self close a nomination shouldn't this be acknoweldged? I believed all that needed doing was to prompt me that I had incorrectly closed the nom as a close rather than an actual withdraw and it should have been reworded to indicate a withdrawal not completely overridden. Himalayan 11:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether, for example, there have been delete !votes. If it seems plausible that it might be deleted, self withdrawals are sometimes reverted. Seems to be closed now. — neuro^(talk) 11:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I don't know the context, didn't partake in that discussion, but normally withdrawals are only permitted in a situation where someone else hasn't also recommended delete. Once someone else does that, it removes your ability to withdraw as there are other editors advocating that course of action. Withdrawal is usually only used in situations where the nominator missed some sources, or misunderstood a policy, etc--Crossmr (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, but it makes it look now like I didn't at least try to appease the situation. The situation indicated a resounding strong keep so I attempted to self withdraw my nomination yesterday and retracted my own comments which didn't really help addresswhat my real concerns were and would only cause further conflict, but this was misinterpreted. I'm not happy with this, worse still is the closing parties inability to inform me or discuss with me my initial closing error and to overide me. I wonder how many other people here would be happy with having their attempts to close a debate they started with a withdrawal being overidden.. Complete lack of good faithh over the entire situation. Himalayan 11:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out Line 122 and 172 of this.

My withdrawal was surely good enough, did this really need to be stamped out and reported to ANI??

I ended the withdrawal by saying this, "I am withdrawing this. It looks like consensus could be reached if adequate changes were made to the Australian Place infobox, namely the adding of a simple pushpin locator map and coordinates rather than having to resort to x and y pins which editors more accustomed to standard templates find difficult to use and a possible reshuffling of the order of the parameters. So perhaps this discussion could be carried on on the template's talk page or the Aussie noticeboard but in a more rational way to decide how to improve the existing template and address the concerns which prompted this nomination.". Basically I fully endorsed what people were saying and indicated my withdrawal but this somehow not good enough? I'd have been happy to indicate strong keep but somehow it was misjudged. Very bizarre, I cannot understand the thinking of why you felt that was a neccessary action to originally report me above and then my attempt to correct it disruption... Himalayan 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"My withdrawal was surely good enough, did this really need to be stamped out and reported to ANI??" -- I'm confused, didn't you report this to ANI? — neuro^(talk) 11:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, check up the ANI page, I was reported here last night for actually self withdrawing my nomination which was intended as an act of goodwill and to end the dispute and dsicuss things rationally from now on, see what I actually wrote. For some astounding reason it was miscontrued as further ill feeling and I was reported here. Then when I tried to restore what I had initially intended, to simply marked the TFD as self-withdrawn I get me edits reverted and overidden again and dismissed as causing disruption, It seems a pretty unfair series of events. Himalayan 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an argument against withdrawal: It implies that you are the owner of the article. Once an article is nominated for deletion, the wikipedia community has the right to decide what to do with it, just as the community has the right to nominate the article for deletion - because the article belongs to the community, not to an individual. This is different from requesting adminship and then withdrawing, or filing a complaint and then withdrawing, as those are individual initiatives. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps. But if the outcome is already evident, it just saves needless work. For the record, the articles don't 'belong to the community' legally, they belong to the contributors to that particular article. — neuro^(talk) 12:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I am 100% certain I've seen hundreds of people withdrawing their own AFD nominations. I am also 100% certain that the nominator, if the nomination is clearly going to be a resounding snowball keep reserves thr right to acknowledge their nomination mistake and cancel the nomination. I've sene it happen countless times over AFDs. This is completely double standard and a very bizarre approach to a situation I'd felt I'd already solved by keeping the template. I can guarantee that self-withdrawals are accepted on here but because some people misinterpreted my clear attempt to appease the situation and end the debate myself I get overidden? Himalayan 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Neurolysis may be right, but that runs counter to the assertion that what you enter in an article is subject to "merciless editing", meaning that its original author does not own it. As far as withdrawing, what's the hurry? Why did you nominate it in the first place? Why not just let the process run its course? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, as one (the only other one?) to have cast a delete vote in that TfD, I don't see a problem with withdrawing the nom. I still feel that a specially designed infobox is overkill, and that the users who voted keep did not address the point of the TfD and lost themselves in patriotic argumentation over common sense, but the discussion was probably already dead before I cast my vote. So no, I certainly won't hold it against Himalayan that he withdrew it. Dahn (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to actually help the Australian articles and add a proper pushpin map to articles like Alice Springs you see in 95% of place articles on here. But I found I couldn't add one to the template making editing them difficult so I thought it might be easier to convert to a standard infobox settlement which you can easily add a pushpin map to without having to find x and y pins. I genuinely thought the infobox was redundant. However it turned out that most of the Aussie editors wanted the template speedily kept so I withdrew my nomination to save a further conflict, yet I had this overidden and dismissed in bad faith. Himalayan 12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with withdrawing a nom if it's pretty clear it's going to be kept, and you are convinced by the keep !votes. Saves time, saves needless effort of a closing admin and saves the chance of starting a dispute in some cases. We are allowed to withdraw FACs, after all. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the reason for overiding my withdrawal was because of one or two delete votes, then it should have been allowed to resume and not closed it prematurely or overidden me with another close. As it stands nominations typically should last a week to give a fair turn out. This was closed within a few hours because 99% of people who voted strong keep were those with a self-interest in the template turned up soon after it being reported to protest. Hardly a fair turnout but I just wanted to end the hostility. I feel I have been mistreated amongst all this as people always assumed bad faith, even when I tried to end the conflict myself. If you look into those who actually requested speedy keep you'll find they are all AU wikipedians who turned up to protest, with virtually no neutral comments on both templates from other parties. Technically, if my own withdrawal was not acceptable, this TFD should still be open to give a more fairer turn out after the initial protest. This site at times can be very unfair. Formal TFDs and AFDs without withdrawal should last much longer than a few hours that this did especially taking into account the vast majority of those who voted. Therefore the closure procedure which has taken place since is completely against guidelines as you do not close nominations within a few hours if the majority of the votes are those self-interested in the template unless it is a self withdrawal. Himalayan 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody answer these questions:

• Is an editor permitted to withdraw their own nomination if a high number of votes indicate a certain outcome?
• If a nomination is not withdrawn, should AFDs or TFDs be formally closed within literally a few hours by another editor, especially if the vast majority of the votes dictating the given outcome are by a distinct group who have turned up to protest and influence the way the discussion has gone?
• Is it not true that unless an editor withdraws their own nomination, that formal AFDs and TFDs should last a full week to give a fairer turn out, especially if a deletion has been subject to a mass protest?

What has taken place here is a violation of normal procedures. Am I the only one who can see that this is unfair? Himalayan 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no solid answer. It is case-by-case. — neuro^(talk) 12:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what Himalaya is complaining about. He wanted an item deleted, so why is he now so anxious to have it kept? On the other hand, between with Chamal said, and the "delete" voter withdrawing his delete vote, what's the hangup on letting him withdraw the nomination? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you were trying to do the right thing. The concern, however, was that while it is fine to withdraw a nomination, you not only withdrew it, but also closed the debate with a summary of "no consensus". Even if you were right, making that call as the nominator puts you in a bad position, and it did look more like a clear keep to me. While no consensus defaults to keep anyway, a no consensus makes it easier to re-nom the template later, which is a problem given that I doubt that this issue is over. As this was a contentious issue, the better move would be to have withdrawn your nomination and let someone else decide how to close it, especially as others had voted delete already. However, irrespective of that, this is a minor issue now. Perhaps it would be best just to walk away from the TfD and focus on other things for a bit? - Bilby (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually tried to change it to a speedy keep. I thought "no consensus to delete2 was a formal way of saying "Keep". However my attempt to appease the situation was overidden. My intention was to withdraw the nomination and is the only situation where such a swift closure is accpetable. As it is closure by another party when the outcome is clearly influenced by self interest of the template is deinfately not a fair closure. I have a right to withdraw my on nomination which is what I tried to doa dn would hav been happy to mark it with speedy keep, I obviously didn't make myself clear. You should not have overridden me but you shoul dhave informed me of me error and given me a chance to mark it as withdrawn. As it stands now you have a quick closure by another party over a TFD which should be lasting a full week if you take into the way the decision was clearly affected by the initial protest storm. If my withdrawal was unacceptable this TFD tehcnically should stil be continuiing to give a fair turn out. Himalayan 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're really not helping your case by arguing this. No one was blocked, there were a couple of warnings and a bit of confusion. It would be wise just to step back and take a breath, as this would be a minor, or even a non-issue, if it was left alone. To clarify, though, in case it helps: no consensus and speedy keep are not the same. Speedy keep says that, when we looked at it, there was no case to answer, so there's no point in continuing the debate. No consensus says that the two sides couldn't come to any agreement, so we'll let it stay, but this may need revisiting. As a result, articles where no consensus is found can be re-nominated soon afterwards, but keep and speedy keep tend not to be, and only if enough time has passed so that there is a reasonable chance that consensus has changed. As far as I can tell, you acted completely in good faith, tried to do the right things, but made a couple of errors that were fixed when the TfD was re-closed by a neutral party. Now that they've been fixed, the sensible thing would be to let it go. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You actually don't "get" to close a nomination because you have withdrawn it. speedy keep allows anyone (including the nominator) to speedily close a discussion as keep when the nom has withdrawn and there are no outstanding good faith delete votes. Both need to be true. I've made the same mistake in the past, as have many other people. In closing the TfD I realized (and commented about here) that it was very early, but I figured that the nature of the complaints and the discussion here made further debate for the sake of debate meaningless. That said, the debate is over. If you have a problem with the wording of the close or you feel that the close should have been yours to make, then your avenue of recourse is deletion review. My strong suggestion is that you let this go and work with template editors to come to a compromise solution over migration and standardization. Protonk (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Letting it go and trying to work with editors to come to a compromise solution over migration and standardization was precisely what I thought I had done last night by withdrawing my nomination. I am reacting over recent events which saw me reported here for trying to do exactly this and further ignited a closed situation. A little good faith from you all maybe? I don't think it was necessary to stamp over me like you did, just modify it as a withdrawal, end of problem. If you had simply accepted or modified by withdrawal as a keep last night and forgotten about it I would not be here today. Himalayan 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why I chose to reclose the debate is spelled out in the section above. Protonk (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I need your help. ASAP

Resolved

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#User:D climacus Rollback rights|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562 § User:D climacus Rollback rights]]

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

D climacus (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

I been on here for around a month now. A few users think I'm Eddie Segoura (User:EddieSegoura) a Sockpuppet. See this one Comment.

I want a CheckUser to clear my name because I am not that user. I'm Not avoiding a community ban.

I don’t want to be blocked for something I didn’t do. The reason I know so much on here is because, I been reading the WP:POLICY and the WP:NAS. And, the Admin Dashboard Template is on my User Page.--David | ^Talk 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not, and will not, be performed for 'name clearing'. — neuro^(talk) 07:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, what Neurolysis said. Checkuser can't prove a negative, and thus is useless for "Prove my innocence" checks. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just made a Sockpuppet investigation on myself. To clear my User Name so I don’t get blocked. Go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D climacus.--David | ^Talk 08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed the part where it was told Checkuser is not for proving your innocence. That request will be declined.--Atlan (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's been declined already.--Atlan (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is Eddie Segoura, but there's no doubt no point in checkusering the account because he's been socking consistently for four years and knows perfectly well how to get around the CU. He has even boasted to me in emails that he has access to hundreds of IPs. And one of his previous socks, NewYork Dreams, came back on Checkuser as 'unrelated', only for it to become very obvious with behavioural evidence and for Eddie to later admit that it was actually him. The Checkuser at the time told me that if it was Eddie, he had learned to cover his tracks very well. That's why, for a long time now, as Eddie, as well as with socks, he's been saying pretty much the same thing about organising checks to prove his innocence, here for example. This account is a very, very obvious sock and I have absolutely no doubt it is Eddie. Two weeks ago I told David (also a name that Eddie has used in the past) that I believed he was Eddie Segoura, and instead of responding to me, and at least denying it, as most innocent people would do, he immediately archived my post without addressing my suspicions. [115] I have absolutely no doubt who this user is and I have extended a huge amount of good faith to him in the past even so far as trying to help and advise him privately, only to have him play games and waste my and other users' time with more and more socks, impersonations of living actors and other such crap. It's not happening again, Eddie. I've already started collecting diffs and if you keep causing disputes with people and wasting peoples' valuable time with your games, I will be more than happy to ensure that this latest sock is blocked. Sarah 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah, that based on behavioral evidence this is almost certainly Eddie.--Atlan (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, most definitely. Would support a block. — neuro^(talk) 09:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would support blocking as well. Sarah 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 09:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He asked for help at 7:40, and he got it in just a couple of hours. Not bad turnaround for a "Plaxico". :) Although maybe a better metaphor would be a "Nixon", as in "I am not a crook." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"I am not a sock", rather. — neuro^(talk) 11:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking by User:24.37.41.212

I would like other eyes to consider the continuing pattern of overlinking by 24.37.41.212 and determine if a long block is in order, after short blocks had no effect to either get the overlinking to stop or to get the editor to discuss the issue. Wikilinking is an important part of Wikipedia's functionality, but overlinking makes an article hard to read, and can if persistent enough be considered disruptive editing, i.e. vandalism. The editor has shown a pattern of linking to random phrases, to disambiguation pages, to articles other than the intended one, to common words, and of repeatedly linking to the same article. Their edits have been reverted by several other editors: [116], [117], [118], [119], [120] and they have been warned on their talk page by other editors. After a final warning, I blocked for 24 hours. Then the behavior continued. After another final warning, I blocked for 72 hours. Then the behavior continued, even after another final warning: [121] shows the addition of multiple links to the same common words, such as "oak," "dove" and "spring." In [122] overlinking included linking to "hemotologist" repeatedly in the article "Hemotology." In [123] multiple links were created to "rudder," as well as redlinks to random phrases, and links to disambiguation pages such as Figure. The IP editor has not communicated on his or my talk page. I have requested that he read Wikipedia:Linking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wikilinks. I hate to block at all for overlinking, but it is impractical to follow the editor around and undo all the bad links, leaving only the few good ones added. Since the editor does not communicate or indicate a willingness to stick to just adding useful links, nor has made any effort to change the manual of style to make the overlinking an accepted practice, I suggest that a long block is in order. But I would like someone else to make that determination, since it is better to have consensus. Edison (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have informed 24.37.41.212 of this discussion and invited his/her participation. Edison (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've reverted some more of the indiscriminate wikification. This person was linking things such as
  • "on the coast west of Dodona",
  • "the first founders of places of divination in the aforesaid countries",
  • "brought on the calamities of ill fortune",
  • "endothelial disfunction" in one paragraph and "endothelial disfunction" in the immediately following one,
  • "decreased surfactant production",
  • "A higher mean pressure cycle-wide",
  • "which further impairs oxygen delivery",
  • "the surrounding skin", and
  • "topical vitamin E".
• This is completely indiscriminate — linking without even paying attention to the sense of the words and sentences being wikified. I've had no qualms about using the vandalism rollback tool on these edits, because this appears to be linking just for the sake of it, with no attention to appropriateness, style, or even meaning of the text being edited. I note, from reviewing the editor's contributions history, that others have reverted other similar edits as simple vandalism, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• 24.37.41.212 is prolly just inflating his edit count so he can request adminship! But to be serious, the question of a long block is surely just a matter of how much collateral damage it would cause. If none, then go for it by all means. A really long block, for wasting people's time (and causing them to inflate their edit count). Little Stupid (pretty smart today) splash! 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

I am really tired of reading "they're just trying to inflate their edit count". Let's declare a moratorium on the use of that term, please? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Was that request for a moratorium really necessary, are are you just trying to inflate... oh, nevermind. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a userlinks template to aid in the viewing the IP's contributions:

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

I am blocking the IP for two months. This will be their third block, and their talk page is full of warnings. They have never responded to any warning; in fact they have never left a talk comment about anything. Other admins may lift or modify this block if the editor will promise to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you review a block for me?

Resolved

 – block endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

99.228.164.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

99.228. apparently likes Pakistan. 99.228. apparently doesn't think much of India. Virtually all of his edits since June '08 reflect this.

He's been blocked several times in the past for edits which 'big up' Pakistan whilst diminishing India (sometimes making POV-pushing edits under the guise of 'grammar' 'wording' fixes, etc.), changing sourced data and replacing talkpage comments he disputes with POV screeds. I've been dimly aware of him for some time now, after warning him a while back against altering other people's talkpage comments on an article I had watchlisted. I noticed today from recent talkpage comments that he's still 'at it'.

So, I've blocked him for 6 months. His talkpage history shows a long record of blanked warnings from numerous users which have gone completely unheeded.

For the record, I have no particular opinions WRT India-Pakistan relations but I would appreciate a review of this block from a few pairs of uninvolved eyes. I feel that it's pretty much inevitable that I'm probably going to get accused of being the guy who's trying to stop the guy who speaks The Truth from speaking The Truth here.

Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we normally don't block IPs for that long, but in this case this has been shown to be a very long term lease on the IP, so its probably okay. However if it is shown he can release and grab a new one, this one should probably have the block reduced.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Its the IP's fourth block for pulling these shenanigans.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the banned users Siddiqui/Nadirali or Szhaider. All are on the 99.220s 99.230s in the same Canadian city YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. Normally, blocking an IP this long isn't a good idea. In this case, however, it is clear that one person is, and has been, using this IP to be disruptive for a very long time. Given the clear evidence that the IP is only being used by one person, the block seems fine. --Jayron32 01:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, block is justified. The address has a history, and this is their fourth time being blocked. –blurpeace ^(talk) 04:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing problem with Indian or Pakistani editors trying to embiggen their own country at the expense of the other. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lasne

Resolved

 – AfD (finally) listed properly on today's log. Don't be hasty... Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - this AfD has been open for two weeks now, with no relisting or anything like that. Can an admin please take a look at this? Many thanks, GiantSnowman 11:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It was never properly listed on the daily AFD log. I am listing it now on today's log. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks. But will that mean it remains open for ANOTHER 7 days then? GiantSnowman 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a need to delete this quickly...? It could use some more input, IMO - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, there's no need for a quick closure - but it's already been open for two weeks and consensus looks to have been reached, in my opinion. GiantSnowman 11:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there is some harm inleaving it in place it's better to leave it for a while. This to give the people who patrol AfD a chance to chime in. It might get WP:SNOW'd if the votes keeps going like they have, or if no one feels like adding anything, but for now leaving it avoids complaints about proceedural errors later on. Taemyr (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandal on Catherine II of Russia

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here. Tim Song (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For some reason a vandal has over some time persisted in adding the false information that the queen died from having sexual intercourse with a horse. The vandal is an IP-user but the adresses all differ greatly. I wonder if there is any way to find out who it is and impose sanctions on he/she/it? Protecting the article is not an option as the vandalism occurs only in-between long intervals.

Diffs:

1. 11 May 2009 - User:158.136.3.10
2. 25 August 2009 - User:66.66.89.37
3. 8 September 2009 - User:60.54.172.34

--Saddhiyama (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily the same person. There's some more on the internet about the nonsense, for example: [124] [125]. You warned the most recent IP and that should do it. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes a bit more sense (despite the subject). I will just carry on reverting the vandalism the oldfashioned way then. At least it is nice to know that it is not some monomanic loony with a good IP-jumper. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not much we can do here. Not nearly often enough for semi. And the IPs are scattered on the globe (one's from Malaysia, one's from VA, and the third is from NH). Just revert when/if it happens again. Someone should check out the recent edits of Special:Contributions/158.136.3.10 for accuracy, though. There's some recent vandalism/test edits (which I just reverted) that calls the remaining recent edits into question. Tim Song (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We should be carefull about dubbing this as vandalism, since it's a quite widespread myth with several people who believe it. Hence it's quite possible that it's a good faith addition.

Also, while we should not report that mode of death as a fact, the rumor is notable enough that is should be treated. As a source see eg [126]. Taemyr (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By adding that rumor to the article in any way, shape or form, you help perpetuate it. That kind of thing is not wikipedia's purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started the content discussion at Talk:Catherine II of Russia Taemyr (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking admins didn't assume good faith

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. Tim Song (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:91.130.91.76

I was blocked for sockpuppeting and the user Tomjacobm was blocked for 48 hours for nothing. I tried everything to convince these admins by telling them, that I didn't want to harm anybody. That didn't work out well. So i do assume, that these Admins didn't assume good faith and they should punished for this incredible behaviour. May main "fault" was to revert a sentence in "National Film Awards", which was reverted by another user. My IP was changed for reasons which lie at ISP. This is my IP now.--91.130.91.26 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you refering to Fisher Queen? Looks like she was offering good advice. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified the two blocking admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I refer to all admins, who were involved except the initial blocking admin. I think, he or she was innocent.--91.130.91.26 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees with you. Abce2|TalkSign 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP appears to be engaged in an edit war and making veiled threats, so bringing the dispute here might be a "Plaxico" waiting to happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That is funny as hell bugs! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You sure do love (or the other one, I don't know) Plaxico, doc. — neuro^(talk) 17:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He's a good metaphor, but the real one is going to prison, so the humor factor is becoming questionable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The worse things that happen to him, the more appropriate the metaphor gets. I wouldn't stop yet. ~ mazca ^talk 17:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[127] So, blatant incivility and flaming. Block? A little insignificant (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you block mazca? --91.130.91.26 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For what? He's not talking about you, he's talking about the real Plaxico Burress. Maybe you're unfamiliar with his story and why it's a good metaphor in some circumstances. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about Plaxico and I don't care about him and your "metaphors". I just don't think, I should go to prison. --91.130.91.26 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because, amazingly, there is no reason to block them. I would, however, suggest you stopped with the personal attacks, or someone might say the same thing with your IP in place of 'Mazca'. — neuro^(talk) 17:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Infact I got already a notice of "A little insignificant" in this regard. Time to buy glasses? --91.130.91.26 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil, or you will be blocked.Abce2|TalkSign 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean, this is a civilized discussion? Fine. --91.130.91.26 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was until you came in. Wait, nevermind. — neuro^(talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not feed anyone, okay?Abce2|TalkSign 17:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nobody to feed. The user isn't a troll, they're just uncivil. I'm just biding time until someone archives this nonsensical section. — neuro^(talk) 17:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really mean you've got to be uncival back. Abce2|TalkSign 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This section should be marked "resolved", as there is nothing for the admins to do (unless they feel like blocking the IP for personal attacks). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Bobmack89x

I posted a message similar to this at WP:AIV and was advised to bring the matter here.

Bobmack89x (talk · contribs) - At first I thought Bobmack89x was a well-meaning but over-enthusiastic new user, but I have come to view many of his edits as vandalism. I acknowledge that some of his edits are useful, but he is a chronic overlinker who builds unreadably long lists of blue-linked items and oversized see-also sections of irrelevant links. As an example, between 22 May and 25 August he made about 120 edits to Federal crime. The article grew by 125%, from 3789 bytes to 8505, with virtually all the growth in a single sentence listing examples of federal crimes that ended up at about 500 words, and a see-also section that grew to nearly 80 entries (diff for the time period and the resulting poor article here).

User has been left talk page messages and warnings by 10 or 12 different editors, some for not citing his additions, some for MOS violations, but most for overlinking. Most messages included links to the relevant policies and guidelines. User seems to ignore all messages and warnings (except for deleting a few), and as far as I can tell has never responded to any. He has had two 4th warnings but continues adding excessive blue links to Federal crime, something he continued to do after the article was trimmed and he was warned on 25 August. Following are talk-page contacts by various different editors, on the subject of overlinking only: [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135].

User seems to enjoy editing articles about criminal organizations and adding uncited crimes. For example, thus far he has made 75 edits to Russian Mafia; diff for a consecutive run of 22 edits to the article here; all 22 are uncited and all lack edit summaries. He seems to pick crimes at random from some dictionary or master list. The long list of purported crimes in the Mara Salvatrucha infobox is another example of the result.

Summing up, although this user has been advised by several editors to slow down and give more thought to his edits, he shows few signs of doing so. On balance, his edits are disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia. A block is called for. CliffC (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Im just trying to help. Bobmack89x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmack89x (talk • contribs)

Yes, we understand that--but as your talk page will illustrate, the edits you're making are not within Wikipedia policy, and thus are NOT as helpful as you intend for them to be. Please read over the remarks that have been placed on your talk page by other editors, and review the bad edits you made. Another edit such as these, where you add long lists of specifics to articles on general topics, will result in a block. Also, please sign your comments to talk pages with four tildes (~ <--that's a tilde) so that your username and time-stamp will appear with your comments. Thanks. GJC 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note not a single edit summary and never a talk page edit, as far as I could see. Syrthiss (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I went through his talk page history carefully, he reverted warnings but didn't reply to any. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Help, identity outed by editor

Resolved

 – Attempted outing oversighted; editor blocked for 72h by Tan and will be closely watched. Tim Song (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Foreign_Service&oldid=312598246 edit summary, another editor has tried to out me by placing my name and identfying information on a wiki summary. Clearly the editor is trying to out me. He is also edit warring, but not really my complaint. Can anyone help me out? Bevinbell (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Moved from WP:AN. Tim Song (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor blocked for 72 hours for violation of WP:OUTING, see here. Tan | 39 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Edit summary has been oversighted. Tim Song (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

I am proposing an indefinite block on Bf20204 (talk · contribs).

This user attempted to post personal information about another editor, while not having that users consent (as far as this report makes it seem).

WP:OUTING provides a good explanation as to why such actions are inappropriate, and states that it harms a user in the real world.

We don't know the accuracy of the information, but that's irrelevant. This was a clear breach of the community.

I propose an indefinite block at the very least, or even a site ban. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I already blocked them for 72 hours. What's with you and these sorts of proposals? We don't indef people every time they violate a policy. Tan | 39 18:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. The issue isn't merely that they violated policy, but the seriousness of this violation of such a serious policy. If I posted potential personal information about you without your consent (I don't know any of your personal information, don't worry), I would deserve exactly what I am proposing on the user above. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the parts of WP:OUTING or WP:BLOCK where it says this action "deserves" an indefinite block. You can safely assume that the attending admin will assess the situation and act in a manner they think is appropriate. At the very most, you can make a statement saying you think the appropriate response is an indefinite block. Throwing up an official proposal isn't necessary and really just serves to confuse matters - and I say this because I know this isn't the first time you've done something like this. I appreciate your earnestness, but please stop doing this. Tan | 39 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Every editor is theoretically salvageable. Perhaps a 3 day wake-up call as to what they did wrong will be fine. No need to indef every editor when they make a bad mistake. WP:OUTING does not tell us to "indef until they apologize", unlike say how WP:NLT effectively does. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action and edit summary deletion. I of course feel violated and desire an indefinate ban, but support whatever community action is warranted and normal when somebody does an outing. Can I respectfully request that he be watched closely when the 72 hour ban is lifted - his comments are quite personal and frankly I am concerned with his edit warring. I do not think I personally know the guy, but he was clever enough to figure out who I am and post the info. Bevinbell (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The OR problems alone warrant a close eye. If you see any issues, let us know. Tan | 39 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A close watch would be a very good idea. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance's continued disruption at Van Jones

Resolved

 – User has made a good faithed suggestion.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Reliefappearance has been showing a problematic attern of behaviour at Van Jones. He has continued to comment on users´ motives rather than on their edits [136], [137] , has engaged in personal attacks : [138] and clarified the attack here : [139] has deleted comments with out edit summaries, even hose that contributed to improvement of article [140], he has been warned about this behaviour : [141] ,[142] , [143], he has also suggested that his edits to the talk mage are motivated by a desire to stir things up [144], which is at the least counter productive. Please also see his 3rr violations and other more low level edit warring here: [145]. A small warning from an admin should do the trick, with serious reprecussions if his misbehaviour continues.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Die4Dixie's attitude toward this edit was "...looks good", I think this is at best a POV-vs-POV situation. I guess my attitude is that an editor who chooses a name like "Die4Dixie" forfeits the right to ask other editors to AGF, especially when the editing pattern so closely matches what the user name would predict. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie, There is no justification for your unilateral declaration that you are somehow absolved from the normal requirements of civility just because of a username. These are exactly the situations where the injunction to assume good faith on the part of other editors is most valuable. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please at least ake a cursory glance at the diffs and be a little less ad hominem about a name. It has been throught 2 inappropriate username "investigations". The first edit did look good. His POV is not the problem; but rather, the behaviour that he exibits. As you will see, my edits to the article have stood for enough time to show the non controversial nature of them BTW , comments a t ANI do nt exempt you from WP:NPA.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This good faith edit [146] as I explained here [147] is what sparked Die4Dixie's intense interest in me personally. After realizing that this editor is unresponsive to discussion (the user blatantly stated in the initial post to my talk page that he/she was not interested in discussion, and threatened me with a ban [148]) I've asked the user to please leave me alone. Twice now. This user also fomented problems between me and another editor (AgnosticPreachersKid) who I also had extreme difficulty reasoning with.[149][150] If anyone is being "disruptive" it is Die4Dixie. WP:HARASS As far as I'm concerned this issue is resolved yet Die4Dixie refuses to accept that and move on.

Reliefappearance (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please supply diffs fo your baseless claims. I was not interested in discussions on your talk page about your misbehaviour, only that you correct it. Which you have not done. Still. And that is still all that I wantyou to do. I am not required to discuss your inappropriate behaviour with you continually. You are required to correct it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

See above comment please. I have nothing else to say to you. Please leave me alone (third request).[151][152] Note: I actually did not know what ANI was when I posted that, I had to look it up.

Reliefappearance (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

After I restored comments that were removed by Reliefappearance, s/he accused me of being a rude, stubborn troll and a WP "fanatic" (Is the last one a bad thing? Talk amongst yourselves.). My crimes? Apparently, telling someone who openly admits to starting POV disputes (i.e. "stirring up the debate") that s/he needs to stop = APK is a meanie. IMHO, Reliefappearance and ObserverNY (same thing happened when I tried reasoning with ObserverNY) are causing unnecessary problems on various talk pages. They need heart-to-heart discussions on what will eventually happen if the disruption and incivility continues. APK that's not my name 20:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice editorial. Now please leave me alone. As far as I'm concerned the issue was resolved hours ago but Die4Dixie went to your talk page and he left you a message to come here and join forces with him to try and bring me down[153]. ObserverNY and I (and others, I am by far NOT a major contributor to the article) have made rock solid edits to the Van Jones article through vigorous debate and consensus and it never resorted to a war on Administrator's Notice Board. Are you really trying to improve Wikipedia or are you just looking for a fight? I refuse to let people tear me down without defending myself and you and Die4Dixie are clearly exploiting that. WP:HARASS

Reliefappearance (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked that he comment if he felt it would be appropriate, as he has had more patience with your misbehaviour than I. Perfectly correct. The answer is not for you to feel victimized and persecuted; but rather, that you correct your abberent behavour. Editors are not required to ingore disruptions to the project because an editor says " leave me alone". Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the policies that you are inanely spoutng viz. WP:HARASS and make sure you are not twisting them to say something other thanwhat they do, infact, say.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Incredible.

Reliefappearance (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reliefappearance, the person I've apparently "joined forces with", ironically, someone I've never even talked to, had to leave me a message (per the instructions at the top of this page: "As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion.") A link to my talk page was included in his comment, so here I am. There is no conspiracy. APK that's not my name 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Reliefappearance both in terms of content, and in the concerns about some other editors' potential biases. If you post a celebratory shout out on your talk page that a certain person got fired over a political controversy, then your POV may reasonably be questioned should you edit that person's bio article and talk page in a one-sided way to make them look bad. Further, despite the unfortunate choice of words, "stirring up" a debate is perfectly legitimate if one interprets it as encouraging people to embark on a healthy discussion about the article. I don't this as any obvious admission of trolling. As a content position there is a fundamental difference of understanding regarding the notability of the article subject and the political controversy surrounding him that is at the very least informed by people's off-wiki biases. Amazingly, with all the rapid edits and heated talk page discussion, the article itself is not in terrible shape and is steadily improving. So we can look at this entirely as a civility question. Though it hasn't happened yet, I can imagine things degenerating from here. I think everyone needs to turn it down a notch, and Reliefappearance needs to turn it down two notches. Die4Dixie is spot on that we have to cool it here. Take a deep breath, everyone, and continue... An administrative warning and potential block would not be unwarranted for anyone on either side of this who won't pay heed. The article talk page is for talking about article improvements, and people's individual talk pages and the project's metapages are for talking about editing problems and behavior -- but better to ignore behavior and focus on the article. Die4Dixie, with whom I have shared countless content disagreements, is a sterling example of why one should assume good faith and be civil - he is a thoughtful, considerate, editor. Believing that someone else's content position is informed by different politics than one's own is no reason to launch accusations and get personal. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why APK is dragging my name into this. I don't believe I've had any unresolved problems with either Reliefappearance OR Die4Dixie. Yet APK felt compelled to insert him/herself into a conversation on my talk page between myself and another editor, JohnHistory, again, someone I was having a nice back and forth with. APK's interference drew the attention of an admin who then banned me for 24h! Now Die4Dixie stuck up for me.(see above)Earlier, I felt I agreed with Die4Dixie's assessment of Reliefappearance, but now, I only see silliness. Are we all 12 years old who need WikiNannies? Why can't these Wikiadmins and whiney editors LEAVE US ALONE unless a complaint is filed based on a specific charge like WP:3RR? ObserverNY (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Note: see above discussion for further background). My "interference" was informing ObserverNY, who just came off a 24hr block, that removing comments from another user's talk page is not allowed. Even though I was offering assistance elsewhere, for which he thanked me, the "interference" now makes me one of the bad guys who needs to have sex. APK that's not my name 21:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing events, APK. You notified me of an inadvertent deletion on another editor's talk page which RESULTED in an admin (Connolley) coming in and imposing a 24 hr. block which I just came off of. However, I am very glad you informed me that you did get laid yesterday. Which still doesn't explain your need to drag my name into an ANI dispute between Die4Dixie and Reliefappearance. ObserverNY (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Honestly, I decided this before this thread on AIN, but I unfortunately had to come in and respond. I have decided to take a cool down per Wikidemon's suggestion. I will cool down for a full day, then review the Van Jones after. I apologize to APK for accusing him and Die4Dixie of ganging up on me, I did not realize you had to notify people when you mention them on AIN.

Reliefappearance (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your idea, and I accept your apology. If there is anything that I can do for you, please let me know. This can be closed.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quack?

Resolved

 – Quack indeed. Accounts indef'd by User:Blueboy96, articles salted by User:Orangemike and User:Blueboy96. Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mhassan abdollahi (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked on 16 August as an advertisement-only account,^[154] for creating and recreating MONA Consultants. Two days later, a user named M. Abdollahi (talk · contribs) registered^[155] and started creating such articles as MONA Consultants and MONA-Consultants. Something should probably be done with this, no? After this, the MONA-Consultants page has once again been recreated, this time by Armanab (talk · contribs). Jafeluv (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK indeed. No checkuser would be needed here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The two unblocked accounts should be immediately blocked for block evasion. The article this person keeps trying to create is about a non-notable entity and is purely promotional. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've indef'd both users and salted MONA Consultants--was about to salt MONA-Consultants as well, but someone already took that liberty. Blueboy96 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Leatherstocking at Lyndon LaRouche

I would appreciate administrative help with this. I'm posting this here rather than at AE as it may get more attention here, but I can move it if people think that page is more appropriate.

Leatherstocking (talk · contribs) is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. The article is in poor shape as a result of around 1200 edits over the years from LaRouche accounts. Will BeBack and I recently started trying to get it into shape. This involves removing material sourced only to LaRouche if it's unduly self-serving, and restoring or adding material from mainstream secondary sources. We're also tidying refs, fixing the writing, and generally trying to make the article more policy-compliant.

Leatherstocking is reverting my edits as I make them, ignoring the in-use tag. He has posted complaints about me on AN/AE, AN/3RR, the BLP noticeboard, and the NPOV noticeboard. He wants to retain or add material sourced only to LaRouche, and remove or reduce material sourced to, for example, The New York Times. One example of his reverting is this. It concerns the period where LaRouche moved from being a left-wing group to becoming, in the view of The New York Times, a far-right group with extensive commercial interests. Leatherstocking removed the names of the companies LaRouche was associated with. He removed the details of the training camps LaRouche members were being sent to.

I feel this is unacceptable editing that violates all the LaRouche ArbCom cases. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Too early in the morning for me to do anything but protect the page for 1 day while sort out what if anything is to be done about Leatherstocking and stop any more disruption meanwhile - my first reaction given his forumshopping is that action should be taken, but I'm not sure what. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The problem is that Leatherstocking seems genuinely unable to understand the policies, or apply them to LaRouche. He wants LaRouche sources to be treated on a par with academics and mainstream high quality newspapers. He removes The New York Times information about LaRouche's commercial interests and anti-terrorist training camps, but restores that LaRouche was given the key to the city of a town in Mexico, and wants to go into great detail about some interviews with LaRouche in newspapers in China. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I getting a feeling of deja vu here? Wasn't there another user recently that was doing the same thing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd encourage everyone to closely examine the recent edit history of the article. SV wants to own the article. She and WBB are tag-team edit warring. See also here and note two things; a) Leatherstocking had the courtesy to supply links documenting the edit warring, while SV makes vague charges with one link, and b) anyone who isn't hostile to Lyndon LaRouche gets dumped on and ridiculed.

Finally, regarding the 'key to the city of a town in Mexico' and 'interviews with LaRouche in newspapers in China', we should all endeavor to counter systemic bias. Just because something happens outside the United States doesn't give SV the right to delete it. --ZincPlatedWasher (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The above courageous redlink was created 12 minutes before filing this complaint, or 1 minute after I made my comment above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious sock account to me, it's now blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, a "leather" stocking??? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

D'oh!, I was trying not to go there! :) If any admins disagree, feel free to reverse the block. Dreadstar ☥ 09:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited a Larouche article in my life. You people are paranoid. --74.220.229.154 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least not under that IP address, this being its first entry ever. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S., your paranoia is now being discussed here. --74.220.229.154 (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not paranoia, it's more like a puzzle or mystery to be solved. Kind of like a game. Which is also what it is to many socks - a game that abuses wikipedia. And the reason we are "so bad" at finding socks is because we give far more latitude to those sock game-players than we probably should. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Zincplatedwasher may not be Leatherstocking, but should we check? Yeah, maybe just another troll, but if it is a sock of Leatherstocking, that would simplify matters. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You could check that IP address while you're at it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. That duly noted, regarding Zincplatedwasher and Leatherstocking: Unlikely . Vassyana (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• First, I am not "a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche." This appears to be an attempt to initiate the WP:9STEPS. When I first began to edit here 2 years ago, I watched the POV wars at the LaRouche articles because I found them entertaining. Over time, I grew more annoyed by the tactics of the anti-LaRouche team than by those of the pro-LaRouche team, in part because the anti-LaRouche team seemed to have an unfair advantage (again, see WP:9STEPS.) However, until last month, it had been my practice never to actively edit a LaRouche-related article; I confined myself to adding tags, or reverting edits that I felt were in violation of policy. I only began to edit some "LaRouche" articles after engaging in mediation with Will Beback (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-06/LaRouche movement.)

• Regarding the one diff that SV cites as an example of my alleged misbehavior[156], there is already a separate article for U.S. Labor Party, which would be the appropriate location for an extended summary of a newspaper article about that organization. However, even at that article, I don't believe that it is necessary to include every minor detail, such as how much the alleged training costs per day, in which states it allegedly took place, or that U.S. Labor Party members were employed at a company that allegedly printed high school newspapers. For readers who are interested in such minutiae, we have external links. SlimVirgin herself has deleted substantial amounts of well-sourced material, and she has dismissed objections by saying that the article is too long and she is "trimming" it. However, the "trimming" seems to be POV-based, and there seems to be some simultaneous "fattening" going on.

• SlimVirgin complains about being reverted. She has made over 140 edits to this article since August 28, and she has reverted virtually every edit made by other editors during this period. On top of that, she went so far as to revert the NPOV tag I posted[157], which as I understand it is a policy no-no. I would also like to point out that when I do revert, I include an accurate edit summary. SlimVirgin mixes her reverts in with other, more innocuous edits, and then disguises the process with a vague edit summary along the lines of "tidying." --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Comment: Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has indeed been quite disruptive on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche in a manner contrary to multiple site policies. (Examples: WP:BAN: Restoring banned editors, WP:EW: Blocked for edit warring on Views of Lyndon LaRouche, WP:FORUMSHOP: Forum shopping). Perhaps it is time to consider a topic ban of the account from related articles? Cirt (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the "forum shopping" rule, and I promise not to breach it in the future. I simply assumed that since I saw evidence of several policies being violated, I ought to report each type of violation at the relevant board. I won't make that mistake again. As far as being blocked (once) for edit warring, I believe that block was improper, and I said so here. And regarding the "restoring banned editors" charge, I have made my opinions known at Wikipedia talk:BAN#call for wording. I have no problem correcting any policy mistakes I have made. I still contend, however, that SlimVirgin is outrageously flouting numerous policies, and no one seems to raise an eyebrow. Does she have a free pass of some sort? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent question. The answer, of course, is that no one has a free pass here. Theoretically, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Leatherstocking writes above that he first edited a LaRouche-related article last month. That's very far from the truth. His earliest edits in 2007 show an interest in LaRouche-related people. His 15th edit was to add a detail to Dennis King, [158] LaRouche's biographer, someone the LaRouche movement regards as an enemy. By his third month—and he hadn't made many edits so this was early in his history—he had started posting in LaRouche's favor at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. [159] In October 2007, there's a complaint that he's altering bios of people opposed to LaRouche. [160] His top-edited articles are all LaRouche-related, [161] and his edits are invariably pro-LaRouche: removing critical material no matter how well-sourced, adding material from LaRouche publications, reverting, adding NPOV and other tags and reverting if anyone tries to remove them.

He has made 782 article or article-talk edits overall. Of these, 408 have been to the main LaRouche articles or their talk pages: Lyndon LaRouche, Views of Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Kenneth Kronberg, Dennis King, and Chip Berlet, and many of the rest to pages LaRouche is tangentially involved with. All or most of his edits (173) to project space have been about LaRouche (BLP noticeboard, AN/I, RS noticeboard etc), trying to prevent LaRouche accounts from being blocked, trying to have other editors of the articles sanctioned.

The main problem is that he seems not to understand NPOV. He appears to believe that material from e.g. The New York Times is on a par with material from LaRouche, and that the article must reflect LaRouche's views in the same proportion as it reflects everyone else's. He also believes that everything LaRouche says and does must be added to the article, the result of which was that it had turned into a vanity page and a platform. He fights to keep, "LaRouche flies to Moscow, is welcomed at the airport; LaRouche given the keys to Sao Paulo in an elaborate ceremony; LaRouche thanked in the Mexican parliament," invariably sourced to LaRouche himself, while removing or reducing material from mainstream newspapers about LaRouche's commercial interests, or violence against opponents, and so on.

It is going to be difficult to get the article in shape with Leatherstocking continuing this behavior. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I said (not what SlimVirgin says I said.) My practice was to add nothing new, either positive or negative, to "LaRouche articles," but to tag or revert when I believed I saw policy violations. SlimVirgin says I made an edit Dennis King, which is correct, but the inference that it had something to do with LaRouche is incorrect. When I first came here, I knew more about Dennis King than I knew about LaRouche, because of my interest in the Youth International Party. King runs with that crowd, and the webmaster of King's website is A.J. Weberman (see my recent post on this board about Weberman.) SlimVirgin would have you believe that I am adding all sorts of pro-LaRouche material to the Lyndon LaRouche article; this, too, is incorrect. I am objecting to deletions of material that I think unbalances the article, combined with undue weight given to newly added material sourced to obscure critics. The "LaRouche articles" were battlefields for such a long time, and they finally stabilized in a form that I thought was an honest compromise between the two teams, and there was peace in the valley. Now I see SlimVirgin, with some assistance from Will Beback, on a major POV re-write campaign, and I think that it does a disservice to the project. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles had not stabilized. What happened is that people (except LaRouche editors) had largely given up on them, and the focus was only on how to stop them from getting even worse. What you call a "compromise" is, "On the one hand, The New York Times says this, on the other hand LaRouche says that," but that is not what NPOV means. And the people you are calling "obscure critics" (e.g. Antony Lerman) are mainstream writers with mainstream views of LaRouche, who write in scholarly journals. Lerman's view, which you have tried to remove, that LaRouche's ideology is too extreme and bizarre to characterize easily, is the majority view.

This is why I wrote above that you seem to have problems understanding our NPOV policy. The article must reflect majority and significant-minority views in rough proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. It must not allow the tiny-minority views of the LaRouche movement to dominate or be presented as on a par with the majority view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to make one thing clear about Lerman. Although he specializes in anti-Semitism, he is strongly opposed to defining that term so widely that it catches people who are simply anti-Zionists. He opposes the concept of "new antisemitism," and has been criticized by Jewish groups for so doing. So this is a very mainstream scholarly writer, not someone with extreme views in any sense. In addition, the view we're using him as a source for—that LaRouche's ideology is too bizarre to describe easily—is very much the majority view of LaRouche. Lerman is a good example of using a mainstream expert, whose article was published by a scholarly journal, to express the majority view, and adding the name only to make sure we had in-text attribution. Yet still you remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Antony Lerman is in fact an obscure individual, who had no bio at Wikipedia until you authored it[162], shortly after adding multiple references to him at Lyndon LaRouche. Lerman consequently does not have the wild-eyed public image that Dennis King has. However, his contribution on LaRouche to the anthology that you cite as a source is all of 4 pages long, and consists simply of an uncritical summary of the material in Dennis King's conspiracy-laden tome. Inserting Lerman's quote in the lead adds no new information and serves simply to amplify the already-existing "extremist" claim. WP:BLP#Criticism and praise states that criticism must be written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If Lerman is an "obscure individual", you'll need to provide a better reason than that he doesn't/didn't have a Wikipedia article: I can provide dozens of examples of notable individuals who don't, at this moment, have articles about them in Wikipedia. (One example would be the majority of Ethiopian government Ministers, both past & current; it should be a no-brainer to conclude that being a high government official of the second-largest African country is notable.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

These articles have had significant problems with LaRouche related single purpose accounts doing things our policies and principles really don't agree with. We've had quite a number of accounts blocked over this over the years, and a couple of what appear to be persistent recurring sockpuppets.

Leathersocking has been participating for some time and has managed to generally rise above that - he's got a LaRouche associated viewpoint, but has on review generally been found to be acting reasonably (with a possibly COI viewpoint, but not hiding that and listening to criticism etc) in the past, and has never been tarred by association with the sockpuppeteers as far as I have seen. In many contentious fringe related articles we have nobody from the fringe's point of view who makes an effort to play by the rules here and represent that viewpoint fairly in consensus discussions - this set of articles has in a way been lucky to have Leatherstocking, in that sense.

I am concerned by the current reports, but I urge everyone involved to assume good faith - I can believe a change in behavior, but I also can believe a non catastropic accidental butting of heads where consensus can be discussed out given time.

I am not in a position to spend a couple of hours or more on diffs on these articles tonight - but, in general, I urge patience and good faith. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just back from a long weekend away from the computer, and I have plenty to add about this matter. However I won't be able to spend much time on it until tomorrow at the soonest. (It's gonna take me an hour or two just to catch up). What I can say now, and substantiate soon, is that Leatherstocking is a single-purpose editor who has repeatedly restored material added by a banned user and who has edit-warred to add LaRouche theories to Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I don't have "a LaRouche associated viewpoint," and (I'll repeat for Will Beback's benefit) I haven't added "LaRouche theories" to anything. I have simply opposed what I saw as POV deletions. I have also been the only voice objecting to the attempts of Will Beback and SlimVirgin to control these articles, as if they had never read WP:OWN. Both sides of the great divide have their respective sins; in the case of the LaRouchians, it is a tendency to make overly grand claims on behalf of their leader, with inadequate sources. I am also told that they engage in sockpuppetry, although I have come to suspect that this card has been played a few times too often. From the other, anti-LaRouche team, I have seen a fair amount of abuse of process that is consistent with WP:9STEPS. GWH is correct in saying that I make an effort to play by the rules here, and I regret having run afoul of the forum shopping policy. It still appears to me, however, that SlimVirgin has an extremely cavalier approach to the rules. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on the related evidence separately. However Leatherstiocking's assertion that he doesn't have a "LaRouche associated viewpoint" should be addressed. While we have no way of knowing what Leatherstocking's personal viewpoint is, we can see what viewpoint his edits have promoted. I've seen so many claims of disinterest by single purpose editors that they're suspicious in themselves. For example:

• I came to Wikipedia seeking information about Lyndon LaRouche, since I am often given his literature on the street and I find it eccentric, difficult to read and super-intellectual. However, what I found at Wikipedia is lots of articles, all dominated by the same two or three people, which make all sorts of undocumented claims. They provide little information on the material in LaRouche's pamplets, and all sorts of other information which appears irrelevant or bogus. When asked for source citations they simply quote themselves or each other. I think that this is a problem. I hope that the other articles in Wikipedia are better.[163] -user:NathanDW

I think that actions speak louder than words.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Gamaliel has threatened to censor my talk page and has been very uncivil

Resolved

 – Sock sent to the wikipedia laundry

Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A short while ago, I added a quote to my user page labeled "Funniest Quote I have read in a year" (the quote being from a fellow Wikipedia user on a talk page in which he said "Fortunately for us as editors, we have Wikipedia policy, and need not get bogged down by our personal feelings.") Originally, I had the editor's name after the quote indicating he had said it. After administrator Gamaliel suggested it would only serve to antagonize the editor, particularly since the editor and I had been in editing disputes previously, I removed the user's name from the quote and further changed "Funniest Quote I have read in a year" to "Favorite Quote." This exchange then took place:

I have removed the arguably offensive, yet sincerely descriptive, word "funny" from the preamble to the quote, and have further removed the source of the quote's name. Thank you for your concern.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least it's a step in the right direction. Thank you for taking it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Realizing that the latter remark was a very "smart" (as in smart-aleck) thing to say, and realizing that I had gone above and beyond what was necessary (I could have just gotten rid of the "Funniest" label, or removed the user's name as the source of the quote), I decided that I would keep the "funniest" language but remove the user's name as the source of the quote. Then, the following exchange took place (from my talk page):

Actually, it is arguably much much more than principles of "civility" would require. The only thing that was arguably uncivil about it was my labeling it a "funny" quote (which it is.....hilariously funny). Presumably, I could leave the quote up there with its source as long as I removed the funny language. The person who said it has no privacy interest in what he has posted on a public board. So, in response to your snippy comment above, it is not a "step in the right direction," it is an overwhelmingly nice gesture to another who arguably has done nothing to receive it. I find it strange that you and him edit all the same pages and you feel it necessary to come to my page and express your sensitive feelings about my posting his quote on my user page. Very strange indeed.

You haven't begun to see snippy yet. There is no privacy issue, the issue is civility, and that quote serves no conceivable purpose but to antagonize a user you are currently in conflict with. If you feel he has not followed policy in his dealings with you, complain to me or another administrator or to a relevant noticeboard. This sort of silly retaliation is not called for, and if he requests it, I will remove the quote. Gamaliel (talk) [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]02:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"You haven't begun to see snippy yet?" You are being very antagonistic and uncivil. Please stop. The quote is no longer attributable to any user. Therefore, removing the quote from my user page would be a clear abuse of your power. Again, please try and keep civil. If you continue to be disruptive and antagonistic, I will be forced to contact other administrators. Thank you for your cooperation.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As indicated above, I have removed the user's name from the source of the quote. Therefore, there should be absolutely no issue involved with this. Yet administrator Gamaliel has continued to harass me and threaten to censor my user talk page by removing the quote. I would like someone to please stop him from harassing me, and, if possible, get him to apologize for his uncivil behavior and disruption of my day. On a side note, I actually do like the quote and am not trying to antagonize anyone with it (it's awfully hard to antagonize someone with a quote when you're not naming them as the source).Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If someone were do something like that, I would be offended for the most part. I find it borderline personal attacking, since, regardless, you are trying to bring down the credibility/honor/reputation/(fill in the box) of the editor who said it. You should remove it from your page. –túrian^patois 03:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How can you bring down someone's reputation if you don't attribute a quote to him?Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When people come across it, they will not know who said it.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive at the least....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I can at least see the argument that it’s disruptive if it’s attributed to someone, but how in the world can the following quote – unattributed to anyone – be disruptive or capable of bringing anyone’s reputation down? “Fortunately for us as editors, we have Wikipedia policy, and need not get bogged down by our personal feelings." Could someone please answer that?Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel said "if he requests it, I will remove the quote". Seems fair enough to leave it at that and move on? Rich Farmbrough, 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

My problem with that is that it allows someone else to dictate what is on my user page even if there is nothing with what is on it at the present time. You will note that it is fairly common for Wikipedia editors to include quotes from other editors on their user pages (unattributed to a particular user, of course, as is this one). Anyhow, I'm going to bed and will continue to litigate the cause of action tomorrow. Good night.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Short of banning the admin forever and desecrating his user page what would you like done? Obviously the consensus is that you have made a borderline attack. It is disrupting process here on what is not a pressing issue, the admin neither blocked you or disabled talk page comments. In short get over it, remove the offending quote and move on it is not life ending. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested reading....WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The username Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? seems pretty disruptive in and of itself. It screams POV warrior. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager a sockpuppet too..User talk:Fight the bias Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it says "resolved", since there are still issues. One is his false assumption that it's "his" user page. Another is his inflammatory userbox calling for the impeachment of the President, probably on the legalistic grounds that he doesn't like the President. And despite suspicions of sockpuppetry, he's not blocked. All in due time, I suppose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I see to have been involved with both of them. Small world. Abce2|TalkSign 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Both of them"? How do you tell one right-wing flamer from another? They pretty much all drink from the same Kool-Aid. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did try explaining things to the "fighting" one, but I never thought it would lead to this. Abce2|TalkSign 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the username, this sounds like another User:Biaswarrior account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably that's "the fighting one" that the editor above slyly alluded to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to the Investigation TY. [[164]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that the Opie has been determined to be a sock of an indef-blocked user, can someone remove that ridiculous userbox about impeaching Obama? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's impair his abilities to be annoying. Hey, is anyone else feeling hungry? HalfShadow 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Once someone gets around to indef-ing him, that should clear off the user page, so it will be a non-issue. I was thinking I might construct an illustration of a large plant with the picture of every President on it who's raised any hackles - which is most of them - hanging like fruits. I'll call it an Impeach Tree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be located in Atlanta. Edison (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Can someone please unprotect List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009? There was recently a unanimous RfC consensus at the article's talk page to merge List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War into the article, but nobody can do it because of the protection. It's worth mentioning that the article itself is currently a redirect to Timeline of the Gaza War, a situation that will obviously end once the other article is merged into it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the right place, go to WP:RFPP. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

actually, considering what has been our history on this topic, I don't think it unwise to mention proposed actions about articles on this subject here. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles

• Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Last week Racepacket had removed a statement and a reference that stated that the University of Miami was commonly referred to as "The U", which was supported by the original link, citing a discussion on the talk page that had occured in April 2007. Another editor found the removal, undid it and added a new reference. Racepacket for the past two days has been editwarring over the exclusion of the words "The U", despite consensus being against him on the talk page of UM's article and at WT:UNI, where an ongoing discussion concerning the usage of the shorthand names continues for reasons I can't ascertain. He continues to assert that common names or short hand names or nicknames are slang and violate a precept of WP:NOT.

His disruption of this article (removing references, removing non-controversial common sense statements, filling an entire paragraph with {{fact}} tags) has moved onto other articles relating to the University of Miami (Miami Hurricanes and a {{notability}} tag on Iron Arrow Honor Society). The straw that broke the camel's back was when he removed the 3 references that supported what he was questioning [165] and then a little over an hour later removed the statements entirely [166], including undoing many formatting changes I had made to make the article easier to read. This accompanied with his inability to work with myself, DroEsperanto, and other users who have been trying to make the article meet his strict sourcing requirements is getting tiring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U (University of Miami) might be informative, here. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Uncle G, your reference is helpful. Obivously, User:Ryulong's claim is not true. I did accidently remove some changes when there was an update conflict which I immediately added back. The problem is that User:Ryulong has an emotional ownership in the article, as evidenced by his discussions on the talk pages. I am trying to get concensus while removing redundancies and reorganizing the article to conform to other university articles. I appologize for any inadvertant deletion, but I try to add stuff back as soon as I can examine the diffs that occured while I was editing and saving. When one gathers related sections of text that is scattered, one must edit the entire article and not just one section at a time. There are content disputes galore here. User:Ryulong (who is an undergradute student) has strong, but mistaken ideas about how the Graduate School of University of Miami and its Business School are organized. When I started fact checking the article, I found many comparative statements without any citations, such as the University was the largest employer in Dade County and that it was "the youngest" university to ever conduct a $1 billion fund raising drive. (The source said it was "one of the youngest....")

The problem with the deleted references is that they do not support the claim that the University of Miami is commonly referred to as "The U." The references are merely examples of websites where people are quoted as saying "The U" after laying down a context or antecedent. If there was a press report of a sociological study or a trademark strength survey documenting that people (beyond the campus) understand "The U" to refer uniquely to the University of Miami, I would support including the footnote in the article. The footnotes offered are either local, school specific, or not on point. We have had many inches of discussion on this where I have explained the concerns and I offered several compromises or alternative formulations. None of the cited works discuss or conclude that "The U" is in widespread use as a replacement for the University of Miami. (There is already enough confusion between Univeristy of Miami and Miami University.)

The reference to WP:NOT was explained earlier in full when I quoted from it that Wikipedia is not "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides." I think a little "Assume good faith" can go along way here. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/achievements_and_traditions/traditions/ and scroll down to the the 6th boxed area, titled "The U". For that matter, use any of the other 657 g-hits on miami.edu or 89 g-news hits. If you still don't believe it, five minutes of watching the FSU-UM game tonight will show you that they are often referred to as "The U". --B (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:B, thanks for the research, which again shows the problem -- even on the official Miami website (which is a primary source), "the U" refers to the split-U logo, or the U-hand-gesture or the University-as-a-whole. The question is whether there is any reliable secondary source, that is not just local coverage, that shows that "the U" is generally understood to mean that particular university. It is not like UNLV, SUNY, Cal, etc. I have given examples on the talk page that there are several schools that use "The U" in their own locality and 1) Wikipedia is not in the business of trying to document the geographic and demographic scope of particular nicknames and 2) it has proven to be impossible to find verifiable reports that people generally understand "the U" to mean the University of Miami. I have offered as a compromise to move it down to the ahtletic section of the article were it can be discussed next to the school colors, team mascot and athletic logo. But it does not belong in a parenthical equating itself to the name of the school in the first sentence of the article. Thanks for your help. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if that single example is referring to the logo, plenty of instances are unambiguously referring to the school, eg [167], [168], [169], [170]. Even the news media says the school is known as "the U" [171] This was a generation that grew up rooting for Miami, the school known as "The U," which won 34 straight games from 2000-02. Miami is one of my three least favorite teams (UVA and WVU are in there somewhere), but it is what it is. --B (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I know there are no reliable sources involved, but whenever a Miami alumnus announces on national football broadcasts what school they attended, they invariably say "The U". So to claim that it isn't called The U is simply wrong. Any more than claiming that Ohio State isn't called The Ohio State University. It's just something they do. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC

While I somewhat agree that it requires a bit of original research to look at the usage of "The U", I think this may be a case where Ignore all rules applies and where adherence to WP:V is borderline wikilawyering. Racepacket has also asserted that calling a school "The U" is just like saying that I'm going "to campus" or "to school", which I believe is an illogical comparison because "The U" is used as a proper noun and is only applied to some universities, not all. The use of providing context about which school they're referring to before saying "The U" and the fact that "The U" may not have the singular meaning of "University of Miami" are irrelevant: people often omit "University of" when mentioning their school (e.g., "I studied physics at Maryland" or "Have you applied to Chicago yet?"). — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that someone can remove all of the references to the lead (in the first diff) and then decide to remove the text entirely. I can only assume good faith so far. The wikilawyering and the continued removals of the references is going too far.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As is the nonsense text he added to further disrupt the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• With all due respect, summarily reverting changes without discussion or offering alterntiaves is being "disruptive". I've made many proposed solutions, which I don't think are perfect, but it is impossible to come to consensus unless people discuss where to go from here. I think that discussion on the talk page or WT:UNI is more productive than trying to discuss it here. If I am "borderline wikilawyering" I am sorry, but I don't know any other way to consensus. Bullying is not a solution either. Racepacket (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket is continuing to argue against the inclusion of the text on the talk page of UM despite consensus being against him here, on the talk page of UM, and the talk page of WP:UNI. Someone else's intervention would be good.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Would getting a third party mediator help? We need to get past the hostility here. Racepacket (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(To reply to both points): You have summarily removed the references and statements regarding the content on this page more than once in the past three days. There have been multiple third party mediators on every page where the actions on the article are being discussed. The consensus, as far as I can tell, is that you are incorrect in your removals of the text regarding the alternate names, and there have been multiple people saying that here, Talk:University of Miami, and WT:UNI. I have done all I can to improve the article in its coverage of the shorthand names, but you have thrown out every reference shown to you or have been saying that they do not show that the name is used, but it shows uses of the name. Your wikilawyering over this point has made me lose my patience in dealing with you. And I have stopped assuming good faith after you purposefully have been removing the references used from the article and then used that as an excuse to remove the text entirely.

You have stated that you want to create a new policy to cover these alternate names and it is clear that you have been using University of Miami as a case study. This content is on every article on a college or university. I am tired of arguing this same point over and over again. "UM" and "The U" have been proven on every possible chance that they refer to the University of Miami, at least in the context where the University of Miami has already been stated. People from the school refer to it as such. This point has been hammered in so much that you can't use the claw end of the hammer to get it out. I want to move on, but every time I check the page again you have found some other reason to expound that the content should be removed, which you then do yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a point I bring up above, Racepacket is suggesting that a mediator (a la WP:3O) be brought in despite there being multiple opinions brought here, on the article talk page, and on the WikiProject talk page. I am confused as to why he thinks an umpteenth opinion will change anything here. The horse is thoroughly dead and beaten after six days of this dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think were are near consensus. For the first three days, you just summarily reverted the edits without comment or justification. I then make some proposals and you asked me to wait to have others comment. Since this ANI was posted, I have proposed two different compromises, and User:B has posted a third and you have summarily reverted his changes as well. I have tried to get more input from other editors at WP:UNI and all we have learned is that "The U" / "The University" problem exists on other pages as well. The University of Virginia acknowledges the problem in a footnote, but you won't agree to include the Virginia disclaimer in the Miami footnote. We need someone to get the discussion to focus on the problems at hand -- the footnotes not supporting the article text and misleading the reader that there is a widespread "common" belief that "The U" means the University of Miami to a large number of people. From what I've read above, you might want the article to discuss the phrase "The U" and the strange U-shaped hand gesture along with the Athletic Logo or in terms of some branding scheme launched by the Athletic Dept in 1973. But the current parenthetical in the first sentence with the misleading footnotes is very strange and a disservice to the reader. A mediator would require you to write down what you are trying to say with that parenthetical and then we could figure out how to incorporate it into the article. Perhaps you are reluctant to do that because no verifiable sources exist regarding some of it, but it is worth the effort. I will bide my time and comply with the 3RR, but we are far from a consensus, and I am looking for an avenue to work toward one. By the way, leaving profanity or curses on my talk page does not move things along. Racepacket (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not reverted anything by B. There is no need to address the text in an extensive footnote as is featured at the University of Virginia page. There is no "problem" with "The U"/"The University". Only you see it as that. There is no need to express anything extensive about these alternate names. They are merely annecdotal references that need not be expounded upon in prose as you suggest, and there are no "misleading footnotes". You have been the only person to express any concern about these items (the thread on the talk page where you have reinitiated discussion was about a lack of references on these terms). There is currently a consensus against the various suggestions you have been making. And there is nothing that another mediator in this process will do anything about. You have been removing citations from the article which is practically vandalism. Multiple editors have been disagreeing with your changes (MiamiDolphins3, B, Do be good man, myself). Why can't you get the freaking point?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have reverted B. You are also engaging in indiscriminate reverting of my edits and incivility and are pushing Boosterism and emotional ownership of the article beyond what many would consider acceptable. Please reread the discussions and my comments. I get your points about "The U", but when an author drops a footnote reference it must match the statement in the sentence. The footnote just has references that quote someone local saying the "The U". That does not proved that "TheU" is "commonly referred" to mean Miami. Let's leave out the footnotes unless they prove the point. The talk page has a number of alternative formulations, but the phrase "commonly referred" is just weasle words that does not tell the reader what you seem to want to say about "The U" phrase.

That was not a revert of B's edits. And I'm tired about the semantics about the references. And "commonly referred" is in no way a weasel word/phrase. You are continually suggesting that there should be an extensive discussion of the name "The U" in the article, which I doubt I would find anywhere online (you continue to assume it refers to the Split-U logo or the gesture depicted in the article by the mascot based off of said logo and not because it is "the University of Miami"). I do not indiscriminately revert your edits, as I have not gone through and undone everything you have done to the article. Some edits I disagree with and undo and then change things to match your issue. Throughout your editing of this article you have shown zero knowledge of the subject matter as per your comments on the talk page and your inference that "The U" is a common noun and that Iron Arrow Honor Society is not notable for inclusion, when there was a Supreme Court case concerning the subject of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. However, the proper noun/common noun distinction was from DroEsperanto. I said "The U" is like a pronoun in that it needs a context or antecedent for meaning and pointed out that the Univ of Minnesota also uses "The U." If the Athletic Dept. is trying to build a tradition around it and is encouraging football players to introduce themselves that way, you can write about it in the article and people will understand that it is an on-campus, insider thing. If you want to use UM or The U as an abbreviation in the article, we can put it in a naked parenthetical without a footnote. But please do not claim that it is "commonly referred" without explaining the geographic or demographic scope of your claim of use. "The U" is too redundant with other schools to have world-wide meaning, and it could mean the school, the athletic logo, or the hand-gesture. Thanks Racepacket (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest anything you are stating about the single instance of "The U". It is merely an abbreviation and in no way a pronoun that is used to refer to different educational institutions, depending on the context already established. There is no way in my opinion that any of your requests can feasibly be filled because of your incorrect insistances. Why are you bothering with the semantics on the use of the word "commonly" in the lead and why are you insisting on requiring extensive sourcing behind the usage of the phrase? It's pointless and aggravating to everyone else. I think I had attempted to remove "commonly" from the lead paragraph, but then you brought up a completely different issue about it and it was eventually added back. Every time something is done to satisfy your requests, you bring up another issue with the same part of the article. You don't bring up the same issue on other articles (Florida State University, University of Minnesota, University of Utah, etc.), especially when we have found multiple sources and shown them to you here, the talk page of the UM article, and WT:UNI. This is why this thread is here, because I feel that you are now disrupting the editing of the article through your constant requests, deleterious edits, and apparent lack of knowledge of various aspects of the subject matter (and how nearly all of your edits in the past week have been to or related to the article).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your last comment shows the need for a mediator on "The U" issue. On the other points, I have been trying to clean up the University of Miami article since Sept 2, and have found time to work on a number of other articles as well (including creating three others.) We have reorganized the Miami to conform with the Wikiproject University guidelines and fact-checked the references (and found a large number of problems.) The information I found while fact-checking mislead me on two minor points, but we promptly corrected those. I don't think that "commonly" is helpful in the parenthetical, and propose that the parenthetical not have any lead in phrase or characterization. Racepacket (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The "commonly" in the opening paragraph is used on nearly every other institution which has multiple shorthand aliases. This is used on Florida State University, University of Minnesota, University of Utah, etc. It is a word that is in no way a "weasle word" as you have called it and it is just continued edit warring on your behalf due to your constant enforcement that the "commonly" part be strictly referenced. All of your focus has been on the University of Miami's article, including an AFD on Iron Arrow Honor Society despite there being non-trivial third party references to the organization. And all of the mediation should be coming from the multiple threads on multiple pages concerning this dispute. Further third opinions via other dispute resolution processes are superfluous just getting out of hand in an attempt to win your way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I find this situation problematic. There were multiple sources, and there is little grounds for Racepacket to justify constantly reverting the article. It shows a complete disrespect for Wikipedia traditions, such as BRD. I think he should be warned about this and, if he persists, then he should be blocked. I am not a friend of Ryulong, and the history between us would reveal the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Ottava and Ryulong that this is a problematic situation. I've left a warning on Racepacket's talk page. Killiondude (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is a problematic situation, but I am not just "constantly reverting the article." I have offered formulations based on the University of Virginia, the University of Wyoming, etc. User B has offered a formulation, but I think that emotional ownership is getting in the way, and each proposal is immediately reverted by Ryulong. Would everyone please read Footnote 2 in the version currently posted by Ryulong before commenting further. Again, the focus this week is on cleaning up the University of Miami, Ryulong implies that there is something suspicious about that fact. Racepacket (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket continues to make radical changes to the article shortly after bringing the change up for discussion on the talk page, bypassing any sort of possible discussion of the proposed change. This suggestion was made two minutes before he implimented the change in the article. This is getting tiring and trying to use WP:BRD to initiate discussion is getting bothersome when he bypasses the discussion portion every time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is not true. User:Ryulong ignores the discussions, or the contributions of others (besides me) and just summarily reverts even though the result violates various wikipedia policies. He is "constantly reverting the article." I am trying to respond to the discussions and have been deliberately slowing down the rate of edits on the lead paragraph to allow others to participate. The discussion portion of BRD must be something more than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_Miami&diff=312704628&oldid=312693245 "I don't like it."} Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G's take on the specific issue; dozens of university are called the U. It's essentially like saying "the University" . It does not belong in the lead--it;'s much too generic. should me mentioned as one of the nicknames -- "commonly" or "frequently:" for a list of nicknames isn't really a weasel word, but it's easy to avoid it:" Among the names used to refer to the university are: " There are many ways to include it--as Racepacket say in his 8:10 comment above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Ungle G has not said anything. He merely pointed out two AFDs. And Racepacket has been implimenting radical changes to the article without any discussion (or with a comment followed by an immediate change to the format he suggests). I am trying to come to a solution, but every day is just a new massive change with no one but him commenting on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Wiki Technical issue manifest on Moons of Uranus article page.

Resolved

Something is seriously weird going on with article page for Moons of Uranus. First off it was originally not showing the contents of this edit:

19:05, 8 September 2009 Alastair Rae (talk | contribs) m (33,189 bytes)

I went in and reverted the last three changes this version:

04:17, 3 September 2009 CielProfond (talk | contribs) (33,189 bytes)

I made my Undo edit at approximately 04:13. This time the live page now showed the edit but the history did not show my activity.

As a test, I edited the page again and inserted the text "Test Edit" into the end of the article (shown in the history as this edit):

04:23, 9 September 2009 BcRIPster (talk | contribs) (33,200 bytes)

The new text updated on the page and this specific edit showed in the history (the history skips the record of my 04:13 activity). I then Undid that edit and again everything functioned correctly. Someone should look into this as it could be symptomatic of an exploit or data corruption/integrity problem. BcRIPster (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it is as big as you are making it out to be. I just purged the page, so everything should be fine now (sometimes the server takes some time to catch up with the edits). –túrian^patois 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. The History is not showing atleast 1 edit made to the page. The edit I made at 04:13 is not recorded in the history or in my contributions. BcRIPster (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you made the edit then? Did you use something such as Twinkle? –túrian^patois 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely positive I made the edit to the page (I may be off by +/- a minute on the time). I don't use any special tools. I just edited from the "edit this page" tab. I made a total of three edits to this page: 04:13, 04:23 and 04:30. The first edit neither shows on the page history or in my contributions, but all three edits physically showed on the article page as I made them. BcRIPster (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds highly unlikely. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that short of a database failure, I can't imagine how that would happen. — neuro^(talk) 05:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The cache was not purged to display Alastair Rae's revert; and BcRIPster made a null edit. See [172]. That's all. Tim Song (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What Tim said (I was just gonna say the same thing). I was pretty confused the first time that happened to me too. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, great, that makes sense. Didn't think to check for differences. :) — neuro^(talk) 06:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here but wouldn't a null edit still show in the edit history or in my activity history? I mean, I hit save and there is no record of the save. BcRIPster (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) No, a dummy edit will show up, but not a null edit. See Help:Dummy edit. Tim Song (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. This was very confusing. I'm sorry for the alarm. BcRIPster (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet War in Afghanistan

Resolved

 – Quack quack quack quack quack. 236 socks and underlying IPs/ranges blocked at SPI. Nothing more to do here. Tim Song (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon my request, a recent admin exerted effort in temporarily protecting the Soviet war in Afghanistan article, but a user (apparently, this user appears to log on using a vast array of different names as exemplified by his recent edits) continues to repeatedly spam and/or make the same unwarranted edits. [173]; [174];[175]; [176]; [177]; [178]; [179]; [180]. Scythian1 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to link it? All I see is the edit for the reversion above and no SPI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Investigation link...[[181]] sorry wasn't quite complete with it yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The duck quacks loudly at 11:11pm PST. I'm going to indef the rampaging horde of socks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok i have them all added....I think/hope Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BankiSun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Groober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) may be involved as well. I have added a checkuser request to the SPI. I have not blocked those two - their account creation times and interests match the problem period for the sock farm, but they also have edited a bunch of other unrelated stuff. They could be uninvolved, or they could be the actual root account of this vandalism / edit abuse spree. Behavioral suspicious but I'm not going to block on the little those two did so far on the article. But it cries out for a CU check... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow up - CU confirmed 236 (!) socks operating... Zzzap. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rapid linking using User:Nickj/Can We Link It

I'm perhaps more concerned about the tool in the long run, but we do have a user, Katharineamy (talk · contribs) using it very rapidly (more than 1 edit a minute) and receiving criticism. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Editor notified. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got diverted. I've notified Nickj as well. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Wasn't trying to chastise. Just figured I would do it if you hadn't and I would note here so that other folks didn't duplicate the effort. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In the tool's defence, I'd like to note that it can suggest useful piped links that might not be known about by a user linking manually. As for my own mistakes, I'll be rejecting suggestions to link dates, as requested, and making sure to check links I'm not sure about. Katharineamy (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, looking at Katharineamy's past history:

• She's been asked several times previously to please stop her bot-like linking behavior (for instance: here, here, here, and here, and that's not counting my requests here and here). She'll say something like "I won't link dates anymore," but that's completely unresponsive to the actual problem behavior itself.
• She's also been asked to use edit summaries (here and here) which she appears to have completely ignored, except for those times when they're filled in for her automatically.
• There have been concerns raised about her use of rollback.
• It's disconcerting that out of her current 64,861 edits, only 48 are to the talk pages of other editors (as can be seen here) including newbie-biting gems like this one.
• I'm not an admin so I can't check her deleted contributions, but she seems to have received a number of messages regarding deletion of articles and categories she has created, including some copyvio notices.

Overall, if there's agreement that a bot should be doing this kind of rapid linking (which I'd be against, but that's another issue), then bring on the bot. But if a bot shouldn't be doing this kind of linking, then it doesn't make any sense for an editor to be doing it. And currently, it doesn't appear that Katharineamy has any idea why people are annoyed at her edits, or that she has any plans to stop the rapid-fire changes.

When I take into account all the other problems that people have run across in her editing, well, I'd really like to see some acknowledgement from her that there is a problem. — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked all the links suggested for 10 random articles. None of them were good. Many were from names in fiction articles to real people with those names, which is never correct. Some others were to wrong names. Some were to non-significant dates. Others were to miscellaneous places mentioned in an article but without any significance in the context. I found none i would have added. I think this tool needs to be sharply restricted unless it can be rewritten. (I had not known about it, but its use would account for many strange redirects I;'ve been seeing lately) A useful place for it would be articles having no links whatsoever. As it's not on Wikipedia, we cannot block the tool directly, but we can deal with the user. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dori:

• I have not completely ignored the requests about use of edit summaries. Please go back beyond the auto-filled ones and see for yourself.
• The use of rollback problem was over a year ago, my explanation was accepted by the admin in question, and nothing has been raised to me since.
• No article I have created has, to my knowledge, been deleted. Categories have, but usually those were either book by author or album by artist categories that subsequently became empty. Also, I have never committed copyvio. There may be articles I edited that were found to be copyvio, but not ones I created.

I'd appreciate it if you would not make false accusations to help your case. I accept that some of my past linking was problematic, and that is going to change. Katharineamy (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If I had made any false accusations, I would absolutely retract them. However, as you and others can see, I made a point of adding plenty of {{diff}}s so that anyone can decide for themselves the nature of your editing. As to your other points:

• Edit summaries: How far back do I have to look to find where you've used edit summaries? Out of the last 250, for instance, I've found zero.
• Rollback: I was just going by what the editor in question had put on your talk page—which is why I linked to it. In general, it's a bad idea for someone with as few edits as you have to user talk space to be using rollback at all.
• AFD: again, as I said above, I'm not an admin, so I can't see deleted articles or their history. But just based on your talk page, I see automatic AFD & copyvio notifications of: Institute of Revenues, Rating, Category:Novels by Rich Shapero, Category:DÅÅTH albums, Category:New Zealander singer-songwriters, Kuroda, Nagashige, Davao Light, and Beaconsfield Mine.

I have to agree with DGG, above, who said of your edit additions: "None of them were good." Okay, you say "that is going to change"—but what is going to change? Simply promising to no longer link dates isn't the answer. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Most of those 250 are automated ones, but there are several where for whatever reason I added links without the tool, and used an edit summary. The ones more recently without summaries are where I was just fixing syntax issues or sometimes unlinking a mistake, but I'll be sure to note those too in future.
• For rollback, I was granted it by an admin and the majority of my uses are on anonymous vandalism. As I say, no one has raised an issue with me regarding that in more than a year.
• I did mention that there were some novel and song/album categories that were deleted, and the Novels by Rich Shapero category was actually initially voted as a keep. New Zealander singer-songwriters was simply renamed as a matter of adjectival form. As for the others, I can't find any reference to Kuroda, Nagashige on my talk page and I can't remember what happened with that one, but the other three happened because the tool couldn't cope with the & sign and created half-titled copies of the Wikipedia articles I was trying to edit. I'm aware of that glitch now and it won't happen again. It also wasn't exactly copyvio, since the only copying done was of text already on the site.
• I wasn't aware that linking place names in an article that mentions them was wrong. Now that I am, it'll go along with the linking of dates. Also, as of last night I'm not accepting any links that aren't obviously correct without checking them. I apologise for not starting to do so the moment you commented, but to be honest the tone of your initial contact put my back up a little. I would like to say that I wasn't just blindly accepting anything the tool offered - for example, it seems determined that "you lose" should be piped to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory! However, I'm now double-checking everything that might be wrong. Katharineamy (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I am also an user of this tool, and I've found it very valuable for the dead-end page patrol. I've watched some of Katharineamy's edits (because I've touched some of the articles myself), and she's adding some links that I wouldn't (generic terms especially - I do add placenames), but a lot of additions are ones I agree with. The thousands of articles at Wikipedia:Dead-end pages need some tender care. (My own style is to use CanWeLinkIt first and then do an editing pass adding links that I understand but CWLI doesn't have - which means I do dozens where Katharineamy does hundreds. I think we should all appreciate each others' efforts.) --Alvestrand (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Being stalked by a user

A while back, I gave a 3O on an article about International Baccalaureate, and since then, I've got swept up into the conversation. One editor, ObserverNY (talk · contribs), has been particularly tendentious in her edits, and it's gone on for months. Yesterday morning, I read about Van Jones in the news and went over to the article and corrected a problem in one of the sources. I didn't realize Observer was active on that page, so I was rather surprised to see a snarky welcome from her on the talk page there, and a less than civil comment on my talk page. I participated in the conversation over there for awhile until it turned into a forum, and then I went away. I just checked the talk page of another discussion I'm involved in, and Observer has shown up there, more or less admitting that she followed me over. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive about this, but I'd rather not be stalked around. Can someone comment on this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear ANI - please be advised that the editor HelloAnnyong is engaged in a "conspiracy" here: [182] to have me banned. His/her sudden arrival at the TALK:Van Jones page subsequent to my posting that I was having no problem interacting with editors of extremely diverse POV on an extremely controversial article, was evidence to me of HelloAnnyong's WP:Stalking to bring back "evidence" to build users Candorwein and LaMome's ridiculous "case" against me. Sure I checked out HelloAnnyong's edit at Kitchen Nightmares. It appears another editor there, Roman88, is engaging in WP:Canvas, exactly what LaMome and Candorwein have done.

I don't believe in running to Wikimommy everytime somebody disagrees with me. Certain editors here simply have "control" issues. Or so it seems to me. ObserverNY (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My first edit on the Van Jones article was 9/6; yours was 9/1. I promise you that my intention on getting involved in the Van Jones article was only because I had read about him in the news - not to try to get evidence. If you read the conversation on the other article you linked to, you'll see that I haven't added anything about the Van Jones article. Others may have, but I don't control what comments they leave. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much for establishing those dates, HelloAnnyong. For you see, on 9/5, you said: "Now you need to take it to the next level. Without someone watching, the articles are just going to turn into garbage, basically undoing months of work. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)". And then, all of a sudden, the very next day, you miraculously woke up to read the news and didn't happen to read the history or talk page of an article you decided to leap into. Hopefully the ANI will see through your duplicitous scheme. ObserverNY (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've blocked ONY for 24h for incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Having blocked ONY twice by myself, I would recommend blocking ONY indefinitely. He's got an axe to grind and is a net-negative to the project. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrible block, IMHO. Hopefully it was rectified.--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Die4Dixie. Btw, I agree with your assessment of Reliefappearance's behavior at the Van Jones article. OhanaUnited might want to try an unbiased approach to administration and recognize the articles where organized "lynch mobs" of one particular (usually leftist) POV guard and dominate the page and actually obfuscate and start all of the edit wars when any sort of WP:Balance by an editor tries to be introduced. The Leftist editor's domination of Wikpedia articles is formidable.ObserverNY (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

...yeesh. Talk about conspiracy theories! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I smell sockpuppetry. On ONY's talk page, a user named User:JohnHistory came to ONY's defense. Yet what alarms me the most is the identical style of both users' signature. Notice how both their signatures are not formatted properly at the same place? Upon running poor man's CU, it revealed that 1/7 of ONY and 1/5 of JohnHistory's contributions go to the same page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia unacceptable behavior at The Soviet Story

Russavia has become increasingly combative regarding responsible portrayal of the Soviet legacy and now has finally gone over the top with comments such as this: "Propagandic Republic of Latvia's F.A [Foreign Affairs Minister" and edit comments threatening "fighting to the death". This is way over the line and based on this heinous behavior I suggest administrators consider, at a minimum, a permanent topic ban for Russavia for any article involving Russia/the USSR and the Baltics/Eastern Europe. I abhor these sorts of proceedings, but this cannot be tolerated. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And we have "cry me a river" derisive deletion on Russavia's talk page of my protest. I rest my case, this is abhorrent behavior. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo Vecrumba's call for, at the very least, a permanent topic ban. He has a history of serious incivility that is clearly spinning out of control. A promise to continue "fighting to the death" is a textbook violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND; given that and the WP:CIV and WP:NPA issues, I'd say the user has exhausted the community's patience by now. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I second Vecrumba's call. Russavia abusively called me a "disruptive ass" because of a copyvio concern I had over one of his images he uploaded. --Martintg (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Combative? Because I dare demand that ALL POV be covered, and covered inline with what sources say? So basically "Russavia has become increasingly combative regarding responsible portrayal of the Soviet legacy" means that Russavia doesn't allow you to dictate what will or won't appear in articles, particularly if it doesn't agree with your own POV, much to your derision. And how is my comment about the Latvian Foreign Minister any different to what you say about other figures? There is no difference. And in regards to Martintg, what happens on Commons has no bearing on here. But your actions at File:Brothers in misfortune.jpg were of the same type - no sooner had I introduced that photo into The Soviet Story in order to provide a visual for criticism of the documentary, and you attempted to speedy it..no sooner had I uploaded it to commons as it is clearly PD-Russia-2008 (if one knew about copyrights they would have known that) and you tried to speedy it there too - instead of taking it to discussion. And my "fight you to the death" comment, it was clearly meant as humour -- see the :D right after it? Get a life you all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if my comment about the Propagandistic comments from the Latvian Foreign Minister is combative, will I see a call for complete topic banning for those who profess their belief on talk pages that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile? You all know such things have been said, but I see no call for banning of those people from the above. So yeah, cry me a river with your clear attempt to gang up on a supposed content opponent. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what policy requires that all POVs be covered in an article? And what policy gives any user the right to demand anything? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the diffs which show that Russavia's editing on Eastern European and Soviet topics creates WP:BATTLEGROUNDs and is characterized by incivility, statements such as "I will fight you to the death" also displays serious problems with WP:OWN. Additionally, the last two comments written by Russavia above clearly show that s/he doesn't think there's anything wrong with this kind of behavior - there's no apology, no admission that s/he has gone over the line and the tone is calculated to amp the temperature (per Battleground). The lame excuse that "I was just joking" ... of course if that's the case then all sorts of bad behavior can be excused, as long as an editor soon afterward claims that they were "just joking". Personal attacks? I was just joking! Incivility? Get a sense of humour! Etc. Note also that Russavia's claim that s/he just wants to have "ALL POV be covered" basically refers to inclusion of WP:FRINGE POV. Given this users block record (for edit warring and harassment of other editors) a topic ban would be a very mild slap on the wrist indeed.radek (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also that now the user is edit warring on another SU/EE article and has violated 3RR there [183] (s/he spared us the incivility this time) (report filed at 3RR [184]). This is of course a different issue then the one here but does illustrate that this user's bad behavior isn't confined to one incident (in case that wasn't obvious from the block log).radek (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As someone who has had only limited (and relatively positive) personal contacts with Russavia, I have been taken aback by some of the diffs provided here. To me it looks like the user has a history of some fairly persistent incivility and a tendency to make things personal. I don't know anything about the background to the dispute and how at fault other editors may be. But as a (I hope) relatively neutral observer of Russavia's behaviour here, I would endorse the imposition of a time-limited topic ban. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Russavia has done a lot of good work in organizing Russian content. However, I'm sorry to say that where it concerns:
  1. representation on WP of the Soviet legacy in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, and
  2. official Russia's treatment and representation of that legacy

that Russavia has demonstrated they can no longer contribute constructively. The virulence Russavia has demonstrated cannot be tolerated or excused in any way. I can only see a permanent topic ban as a solution here. That Russavia's defense is that editors aren't banned for calling Putin a sexual predator molesting children confirms Russavia's destructive siege mentality. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction

In his edit notice at [185], Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote that the content at issue was "hardly undue and i willl fight you to the death on this :D." This constitutes battleground-like behaviour as prohibited by WP:BATTLE and specifically WP:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Russavia has a history of disruption in this topic area as demonstrated by his block log. In his comments above, he has not shown understanding or regret, and I find that his claim that the comment was meant to be humorous because the supposed smiley ":D" was appended to it is not credible. Under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, therefore, I hereby topic-ban Russavia from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months. I will consider imposing an indefinite block in the event of any violations.  Sandstein  13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, not that it needs it. Diffs are.. disturbing from such a longstanding member of the community. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support this topic ban, per my earlier comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The user is excessively combative.   Will Beback  talk  17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP trolling me

There is an anon IP 69.159.##.### (such as 69.159.13.242) that has been trolling me, blindly reverting my edits over something trivial or non-important. I believe that this is User:AverageGuy, whom I feel has often placed fact tags here and there without justification. Is it possible to block the IP range or at least force them to register ? GoldDragon (talk) GoldDragon (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any diffs? Also, whether a range block is viable will depend on how wide the range is. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Here are the diffs: [186][187][188][189][190] GoldDragon (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That does not appear to be trolling; those edits are mostly reasonable. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • • However, that anon user has previously never edited these articles before, they only started editing it after I did. Furthermore, when they do edit that page, it is always a wholesale revert of my contributions. GoldDragon (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Those diffs seem OK -- blogs are indeed not reliable sources. I never edited that article before, it wouldn't make me a troll if I started now, and reverted something you did. — neuro^(talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded behaviour on Dark dune spots page

User:BatteryIncluded has proposed a merge of article Martian spiders under Dark dune spots (see Talk:Dark_dune_spots#Merger_proposal). I was practically the only editor who came out, and while thinking that covering the two subjects under a same article could have been a good idea, I opposed the merge under that name because the nom showed no scientific consensus of Martian spiders being the same thing of Dark dune spots, or a subset/subfeature of these features -see discussion. Incidents were as following, in order of concern:

1. Closed proposal and merged article, claiming consensus for his own motion even if no consensus was achieved : Discussion on talk page was ongoing however more or less normally, while he arbitrarely decided that discussion was closed with full support for his motion [191] and proceeded with the merge, declaring that I agreed with his merge even if no such consensus was achieved on the subject and only two editors (the nom and me) were involved in the discussion.

1. Deleted comments by User:Cyclopia on talk page : After discovering that, I promptly removed the closed discussion template [192], asked for explanation and clarified my actions [193] [194]. As a result he [195] deleted my previous comments insisting that "discussion was archived", in violation of WP:TPO.

1. A very minor incident was nom !voting on his own proposal [196] reiterating arguments of nom. I found this misleading and confusing for other editors potentially interested in discussion, giving superficial impression of more support than really it is on nom proposal. I tried to reformat (without deleting or modifying any content) his comment [197] to clarify discussion, but he reverted [198]; I didn't further revert but clarified my position. Discussion on this with nom can be found here.

In short, my personal impression has been that BatteryIncluded has basically ignored discussion and WP:CONSENSUS: while we all know of WP:BOLD, a merge between two established and well sourced articles is a risky and complex (and in this case controversial) action that would have warranted more discussion. He also misrepresented my views, claiming they supported his motion when it unambiguously was not so. He single-handedly declared a discussion closed while it was not, and, most concerningly, he decided to delete my comments while I asked for clarification and reasons. There is also a strong WP:SYNTHESIS problem on content, but probably this is not the right place to discuss. I ask admins to review the situation and advice/decide how to proceed. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the only 'main editor' of both 'Dark dune spots' and 'Martian Spiders', which I found and developed both from one-liner stubs to full size, so I know the science reports, and since they shared the exact same references (which i provided) for both, I proposed a merge -not a rename- back in August 11. Cyclopia showed up several days later -in the negative- only after I voted against him on a survey to rename the article Planetary habitability[199], in a move that resembles stalking and vindictive behavior from his part, mostly because it is painfully obvious that he has not read and/or understand the referenced material and continually changed the point of his opposition: At the beguining of the discussion he denied there were scientific references suggesting that they are related phenomena: "If there is good scientific consensus on a phenomenon that describes them both where they can be merged, all good, but the current sources do not seem to indicate that." [200]

When i pointed at the references, he produced a second excuse to not merge: What is unquestionable is that some scientists are treating them as possibly a manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon. This means that 1. Apparently there is no scientific consensus on that."

When I indicated to him that several publications stating the same hypothesis, is 'scientific consensus', he changed his objection for third time: he wanted to see a "review paper stating a general consensus that DDS and spiders are the same thing" [201], which of course, nobody would write as they are two separate components of the same geological system.

A large 'spider' feature apparently emanating sediment to give rise to dark dune spots. Image size: 1 km (0.6 mile) across.

Sunlight causes sublimation from the bottom, leading to a buildup of pressurized CO₂ gas which eventually bursts out, entraining dust and leading to the dark fan-shaped deposits.

When I said that even one research paper stating their relationship would be enough for the merge, (WP:Truth) he objected again: No, as an author of peer-reviewed papers, I can guarantee you that one peer-reviewed paper is by all means not enough to warrant anything in most or all cases. You can find peer reviewed papers in support of practically everything: appearing in an academic journal does not mean it is the truth. [202], and also: "You linked a lot of articles which seem all to converge on the possibility of a relationship, but still very vaguely, nor there is any indication that these articles do represent the majority viewpoint."[203]

It was at this point that I realized it was all about his POV and that he was not reading the papers I presented to him, or discussing the science in them, he has been making up objections as he went along, effectively disrupting a simple merge process that has a vast supporting material from high quality references to grant it. Cyclopia has been only expressing his POV, not the science in the articles. It was at this point that I decided to quote to him Wikipedia:Truth and remark that his POV can't compete against the references cited and proceeded with the merge (migrating data) as he has not been reasonable in making an effort to either read/understand or produce supporting material for his POV.[204]

Then he invented yet another excuse to oppose the merge saying that he approved it but must be done only done under a different title.[205] Again, my proposal was about a merge, not a rename, that can be done later if granted.

Regarding the article's name, sources indicate that Dark dune spots are small CO₂ geiser-like systems which are fed gas by the spiders' sub-surface channel network. How is the volcano WP article named: Volcano or "Conduit" How is the geyser article named? Geiser or "column"? They are not synonyms but components of the same system, and like the Dark dune spots, those articles are named as Volcano and Geiser -respectively, not by their underground channels.

Anyway, Cycolpia did agreed to the merger and asked me to choose the page name, he wrote: "That said, I think that a merge is a very good idea because there are indeed enough sources to justify treating the features in the same article. What I disagree with is merging within either of DDS or spiders. I would merge under an umbrella term: you look more entitled than me to suggest the right one. --Cyclopia" [206] So I did the merger and chose the name most used in the scientific literature cited: Dark dune spots, as the fundamental objective in naming articles is to choose unambiguous titles that readers will most easily recognize, and because articles should be named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.(wp:COMMONNAME) My revert he mentions is because he tried to to undo the merge, [207] despite he agreed to it and is now archived and redirected.

Having said that, I don't mind a move (rename) as "Dark dune spots and spider features on Mars" or "Spider and dark dune features on Mars" per (wp:COMMONNAME), and I object to the false name he invented and he is pushing for: 'Planum Australe albedo' features because 1) most readers do not know what albedo is or that Planum Australe is on Mars, 2) because his empirical take is not the name used in ANY news release or scientific publication on this geological formation. Lastly, I don't think there was a "controversy" in that discussion as he claims (maybe a 'debate') as the scientific literature I am referring to, and quoting in the article (& discussion) has been published and bears more weight than his POV. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, I am not here to debate the merge itself. I am here to debate your behaviour in managing the merge: declaring closed a discussion that was not and deleting my comments on a talk page. If you want to debate the merge, do it on the article talk page. As for me "making up objections", my objection has always been one and only, you know perfectly well. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to stop a merge on the basis of "I don't believe/understand the references", is not a valid reason. (WP:MM) The history of Cyclopia's excuses (unreasonable interferences) is archived for anybody's review. The only reason this landed on ANI is because Cyclopia is unable/unwilling to understand the references cited; in a nutshell: Spiders are under-ice channels that conduct dust and gas to the surface, upon eruption, the expelled dust and gravel accumulates on the surface creating a dark dune spot. I don't care if he won't read the references or if he is not a believer of the science models, as almost 40 high-quality scientific research papers (all with inline citations) disagree with his POV. The article has plenty very relevant references supporting the statements in the article, and that is that. As I write this, he is again in the DDS talk page challenging the verifiability of statements (e.g. spiders are gas channels that feed the geiser-like vent), when it has inline citations right next to it!

Cyclopia does not only deny the science, he does not read it before denying it! This is harrassment pure and simple, and it has to stop. I am asking now to please ban Cyclopia from editing the page Dark dune spots (and its talk page) or whatever other name it may been given in the future. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not engaged in acts of policy violation on the Dark dune spots talk page; you instead violated WP:TPO eliminating my own comments and misrepresenting my opinions. My edits to the Dark dune spots page were all minor and none of them challenged your editing. So your rationale for a page ban is really unclear. As for the content of the article and the science, please talk about that on the article talk page, not here. Here I am asking for opinion on your behaviour, not on the article content, which warrants an entirely different discussion on itself. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed to answer this accusation: Trying to stop a merge on the basis of "I don't believe/understand the references" is not a valid reason. I want everyone to notice that I believe and understand the references, absolutely. The references explicitly propose speculative hypothesis. See Talk:Dark dune spots#Requested move for details. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed this one too: he tried to undo the merge. Have you a diff confirming that? I never tried to undo the merge, I only objected to it. What I undid was keeping the discussion as archived and closed: it was (and it is) not. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first a disclaimer -- I'm not an admin. Second, it was clearly improper for BatteryIncluded to declare consensus when there was only one support and one oppose. Third, the only people involved in this dispute so far are the two of you. One-vs-one disputes are usually intractable, especially when the parties get annoyed at each other. The only way to get anywhere in the long run is either to find a way to deal with each other, or to bring some third party to the table. Admins are not going to decide the content issue here. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I understand that it is a one-vs-one dispute, but there has been repeated disruptive behaviour and, especially when I saw my comments (which were on-topic and polite) deleted from the talk page, I felt entitled to ask for admin's advice on the situation. As for the content dispute, I am trying to untangle it on the appropriate talk page (despite the other editor trying to bring it here, which is not the correct place AFAIK). --Cyclopia (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at this this deletion by Cyclopia:[208], on the exact same basis I could claim then that he indulged in 'bad behavior' when he deleted my entry in the form of merge header and footer. I repeat: Cyclopia could not impede the merge simply on the basis of his ignorance of the subject and/or that he does not believe the scientific models are worth of being used as references (POV). Please notice that now he has reverted to his excuse #1: He declares above that I used 'synthesis' to reach the conclusion that this phenomenon is geyser-like, with spiders being the channels that upon eruption produce the black spots. Again, if he does not have the training required to understand the subject, he should not try to get involved with only his POV. Simply he does not understand/aknowledge the science articles cited and therefore his oposition to the merge was always unreasonable. I do not expect the administrator to go read the 40 research papers cited, so I will quote two easy ones verifying the geyser-like model:[209] (just look at the image!), and this one: "These observations are consistent with a geyser-like model for spider formation.[...] Also consistent with such venting is the observation of dark fan-shaped deposits apparently emanating from spider centers." [210]. I don't care if Cyclopia does not believe the scientific references, because: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth —that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.(WP:TRUTH)

Now, for respect to the administrators, I won't go over all 40 scientific references, which believe me, have a consensus on this model, except where indicate in the WP article. Of greatest importance is to understand Cyclopia's refusal to aknowledge these references have no intelectual or WP legal weight on whether the merge was justified or not. I have not done "synthesis" on the geyser model as I showed above, and I gave him ample time to express his negative views, which turned out to be unreferenced and insubstancial to reasonably impede the merging. I have absolutely no reservation with the faithfull representation of the geophysical phenomena presented in the WP article as they all are supported by scientific references, and if "behavior" is an issue in this ANI page, there is a lot to be said about Cyclopia's demonstrated ignorance on the subject, his refusal to aknowledge the role of the scientific articles perfectly placed as inline citations, and his disruptive and inflamatory behavior in the Dark dune spots page. I did not do the merge 'just because', but relied on the scientific references cited weighed agains his POV. Again: his excuse that he doesn't "believe" the references cited, was never a valid reason to have impeded the merge or even having prolonged the circular discussion any longer. Finally, I already demonstrated that he agreed to the merge and even conceded to me the choice for the article name, [211] which I did according to the scientific literature: Dark dune spots. I still request that Cyclopia is banned from editing this article and its talk page as his disruptive interference seems to be vindictive (see my fist post).

I hope I am clear, and am willing to take questions from the administrators. Sincerely, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

Please, both of you - stop attacking each other and assume good faith.

This is going to take time to review. I am familiar with planetary science in fair depth (I know some of the authors of the sources for this article), and even so, you've put forwards a body of reference material which is intimidating to have to review independently in this.

I'll look in to it, but you have to stop provoking each other. ANI is not a club to win content disputes. You have an uninvolved administrators' attention now, who is familiar with the subject area, and you'll get a review. But if you keep swinging ANI around like a club you're going to swing it right into your own noses. Try to remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we expect you to be adult and collegial in your discussions here, assume good faith, be civil and polite to each other, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you. I am personally sure that the other editor is in good faith, despite our disagreements and my concerns with his behaviour. Thanks for taking the time and patience for reviewing this. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the reason I have been inactive in that page. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, as our mediator I want to tell you that I thought of a solution -actually a significant improvement- to the naming. Cyclopia and I agree that the Dark dune spots and spiders are thought by scientists to be related formations. Therefore I am proposing not to name the article after either structure but after the system they are thought to constitute: they are reported to (possibly) be components of a system similar to a geyser, so I am proposing Geysers on Mars or Jets on Mars (i like best the first one as it denotes at first view its geological nature). I have been studying the related literature for one year and after reading additional references today, I realized that this is indeed THE central theory of these two formations' dynamics; I could produce at least one dozen cientific citations refering to the system as geyser, jets, eruption event, outflow, etc. If you check the WP article (and even check the references), all of the models are based on a geyser-like system, and each one proposes a different mechanism powering the system. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let BatteryIncluded know that I answered on this proposal on the relevant talk page. The AN/I has not to deal with the content dispute itself but with editors' behaviour; my feeling is that this should not be discussed here. Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No. This is in ANI because of your empirical denial and POV even the face of the cited scientific references, in your weak attempt to prevent a merge. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop that, both of you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a vandal

Resolved

 – Contributor pointed to dispute resolution. No admin intervention requested or appropriate at this point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One of my edits has been reverted and called vandalism by User:Deserted Cities. The diff is here. Furthermore, he marked the edit as minor, perhaps hoping to escape notice? Even further...um...more, I think he might be stalking me after an exchange I had with a different editor on the talk page of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", a page that Deserted Cities undid me on this morning. I got to "The Ox" by hitting "Random Article" and copyedited to the best of my ability, something I do here and the same way I got to "Weeps", and this guy whom I'd never met before comes shooting in and reverting with a vandal accusation. What does a Wikipedian in my position do now? I'm notifying the other party. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Per this comment and this comment (both on the talk for WMGGW), you show a clear lack of regard for consensus in regards to capitalization of band names. So to me, ignoring consensus constitutes vandalism, which is what you did on the Ox. It was marked as minor automatically because I used twinkle, not because I did it on purpose. Deserted Cities 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See me on my talk page if you want to discuss consensus and the like. This page is for the vandal accusation and the suspicion of stalking. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They go hand-in-hand. Deserted Cities 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. There is a time to defy consensus, whatever consensus is. I'll admit I don't have a very clear idea of that aspect of the Wikipedia experiment. If a clot of zealots squat on an article and come out of the woodwork and revert whenever some editor tries to edit it and shout him down when he tries to reason with them, is that consensus? When a gang of hobbyists decide that their pet thing merits some special consideration in defiance of long-standing convention and common sense and gruffly warn all comers to do it their way, is that consensus? I'm not saying that that's what's happened here, but I have run into things like that. When our friend John from WMGGW mentioned the Beatles group, I did go look at the project page for the guideline concerning capitalization. I couldn't find it. I have checked project pages before for such details, notably the botany and biology pages for conventions concerning nomenclature and reference names. John said that consensus was currently in favor of capitalizing the "the". I looked under "Guidelines", a reasonable attempt, I think, but nada. I tried the talk page with the hope of joining the discussion—no dice. Please show me where it says that on the project page.

There is a time to defy consensus. Ignore all rules. Anyone can edit. Nobody owns an article. Be fucking nice, damn it. You seem to have strayed from some of the core principles of Wikipedia. Be cool. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the pot is calling the kettle black. Deserted Cities 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that. I have done nothing to you. You, on the other hand, have reverted two legitimate edits of mine, called me a vandal, and started following me. And now you refuse to communicate. Show me where it says about the capitalization. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A) You told me to cool off, but it appears from your comments that you need(ed) to cool off. B) Here's one discussion on the matter here. Deserted Cities 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm a vandal if I don't find an inconclusive discussion buried in archive 21 of a talk page merely hinted at by a rude editor and adhere to your interpretation of that discussion? Douglas Adams would have loved this. I repeat that this is not the place for this discussion. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)Well what exactly do you want then? Blood? Deserted Cities 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "vandalism" should only be used for edits that are intended to cause damage. Edits made in the belief that they improve an article should never be called vandalism, regardless of how misguided they are. As you can see, misusing the word makes people very upset. Looie496 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the second comment I linked too, he says he'll continue to make similar changes, even though he's going against long-standing consensus; what would you call that? Also, I'm sure people don't like being called "groupies" or part of a "cabal" as Milkbreath referred to us. Deserted Cities 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the revert was right; but calling someone a vandal who is editing in good faith, albeit incorrectly, is any number of things, from incivility to newbie biting to just unnecessary. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line - yer both wrong, Milkbreath and Deserted Cities. Milkbreath, welcome to the Wikipedia project; if you wish to change long-standing consensus, be prepared to take it to a talk page and pitch a damn good argument. Realize that the status quo probably exists for a reason - that shouldn't deter you from trying to change a consensus you think is wrong, but charging in and changing it yourself - however commendable from a WP:BOLD aspect that may be - is not the best idea, and trying it after you were reverted is an even worse idea. Contact me on my talk page if you have questions or need some help. Deserted Cities, thank you for your vigilance in fighting vandalism and the like - but this was not vandalism, and calling it such never works out for anyone. I've seen the above situation dozens of times. Just take the tip, continue your good work, and we can all move on. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved tag removed, see thread at my talk page. I withdraw the offer for help; any other editor/admin can help him out if so inclined. Tan | 39 16:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me start again. I've been falsely accused of vandalism in the edit summary of a revert of a legitimate edit, and I suspect I'm being followed. What do I do about those two things? --Milkbreath (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For the first, you assume good faith about the other contributor even if you feel he hasn't assumed good faith about you, explain to him at his talk page what you were doing and remind him civilly that good faith edits are not to be described as vandalism. If he or she persists, you consider seeking additional feedback, possibly through one of the fora described in dispute resolution. The recommended location, if you can't ignore the behavior that offends you, is WP:WQA. The policy Wikipedia:Harassment says, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." This would suggest to me that you are not being harassed, as this contributor is restoring material evidently according to consensus, even through the vandalism label was inappropriate. If you feel differently, you consult dispute resolution. Administrator assistance is according to Wikipedia:Harrassment#Dealing with harassment for serious cases. Even if the "vandalism" tag is inappropriate, a couple of articles does not constitute that. For general questions about processes on Wikipedia, you may get a more speedy response at the help desk, which is engineered for that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Djjesse123 still causing the same problems

I reported Djjesse123 (talk · contribs) here last week for multiple improper image uploads (uploading copyrighted DVD covers with no licence, no source, no permission and no fair use rationale). The editor has been warned multiple times for this, and also for continually adding unsourced information (about unverified future films) to various articles, especially the Steven Seagal article. Today, in spite of multiple previous warnings to stop, he has uploaded File:Blood and Bone.jpg without any of the necessary licenses, sources or fair use rationales, and has also added more unsourced information to articles (and been warned once again). The editor has been completely silent and refuses to respond to queries, warnings and pleas on his talk page to engage in discussion. He/she continues to engage in the same behavior they have been warned about multiple times. Warnings and attempts to engage in discussion are obviously useless and this account should be blocked as they are not contributing positively or engaging in discussion. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: He also uses the IP 24.26.78.133 (talk · contribs) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Djjesse (talk · contribs) is a probable sock also. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Is this mic on? *tap tap*... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the general expressions of concern here, and I have indefinitely blocked him pending some conversation. Of course, a sock investigation might turn that indef block into an infinite block, but he can't continue to ignore policies and warnings and just persist with the same behavior. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on his favorite articles and if the suspected sock or new ones start doing the same stuff I'll file SPI. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DustaBot

Resolved

 – --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

There appears to be something wrong with this bot, it is replacing categories with gibberish, and has replaced other characters with gibberish on multiple pages. Can this bot please be blocked before further harm is done? I would also like some help cleaning this mess up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have stopped my bot for now while I look at this. No need to block it. Chillum 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is supposed to remove the categories, it is simply mangling the utf8 characters on the page while doing so. I will fix it. Chillum 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I rollback the edits? This is going to take awhile.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstood, I think Chillum is going to fix the errors too. probably easier for him than for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh.. and I actually hope so, I don't think I could if I tried, too many edits to sort through.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If some mangled characters on a blocked user's page is of concern to you then I will rollback all the bots edits since the bug revealed itself. Chillum 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I just rolled back every edit from the last couple days, since the bug was introduced. Chillum 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks much better. Chillum 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, today's featured article...

...could use some admin eyes. It was just protected, as it seems to be under some kind of coordinated attack. Part of the problem is, there are no admins reverting, only rollbackers, so each throwaway account is getting 5-10 edits in before getting blocked. If a few admins can keep an eye out, maybe delete the bad revisions they're reverting/undoing to, and block on the first revert to that particular version, then protection could be removed.

Also, it was full protected, when semi would do fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see my note just above this one where I request help from a checkuser to flush out the sock drawer. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd

At Sea Shepherd Conservation Society there is trouble with an anonymous user who disagrees with what has been a long-standing consensus: while there are notable accusations of "eco-terrorism" against the organisation, it is not NPOV to claim that it is eco-terrorist. In particular, the IP disagrees with the argument that due to the analogy Sea Shepherd/Eco-terrorism ≈ Psychoanalysis/Pseudoscience Category:Eco-terrorism (which would be misread as saying that Sea Shepherd is eco-terrorist, even though it might be applied on the basis that Sea Shepherd is important to the eco-terrorism debate in the same way that psychoanalysis is important to the pseudoscience debate).

I am not sure whether the long-standing consensus still exists, since two other editors (Mdlawmba and to some extent Cptnono) agree with the IP. But there is clearly no consensus to apply the category, either, and the IP is trying to push this change through. Since 11 August the category has been applied to the article 12 times by the anonymous editor and once by Mdlawmba. It has been removed 6 times by Tranquillity Base, 4 times by me, twice by Cptnono, and once by Craftyminion.

The anonymous editor (previously always as User:68.41.80.161, but today when for the first time doing a 3rd revert in 24 hours as User:69.213.86.67) has been leaving bogus warnings on editors' talk pages. For example when I removed the category and left a long explanation on the talk page, I got a warning not to "remove content" without explanation. The most recent incidents of this kind (both today) were a bogus vandalism warning [212] against Tranquillity Base and a warning I received [213] for an admittedly borderline comment [214] on the Sea Shepherd talk page. The editor is aggressively whitewashing their two IP talk pages and even censored [215] a comment of mine with the misleading edit summary "Removed comments about myself. Discuss the issues, not me plz." (I can understand that the anonymous editor doesn't want to be reminded of their edit warring to misrepresent a key source of the article, but surely it would have been enough to remove the last relative clause rather than the full paragraph.)

I would appreciate it if an experienced admin or two could watchlist this article. Hans Adler 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the second IP for disruptively editing the User talk:68.41.80.161 page. However pardon my confusion on the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article, but if notable sources have called it an eco-terrorist group, then why not call a spade a spade? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We are advised to tread lightly using such terms.  Skomorokh  20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since it's transparently the same user and the IP in question seems to be a static one, I disagree with the reason for the block. (Not with the block itself, though.)

Regarding your question (which is off-topic here, has been discussed on the article talk page and perhaps should be discussed at WP:NPOV/N as well): It's not NPOV to call a spade a spade based on cherry picked sources that do so, if other, equally good sources call it a club or a diamond. Perhaps you didn't understand my analogy, but the most important experts on "pseudoscience" generally call psychoanalysis a pseudoscience, and yet Arbcom found in WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE that we can't call it one. This is now policy in WP:PSCI. Both terms have similar demarcation problems. "Eco-terrorism" also has additional problems, since the term has transparently been coined to make "violence" against property sound more dangerous than it is and thus make extreme action against harmless idiots more acceptable to the general population. Since this is part of a general trend to make the definition of "terrorism" more and more inclusive it's hard to tell whether "eco-terrorism" is terrorism. Also note that our best source for the connection, an FBI person's report to the US Congress, does not say that they are eco-terrorist but only appears to imply it. I am sure that this is no accident, since the same 2002 source also implied that eco-terrorism is terrorism and it would have been strange that Paul Watson wasn't put on the No Fly List if both statements were true. Hans Adler 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Were that strictly the case, then I suspect that Category:Eco-terrorism would be an empty category. However I wonder what gets Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front added to the category, while Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is excluded. Certainly all three have been described as "terrorists" by Western governments. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories are intended as search tools, not as vehicles for making assertions, although they are frequently misused that way. The question is basically whether a reader of the article might be interested in locating other articles that have been associated with eco-terrorism. Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question is easily answered by a quick look at the three articles. Sea Shepherd is a legal non-profit organisation incorporated in Washington. Earth Liberation Front is an illegal organisation; being suspected of membership in it seems to be a sure way to see the inside of a prison. "Animal Liberation Front" is a label used for a certain type of criminal activities. I am not sure where your confusion comes from. It seems the drama we are having here on Wikipedia is mostly related to a sympathetic programme about Sea Shepherd that currently runs on US television. Is there a similar programme glorifying the Earth Liberation Front or perhaps even Al Quaida? Hans Adler 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree 100% with your final two sentences. It would seem to me that an organization could be legitimately added to Category:Eco-terrorism if any WP:RS reported that a government had declared the group to be "terrorist," regardless of if that government were the United States (Earth Liberation Front, Earth First!), United Kingdom (Justice Department), or Iceland and Japan (Sea Shepherd Conservation Society). — Kralizec! (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. We only tag an organisation with a disparaging label when it is NPOV to do so. This is because a category inclusion can't be qualified with "according to the Japanese government" or "we don't mean they are eco-terrorists, just that they are sometimes mentioned in that context". So long as it isn't NPOV to call the previous US president a war criminal, it's not NPOV to call Sea Shepherd eco-terrorist. Hans Adler 11:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to stick with uncontroversial categories. If there was wide acceptence that what they did was terror (or a self catagorisation), but if we go based on what one or two people say, then we could just as equally put Japan or Iceland in the category based on Paul Watson's claims. To be honest the entire term smacks of meaningless news speak designed to dehumanise and trivialise a debate (and sell copies, of course), and while we should cover the term (it is wide spred) I'm not sure how much value we should be giving it. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been forced to link PETA to the "terrorist" word in the lead, with in-text attribution, even though they're a charitable organization with an all-star cast of members such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson. But if even one lone American senator or FBI official uses that word in connection with a group Wikipedians tend not to like—even though no other country in the world uses the term so lightly—then immediately the claim has to be added to the lead or the article to certain categories. I ended up having to write it into the lead myself at PETA, as I recall, just to make sure it was properly written and sourced, because people were constantly adding it. The attraction of these "boo-hurrah" terms (e.g. terrorist, pseudoscience), as philosophers calls them, represents one of the ongoing failures of how we apply NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, if a consensus of reliable independent sources call a spade a space, we want to be reflecting that in our coverage and not whitewashing things.

The organization has damaged property, sunk ships (and has sinking kill markers on their own vessel), and threatened lives (their own, and those of some of the whalers), though they seem to be trying hard not to get anyone actually injured or killed. They're trying both to change public opinion with PR campaigns (the TV shows) and direct action (they've used explosive mines against whaling vessels in the further-ago past).

I don't want to conflate them with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but "Environmental terrorist" is the current commonly used english word for those who take direct action in the name of environmental causes. It's applied to organizations which many of us support to some degree (PETA, and Sea Shepherd), some we find extremist (ALF, ELF). But it's the category in use in the real world.

I want my free-range whales to be harpoon free, too, but they match the definition of the word, and they blow things up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We are currently working on the question whether there is such a consensus of reliable independent sources. It may surprise you, but it's not even totally clear that there are more than perhaps one or two reliable and sufficiently independent sources that openly call them terrorist or eco-terrorist. And before we can talk of a consensus we would need to consider sources of comparable quality that disagree, or possibly other evidence that points in the other direction. Hans Adler 08:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. A quick scan of the field will reveal several countries that openly call them terrorist and a handful more that call thier actions those of a terrorist without calling them a terrorist directly. As noted elsewhere, a quick google search will show anyone the connection between SSCS and the term eco-terrorist. A careful scan will reveal who actually considers them as such. A review of dictionary definitions of eco-terrorism mixed with the violent history of sinking ships and a little common sense will tell you that they fit the dictionary definition perfectly. All that is missing is the question, should such a category exist? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler's argument is a non-starter. Sea Shepherd is called an eco-terrorist group by numerous reliable sources because, like other groups such as ALF and ELF, they utilize violence (i.e- physically attacking whalers and whaling ships at sea) in the furtherance of a political ideology (i.e- a total worldwide ban on whaling). It is also important to note that in this context, direct action != terrorist; Greenpeace, for example, is a famous for their direct-action initiatives at sea. However, they openly disavow violence, and have notably distanced themselves from Sea Shepherd and condemned their use of violence, probably because Sea Shepherd was formed from Greenpeace members who were disgruntled that they were not permitted to physically attack whalers and their boats. Last I checked the article was well-sourced with these comparisons. What happened? Bullzeye ^contribs 20:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh brought up WP:TERRORIST earlier as if to say that the word "terrorist" is forbidden on Wikipedia (forgive me for putting words into someone's mouth... keyboard... whatever). But in fact that style guideline suggests how to use such a term in an article. Basically, if you have plenty of sources showing its use and you use the term in context then it's fine. We don't have to avoid the term to preserve NPOV; you might even say that avoiding the term is itself a violation of WP:NPOV because we're whitewashing the article by not including a negative popular opinion. -- Atama頭 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That has been my exact argument on the talk page of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for weeks but beause there are more people interested in defending SSCS so I always got "out-voted" (or flat out reverted). Some have even gone so far as to go to the Eco-terrorism talk page and assert that its a POV violation to call Eco-terrorism a form of terrorism because they don't want eco-terrorists looking bad, removing all references to terrorism from the article in the process. I'm not making that up, go look. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to pursue dispute resolution to get more outside help. And keep in mind that you might eventually not get your way if you can't reach a consensus on it, but it doesn't hurt to try as long as you stay civil and don't edit-war in the process. -- Atama頭 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Direct action" can easily be as much a POV term as "terrorist" when used to support a political ideology. I understand the desire to avoid contentious POV terms, but it seems bizarrely at odds with policy and common sense to call ALF and ELF "eco-terrorists" but refuse to call Sea Shadow the same when their entire founding ideology (supported by about a dozen reliable sources) revolves around the employment of violence to further a political goal (a ban on whaling). By their own admission, if Greenpeace had supported actual violence (as opposed to direct action) against whalers they'd still be members. What can we do to address this POV issue? Bullzeye ^contribs 06:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Otterathome, User:80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157, and User:Mathieas

So I've acquired some new wikistalkers due to nominating their borderline notable articles for deletion. One keeps reverting me for some strange reason.

• Mathieas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

--Otterathome (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please show the administrators some diffs so they can act on your case? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's pretty obvious. Mathieas only has a handful of edits.--Atlan (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: Mathieas notified. Tim Song (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to figure out why on Earth the results of previous AfD's would be removed from an article's talkpage? Makes perfect sense to add them back. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really see any behavior that I would classify as stalking. Just a few reverts on Vincent Caso. Besides, they've only made 16 edits over the past 3 days.--Atlan (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You'll have a good idea why Otterathome deleted the results of the previous AfD discussions from Talk:Jackson_Davis if you peruse those AfD discussions. There was/is a Wikiquette alert made regarding Otterathome in connection with his activity on related web series articles as well which provides more detail. Mr. Otterathome has also called me a wikistalker, presumably because I've also followed his recent trail of destruction and unexplained article-blankings and redirects in this area. In the case of the 3rd AfD for Jackson Davis by Otterathome, which was made very shortly after the 2nd AfD (also by Otterathome) failed, many neutral editors questioned the singular effort to try to delete the article. In the case of Vincent Caso, it appears Mathieas reverted a redirect created by Otterathome, which had now led to an AfD, and which seems a better course of action that just a unilateral blanking and redirect. Bleech. Drama. I presume this notice is just another escalation of that drama by Otterathome.--Milowent (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Why do you keep saying that Otter deleted discussions when he didn't?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
          • He's referring, I think, to the removal of the results of AfD discussions on Talk:Jackson_Davis here and here not to the deletion discussion themselves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Again, what did he remove? I see three oldaldfull entries before the edit, and one oldafdmulti containing 3 decisions after the edit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
              • The oldafdmulti is a newer edit, Malcolmx15 is correct that i was referencing his deletion of any reference to the AfDs on the talk page.--Milowent (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
                • … which, as SarekOfVulcan points out, did not actually happen. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • It did happen, just review the talk page history, it happened twice, Sarek must have looked at subsequent history. Sorry I'm not at ace at doing these linky things, but this is just one little edit issue among the greater drama. --Milowent (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • Shit, i went back and NOW I understand. OK it "did not" happen. --Milowent (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I resent the accusation that I am stalking otterathome. The only reason I know he exists is because he keeps trying to delete articles I check on a regular basis and use for research. I frequently link to wikipedia when writing articles. Otterathome removed the results of an afd discussion, which he initiated. The admin who closed the discussion went to the effort of stating that it should be a substantial amount of time before the article is renominated for deletion, this is due to the fact that otterathome renominated the article within 6 or 7 days of it passing another afd discussion which he started. I believe that the information that the article should not be renominated for a substantial period of time is valuable and useful. Mathieas (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• … which isn't actually relevant to the diffs at hand. Is all this fuss simply because you, Milowent, and Malcolmxl5 don't understand what the {{oldafdmulti}} template does? Please go and read its documentation. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, you could actually inform yourself about the situation and then judge, rather than taking a snapshot complaint of an already wikiquette-alerted user and drawing conclusions. Otterathome has been running an aggressive crusade to annihilate that article, going to AfD, deletion review, and then AfD again, all within a month, in total disregard of very recent previous decisions. Now he's trying to hide his campaign in an out of sight, out of mind manner, by making the subtle, but effective change of having previous AfDs hidden in a default-collapsed block, rather than open in plain sight.
    It's a subtle change, but given the history of Otter's overzealous attacks on the page, it speaks volumes.
    Due to Otter's behavior, the closing admin of the latest AfD has very clearly said "Advise that it should be a lengthy time before a 4th AfD is even considered.". And instead of accepting that decision, Otter is now back, trying to hide the only obvious link to that statement. Gives a whole new light to it, doesn't it?
    
    In addition, this complaint is invalid purely on an editing level anyway. Otter made a change. Mathieas reverted it. That is standard operating procedure on Wikipedia, and it was Otter's personal decision to start an edit war by reverting the revert rather than following WP:CYCLE and starting a discussion on the talk page (on which the two already were anyway).
    WP:CONS clearly and unambiguously says "Edit wars, such as repeatedly inserting the same text when other editors are rejecting it, lead to page protection and suspension of your ability to edit rather than improvements to the article." Otter changed something. Mathieas rejected the change, and reverted. Otter added it back. Otter is the one in violation of policies here, not Mathieas. In fact, WP:CONS even gives out the following warning: "If the reason for an edit is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material." - Otter's reason: "template cleanup". Mathieas's reason: "Useful information: Editors should know that this page should not be nominated for deletion for some time". Once again, the one following WP:CONS is Mathieas, not Otter.
    People reverting stuff on Wikipedia is not worth of an incident report. If anything, Otter foregoing a discussion and trying to force his version through is.
    This could've been settled through a simple discussion on the talk page. This is a simple content dispute over which template to use, and it was Otter's decision to say "fuck a discussion, let's screw this guy" and report Mathieas instead.
    
    In the process of only this little exchange, Otter violated the consensus policy, the editing policy, the policy on assuming good faith, and the policy on civility. And as if all of that wasn't enough, his dismissive tone in this report as well as the report itself are both more violations of WP:CIVIL.
    And yet, he is the one filing an incident report. WP:IRONY.
    Mathieas did a Good Faith revert of an edit he took issue with. It's not his fault Otter was not willing to discuss it. Mathieas did nothing wrong.
    ~ Renegade - 80.171.81.1 (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Kiddo, I already had. And as I said, the situation here is apparently in part because the four of you don't understand the {{oldafdmulti}} template. Since you wrote "Now he's trying to hide his campaign in an out of sight, out of mind manner, by making the subtle, but effective change of having previous AfDs hidden in a default-collapsed block, rather than open in plain sight." I can tell that you still haven't read the template documentation, even after I said to do so. If collapsing were the issue, you'd have simply changed the collapse parameter to the template and made no more of an issue of it. But none of you did. You revert warred over the entire template and then forum shopped to WQA, instead. This is quite evidently more about painting your opponent blacker than black, magnifying any little thing you can find into a huge issue, than it is about the collapse box on a template. Try working with Otterathome rather than continually demonizing xem. Is it any wonder that xe now regards you equally as poorly because of your behaviour? Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If you actually had informed yourself as you claim, you'd know that I have nothing to do with the template revert issue, so trying to include me in that group and accusing me of lack of reading up is fruitless. Don't try to invalidate my argument with such a cheap straw man. No matter if Otter's change was ultimately correct or not, Mathieas did a perfectly reasonable, policy-conform revert, and Otterathome was the one turning it into an edit war. If the documentation is as clear-cut as you insist it is, that only serves to strengthen my point - all Otter would have had to do is post on the exact same page he was editing, linking to the documentation, and saying "look, dude, this is the correct template.". He didn't. Instead, he started an edit war, and when that didn't help, he went on to report Mathieas. Don't try to blur the situation with the hypothetical outcome of a discussion among the editors had such a discussion happened. No matter what you're claiming, the question of whether oldafdmulti is the correct template or not is not the issue here. The issue here is "One keeps reverting me for some strange reason.". What was reverted is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not the reverts were policy-conform and in Good Faith. And that they were. So even though Otter's change may ultimately have been the correct one, Mathieas acted within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and this entire situation could have been avoided had Otter done the same. As such, no administrative action against Mathieas is required.
        Once more: The complaint is not "they're not letting me use oldafdmulti" the complaint is "they're reverting my changes". And there was nothing wrong with the revert. It even had an elaborate editing summary outlining why he reverted.
        And lastly, Mr. "OMGRTFM" - neither the documentation of oldafdfull nor of oldafdmulti set explicit usage limits on the templates. It's hidden far down on the page in <small> script in the deletion template link template, and buried in a wall of text in the deletion process, in the instructions of what the person closing the AfD should do after it's done. Instructions which were -logically- followed by the closing admin, who placed oldafdfull. If you insist people read the template documentation, at least make sure what you want them to read is actually in there. (Of course, making sure that no admin has precedented exactly the change on debate also helps.)
        As said above: The issue here is a process issue, not a content issue. It doesn't matter which template is correct. The correct template, with whatever modifications necessary, would've ended up on the page eventually after a reasonable discussion, with a tiny link to the deletion process stating to use oldafdmulti. It would have been a non-issue. One post. One line. "Please see here, point 8, where it says to use that template." - instead, Otter initiated an edit war. That's his uncivil behavior, not Mathieas's.
        Mathieas acted in good faith, and the reverted version was precedented by an admin. He behaved perfectly fine. No administrative action necessary.
        ~ Renegade - 80.171.127.126 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. There is no basis for accusing Mathieas of being a wikistalker. Otterathome has continuously nominated pages for deletion in a similar topic, one in which Mathieas obviously has an interest. It is, therefore, not shocking that he would be putting those pages on his watchlist and would therefore be aware when Otter was nominating them for deletion, etc. Otter is clearly not WP:AGF and a full post on his behavior will be posted by myself (and probably commented on by others involved) shortly. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, an issue about User:Otterathome was recently raised over at WQA, but was closed as stale. I commented on the talk page of the user who was involved in marking it as such, and s/he replied suggesting RfC/U or if it was becoming a serious problem, ANI or ArbComm. After reading the limitations of RfC/U and the fact that the problem is continuing to escalate, I believe the issue needs to be addressed here. Below is the copy of the WQA alert, and at the bottom I have added some recent updates.

He has continued on his tendantious editing by nominating another web star, Vincent Caso for deletion (see AfD). He has also tried to impose his views on a quality scale rating assessment for Jessica Lee Rose diff1 diff 2, despite comments explaining how he was mistaken in his assessment of the policy by other users (see what existed on the talk page in this discussion as a whole here. He has also made baseless accusations of two users as "Wikistalkers" (see here for User:Milowent and here and here for User:Mathieas (as well as the section above on this page). These accusations are completely baseless because the edits he is making that are being "followed" by these users are deletion nominations all within the same category (web series), which obviously these two users have an interest in, so it is completely within reason to assume the pages would be on their respective watchlists. Calling them Wikistalkers is uncivil and fails WP:AGF.

Thank you for your time. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Being the original submitter of the WQA, I support this motion. The problem in this particular case is, besides the obvious lack of civility and assumption of good faith on Otter's part, the amount of zeal which with he follows this. He just doesn't stop. It took two AfDs and an DRV to get him off the Jackson Davis article, and, as seen above, he's already lurking on the page again, hiding the previous decision, waiting to make his next move. He ties up editors. Instead of letting people sit down and improve the pages in question in peace, everyone has been spending their time in deletion discussions for over a month now, because he keeps nominating and re-nominating and re-nominating pages in that section of content, trying to discredit anyone who opposes him and disregarding consensus.

  The editors interested in a topic are the ones most likely to take the time and care to improve an article. And instead of tagging problematic articles and letting the community fix them, he fanatically goes for deletion, tying up all interested editors for a week, generating a vicious circle in which he complains about the article being lacking, tying up the editors in the deletion discussion rather than letting them improve pages, and then going to nominate the next page, which no one has touched in a week because everyone was busy with the deletion discussion and the nominated page, tying up the editors there until the AfD is concluded, only to nominate the next page, which no one has touched in two weeks because everyone was busy with the two previous AfDs and nominated pages, etc., etc.

  If he just gave the editors involved a little breathing space, and focused on supporting the improvement of the pages in question, rather than deleting them, there would be much less of an issue. (As pointed out in the WQA, "merge" is a word I have yet to see him use or even acknowledge in an AfD. For him, an AfD seems to be about deletion and deletion only, despite the clear wording of WP:AFD.) The Jackson Davis article is a perfect example - in the single month from Otter's first nomination to the end of his second nomination, the article has improved dramatically. It's possible. Definitely. If one lets the editors do their work. Instead, Otter goes out and tries to annihilate the section. That not only goes directly against the spirit of Wikipedia itself, but actually directly against both the editing- as well as the deletion policy, which both favor addition and improvement over overzealous deletion.

  All we want is a fair chance and breathing space to actually improve those pages, rather than constantly having to check our backs to see which pages Otter tries to delete this week. (Most recent one was Mesh Flinders, one of the Creators of LG15, ended yesterday with keep, so I have no doubt the next nomination is in the works.)

  Independent of this being a case where someone just needs to let go and get over it, it is also extremely detrimental of Wikipedia's coverage of web series, not just at the moment, but for months and years to come, and, ultimately, also raises the question of how neutral Otter really is on this topic.

  Nominating something once is one thing. Nominating the same pages over and over again, all of the same franchise, reeks of a personal vendetta.

  In addition, there is the case of him downright bossing users around with an faux-admin attitude, as seen in the example already quoted in the WQA - no matter his stance, no matter his right to nominate articles, he is not in the position to appear on a talk page and tell users "I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which.".

  ~ Renegade - 80.171.81.1 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• it can be perfectly possible that in good faith an editor might thing that that coverage of a show is considerably overhyped, and that all the peripheral articles on it ought to be deleted or merged back to the main article. I often defend splits when the shows are notable enough, but it' can be a reasonable disagreement. If someone nominates all the articles at once, we usually reject the multiple nomination because they are likely to be of unequal importance (e.g. the major as well as the minor characters). Doing them in small groups on at a time is a reasonable approach. But looking a the AfDs, it does seem to be here somewhat of an unreasonable crusade. The proper course is to keep watch and hope that sufficient rejections of his view will eventually make an impact. Obvious, further immediate nominations of some of the recently kept articles would indicate a cause for action, because at some point it does get to be disruptive. I don't think we c=have reason to do anything yet, As for watching articles, the way Wikipedia works, yes, we all do have to do it. This is not a place t o reasonably expect stability. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't just a show though. He's now nom'd an actor from a different webshow, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vincent_Caso. From the outside, there does seem to be a pattern suggesting the guy at least needs guidance, maybe more. He'has a real bad habit of skirting the line on WP:CIVIL and likes to flirt with WP:POINT. As an example, in the Nom for Caso, he outright calls User:Mathieas a Wikistalker and straight up says that he Nominated the article for deletion simply because Mathieas Reverted him. Why did Mathieas revert him? [[216]] Otter unilaterally changed the page to a redirect to The Guild with the edit summary "not notable outside of guild". Mathieas reverted("reverting a unilateral deletion see talk") and left a note on the talk page, the first edit to the talk page in fact, and otter re-reverted("Undid revision 312102892 by Mathieas (talk) not a deletion") to the redirected version, Mathieas reverted again ("Seems like it to me"). Otter then nom'd for deletion. Otter STILL has not made any edits to the talk page of the article in question. The unilateral reversion redirection was Otter's first ever edit to the article. He has since added a bio notability template and two fact tags, more than 24 hours after he nominated the article for deletion.

    That's the problem, he's not making any attempt to work with anyone else or to give anyone else a chance to answer his criticisms of the articles he goes after. He seems to pick a subject he doesn't like and then tries by any means necessary to get rid of it. He's very selective about policies as well, only quoting the ones, or the parts of ones, that support his argument. IE: repeatedly asserting WP:NOTAGAIN at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jackson_Davis_(3rd_nomination) when people gave 'it's only been 16 days since the previous nom and 7 since the DRV ended' as a reason for 'keep'. The repeated Assertion being "Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN". He was trying to stand on "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." while ignoring "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." And ended up being the only non-keep in the AFD.

    Maybe he's honestly trying to help, I don't know. But from what I can see he's building up a pattern of confrontation rather than cooperation, everywhere he goes. Right down to being banned from editing his own userpage and a previous 3RR block. He does at least sometimes seem to learn from his past losses though...at least enough to skirt the line instead of crossing it. WP:PBAGDSWCBY comes to mind. Doesn't hurt that I just read it today, but up to this point, it seems to fit in Otter's case. Not quite bad enough to get outright banned, but absolutely disruptive. He seems like he's on a crusade, and has absolutely no interest in what anyone else has to say about it. He wants it gone, and anyone that doesn't is an enemy and clearly wrong. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia has become a major issue on Wikipedia and this case seems to fit nicely into that discussion. In this particular case, confirmation bias seems to be the driving force for at least some of the users actions. While I am sure most of the Wikipedia admins will vigorously defend the "Wikipedia process" there comes a time when a user demonstrate a mental state that is not conducive to the effective growth and development of Wikipedia. A great deal of subjectivity comes into play when interpreting and applying Wikipedia policies and when a user chooses to do so they can manipulate the system to orchestrate systematic attacks on one or a group of specific pages. How should Wikipedia respond? Yes it is true that in the Wikipedia process you have to fight for something or it will simply dye away. That has both good and bad effects on Wikipedia but when done well the results speak for them self. However, in this case we have one user who is clearly being disruptive and is clearly offending many users. If Wikipedia wants to have "web series" covered then the admins need to make it clear that this type of behavior is not what is meant by vigorous debate and that the user is simply wasting valuable time by over aggressively trying to use Wikipedia polices in a way that unfairly favor their private agenda. When common sense if being violated clearly there is a problem. Now is the time to take clear action towards a resolution to that problem by making it clear that a line has been crossed by this user and it is not appreciated.--Modelmotion (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, no they are not. The community simply isn't that polarized, despite what some out-of-date journalists looking for a good Black-versus-White story to run may think. For the past few years, the "-ists" have been nothing more than excuses to call editors names. Have a quick reminder of Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's Law:

        The only times that people use "deletionist" and "inclusionist" is to call other editors names. Their use has never improved a discussion. Any editor who resorts to such name calling is indicating that xe has run out of proper, valid, arguments to make.

        Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No community can stay polarized, because aside from those who thrive on confrontation, people leave communities where they get frustrated (whatever label applies to their actions). Modelmotion is showing some emotion, but he is funneling the frustation of a number of editors have had with Otterathome recently. This doesn't seem like a new development, as I noticed that Otterathome is banned from editing his own userpage due to other squabbles he is gotten into with other editors. Its true, as you comment below, that "other people here" are "part of the problem" in "building up a pattern of confrontation," but they are not the instigators. On the internet, its hard to find any group who will 'turn the other cheek' per Jesus' suggestion. That's why being a high school principal is a thankless job. But thanks for at least reading, Principal UncleG --Milowent (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
          • 'a number of editors' are all the ones defending the same category of articles from deletion, some of which you probably encouraged over from your fansite/blog. And bringing up my user page protection, you must be getting desperate after realising I've done nothing wrong.--Otterathome (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't run LG15Today, though I have posting rights there. Because that site covers news of interest to the Lonelygirl15 community and webseries in general, yes, the wikiwarring has been covered there. But you should have noted that on the 3rd AfD for Jackson Davis, wholly unrelated users started chiming in about your actions. Of course most of the people peeved at you are the ones following your behavior. Not sure what I have to be desparate about, am I incorrect that you can't edit your own userpage because of some other edit war? And I wasn't even looking for this, but because I wanted to verify that your userpage was protected because of a prior incident, I see your were also warned in another edit war in July 2008. I feel no need to convince anyone you've done anything "wrong", people will either see it or not.--Milowent (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
              • It shows you are desperate because you are bringing up completely unrelated stuff from over a year ago. The only 'behaviour' of mine is seen by your lg15 fanbase as you are so pissed off that I nominated your articles for deletion. It's like like trying to take away toys from a classroom of children.--Otterathome (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • But from what I can see he's building up a pattern of confrontation rather than cooperation, everywhere he goes. — So, too, are the other people here, however. And that's part of the problem. Mathieas revert warred over a template rather than simply tweaking a parameter. 80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157 talks about a "fanatic" on a "crusade" who "reeks". (80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157's extensive ad hominem arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last are more of the same.) And even you are demonizing Otterathome, ascribing unstated motives to xyr actions and making arguments such as, for example, that if someone doesn't edit an article that xe thinks should be deleted, that's somehow a contradiction. Trying to make out that an editor is out to get you all is also "building up a pattern of confrontation rather than cooperation", and you are doing it, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I miss WQA. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to create AfD's on the same articles again and again ad nauseum. If the community decides that it stays, well, we all know it stays. TV shows or other similar "culture" are cyclical, and 2 years from now, an AfD may actually be successful. Trying to ram one through, hoping you'll catch people off guard is an abuse of the process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the result of nominating borderline notable actors from the same web-series for deletion. The fans of the series, who are also users here have advertised my nominations on at least one blog and message board, and to help keep the articles I nominated from being deleted. They even got a thank you from one subjects article. Three I nominated have been deleted, and the rest are borderline notable. To put it bluntly, they are pissed off I'm nominating articles related to their favourite web-show for deletion, then using this as a reason to keep anymore articles I nominate. When they understand what WP:AGF is and start abiding to it themselves, then they can start throwing it around. They were told there was no issue at WP:WQA, here's one amusing quote from it "My advice to Otterathome is, if you find it impossible to deal with the kid stuff calmly and patiently, just stay away from it. Nobody reads it except kids anyway, and it keeps them away from more important articles until they mature a bit. Kids have a very skewed view of notability, but getting into holy wars about it is just a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)". Advice, only someone who felt intimidated by this small fanbase would take.

TLDR version: nominating articles related to the same thing that have a small fanbase = pissed off fanbase.--Otterathome (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem there is that there are people who are NOT part of the fanbase in question, myself included(I don't know about you, but just the title 'Lonelygirl'-whatever makes it sound like something I wouldn't like) are saying you're not demonstrating good faith editing. You're not discussing anything, you're not trying to build consensus, you're not trying to improve anything. You're simply trying to cram what you and you alone think is right down everyone else's throats and trying to hide behind selectively quoted policy when someone calls you on it. Maybe they're not notable, maybe they are, I don't know and I don't care. It isn't relevant, because the problem is your METHODS. You're *unilaterally* asserting that certain topics are not-notable, and doing it in a sneaky, stealthy, and manipulative fashion. Take the Caso article, for example. A good-faith editor would put up the notability template and fact tags FIRST, notify some of the interested people and groups that there's a problem with the article, leave a note on the talk page, and then WAIT. If the problems aren't addressed after a REASONABLE period of time, when it's become apparent that the problem is LACK OF SOURCES and not just that the available sources aren't listed in the article, THEN you nom the thing. What you did was unilaterally blank and redirect the article, then edit warred when someone contested it, and then pushed WP:POINT right to the edge by nominating it. And only THEN went back and added the template and tags. Those aren't the actions of someone trying to improve things, they're the actions of someone that does not like the topic and has no interest in consensus or compromise, but only in imposing his own will. *That* is the problem. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, executive summary as I see it: (1) this specific complaint is wrong on the merits; (2) the underlying issue is that Otter is driving a group of editors nuts with an endless one-vs-many crusade, and showing no sign of ever giving up regardless of the lack of support from others. At this point I would be inclined to favor a topic ban. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No support? You mean apart from 3 of the articles that got deleted and one afd that got overturned. Please investigate things yourself before making out of the blue comments.--Otterathome (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been on wikipedia for awhile now, and a good summary of this kind of problem is as follows:

Inclusionists contribute something of value to wikipedia.

Deletionists contribute nothing of value to wikipedia.

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And Michelangelo was a useless waste of skin because he took big blocks of perfectly good marble and just threw most of it away. Please, please, please can we not turn every discussion about the scope of Wikipedia into some sort of holier-than-thou pissing contest?

Unless you can show me someone who thinks that nothing should be in Wikipedia, you haven't really shown me a true 'deletionist'. Meanwhile, we all know that never deleting anything from Wikipedia (advertising? pictures of pets? school assignments? love letters?) is the only position a real 'inclusionist' would take. Everyone else agrees that there are some things that should be here and some things that shouldn't — different people choosing to draw that line in different places is no justification for insulting, polarizing namecalling. We have an excellent article on false dilemma; it's worth a read. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He didn't throw it away. Some of it he carved into little Davids and sold them in his museum shop, the House of David. The rest he used as ammunition against the critics who claimed his statue was not notable because it was only reported by blogs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)