Been chasing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Way4743 all day. Is there any recourse for us here besides what I've been doing? Can we find IPs and rangeblock? Tan ǀ 39 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you try an IP check at Wikipedia:RFCU#Requests for IP check? Also, is this just on one article so you could semi-protect for a bit, or is it all over the place? --barneca (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected the most frequently vandalized article, but it's a bit random. I haven't taken it to RFCU because, well, that page isn't very user-friendly. Maybe I'll give it a shot; it's a bit intimidating. Tan ǀ 39 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "request for IP check" part is easier than the "normal" RFCU part; just create a subsection and follow the yellow brick road directions here. --barneca (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate when request directions are so damn specific. Can't just link the SSP page, gotta break out all the users with the CU template. Ugh. Tan ǀ 39 22:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have to link *every* sock with the CU template... you can list three or four and then link to the SSP page, saying "and numerous others listed here...". Though the more you list on the CU request the better (easier for the CUs to do their job that way). It's not that big a deal - if I have a lot of socks known, I cut and paste a line with the blank CU template and then just fill in the usernames for each line. I can do 20-30 users in a minute with two browser tabs and that setup... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you tell anyone I said this, I'll deny it, but occasionally if I just can't face creating an RFCU report, I've mentioned an SSP case on a checkuser's talk page, instead of filing a report, with mixed results. Depends on the checkuser you choose, their mood, how nicely you ask, and the results of a random number generator.

Hey, tell you what. If you haven't done it already, do you want me to do it? --barneca (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I may not be Xeno, but I have my moments. --barneca (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone look into the activities of 66.225.206.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I thought it was one 3RR report but its actually about a half dozen 4RR, 5RR and 6RR reports spread across several articles. The IP has been tagged as a sockpuppet. The user account supposedly attached to this IP has many blocks for edit warring already. Seal Clubber (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition. Now User:Johan Rachmaninov has appeared to carry on where the IP noted above left off. This user has also been blocked for 3RR violations. Either the original sock tag was added to the IP or the 2 user accounts with the block history for 3RR violation are the same editor. Seal Clubber (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct place to report this is that way → Tiptoety ^talk 03:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has an apparent history of creating nonsense pages and hoaxes, most recently here: Jezreel V., a page that has already been speedied twice, once as vandalism. Continuously removes speedy delete tags despite being asked not to. Has been blocked for similar behavior in the past. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this user, largely because one of the previous incarnations of the article (Jezreel Veradio) was speedied by myself repeatedly until I was forced to protect it from recreation and block the editor. Even earlier it was deleted at Jezreel H. Veradio by another two admins for nonsense/vandalism/hoax.

From what I have gathered the creator is this Jezreel Veradio who has decided to create a false identity on wikipedia (considering the biographical details change wildly from creation to creation). It is quite possible Veradio is an actor in some regard, but the sheer number of obviously false additions (i.e. claims to being cast in Blindness (film)) means it's impossible to possibly find any semblance of fact from the fiction.

This article will probably be deleted as well, considering that all evidence supports its removal (along with the same Jezreel (actor) article) and while this user may have made useful contributons in the past, "may" due to that it's impossible to tell what is valid from this editor, that for the good of the project an indef blocking is probably in order. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• May want to check the actions of this IP as well. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Resolved}} I've just protected John Edwards for 48 hours. In addition to a fairly pronounced edit war involving multiple parties, there was what I consider to be a significant WP:BLP issue which led me to protect a specific version. Hence I'm submitting the action here for review.

Background: the National Enquirer, a tabloid, recently alleged infidelity on Edwards' part, an allegation which he has denied. Thus far, a number of reputable media organizations are covering the brouhaha over these allegations, though they have taken care to avoid comment on the veracity of the allegations themselves, which appear to be confined only to the Enquirer. There has been a dispute/edit war at John Edwards over both whether the allegations should be included, and if so, how the material should be phrased.

I've left a lengthy rationale on the Edwards talk page for the 48-hour protection and reversion. The protection itself is justified by the edit-war, but the protection of a specific version is always controversial. To summarize: the essence of WP:BLP is that Wikipedia is not a tabloid; that we are not Wikinews and getting these issues right takes precedence over getting them in the article right now; that the mainstream sources covering this issue are themselves seemingly skeptical or iffy about the allegations; and that while this material may certainly warrant inclusion, the dispute over the material needs to take place on the talk page, not in the form of edit-warring in articlespace.

Potentially relevant WP:BLP/N thread here, though input was fairly limited.

I'm posting this for feedback and a sanity check from uninvolved editors and admins. Also, as a minor administrative issue: should this be logged as a special enforcement action under the provisions of WP:BLPBAN? I'm hesitant to be the "test case" there, but I believe this protection/reversion are in keeping with that decision. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On the least important point, I'd only log it under WP:BLPBAN if you are intentionally using that as the basis for your action. GRBerry 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd looked earlier at the talk page, in response to a thread above. Nothing relevant has been said since, yet the edit warring continued. The edit warring in and of itself merited protection, regardless of the BLP issue. It seems reasonable to have removed the paragraph also under WP:BLP. The final version before protection was arguably worse than the version being revert warred over. Hopefully in 48 hours there will be additional evidence relevant to determining the appropriate amount of coverage. I'd consider extending the protection to a week however, with a note on the talk page to use {{editprotected}} if an actual consensus version has emerged. GRBerry 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was initially thinking of 3-5 days, but thought I'd err on the side of less protection. I agree about extending it if the same issues persist. I suspect that at the moment Reliable Sources(TM) have their fact-checkers and legal department working on the matter, and the appropriate level, tone, sourcing, etc should hopefully clarify itself shortly. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this recent addition [1] to Story of My Life (novel) by 216.136.25.72. It has twice been re-added since its removal - once [2] by 216.136.25.72, and again [3] by 72.72.203.224. Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean fully protected? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At Story of My Life (novel), the questionable material had been inserted solely by IP's, so I've only semiprotected it at this point. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I confused the two. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think protection was the right move based on the edit warring while discussion was taking place. As for inclusion, I think it is possible to include only what the sources say, that the NE reports A but that it remains unsubstantiated. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The protection is called for, but I think an admin needs to take the time to synthesize data on this scandal and edit the article, even while under the protection, to mention the scandal (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression admins can still edit protected pages). At this point, the scandal has been reported in Fox News (here), and dozens of national and international newspapers. The Fox News article contains sourcing independent of the National Enquirer. To allow the pre-scandal version of the page to stand in the midst of a growing media storm is to deny reality, and bring discredit upon Wikipedia. Regrettably, this protection is now making Wikipedia the subject of controversy. RayAYang (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, though it's strange without context. How's this at the end of John_Edwards#2008_Presidential_campaign? Edwards' chance of becoming Obama's running mate has likely been dashed by undenied July 2008 allegations published by the National Enquirer.[4].--chaser - t 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when is a Democrat being a two-timer considered to be news? Now, a Mormon Senator caught messing around in the restroom - that's news. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot synthesize content information to resolve a dispute; an admin's opinion on a specific content dispute is no weightier than anyone else's, though admins may act to deal with edit-warring, WP:BLP issues, and other policy problems. While admins have the technical ability to edit protected pages, it would be a gross abuse to do so except in narrowly constrained circumstances (see the protection policy). This will have to be solved the good old-fashioned way - by discussion on the article talk pages.

Incidentally, I would strongly encouage outside input on the relevant talk page, since this is a thorny content issue without a clear "right" answer (though there are many, many wrong ones). Bottom lines: Wikipedia is not a tabloid. There is no deadline; it's more important to get this right rather than to race to repeat unconfirmed rumors. Outside criticism should not be ignored, but being criticized doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing something wrong. Sometimes, depending on the source, it's a sign that you're doing something right. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes outside input. That contrasts with the tabloids, which welcome inside output. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need to contain a frantic edit war between the warring ideologues from both parties, but the section should be added as "alleged" event. It's been picked up by multiple legitimate news agencies with independent sources.

Comparing this to Senator Craig, or using it as an excuse to dismiss the alleged Edwards scandal by the admins is a joke. Senator Craig's events were performed in front of an undercover officer, who testified as to the events that took place, and Craig admitted to the allegations. Hence, it is NOT alleged. It is fact.

The Edwards situation has received enough mainstream media attention to warrant a section documenting "alleged" or as of yet unresolved events. If or when the events are proven/disproven, the section can be ammended to reflect those changes.

But unless there is an official moratorium on events before they can be added to wikipedia, selective censorship is counterproductive to the wiki community. There are undeniable facts that 1.) SOMETHING took place, 2.) Edwards was present, 3.) all of the witness reports and evidence (from sources outside of The Enquirer), point to the idea that it was an affair or rendezvous.

Either set a timetable for how long an event must sit in purgatory before being added as "alleged" and how many sources and news outlets have to have reported it, or make the changes.

Make rules and enforce them, or adopt a laissez faire attitude. You can't arbitrarily enforce edit and posting rules

Either deal in fact and theory, or only fact. But you can't selectively remove theory. And that applies to everything.69.81.18.5 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.18.5 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2008

FYI: redacted link that apparently everyone but me already knew about --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - we already have a handful of IP's and new accounts dedicated to spamming that piece on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't really been following it. I was just surprised to see Wikipedia mentioned as the second link when I gnewsed for "John Edwards". I have redacted the link, since apparently everyone but me already knew about it :D --Jaysweet (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has formed on the article talk page on how to address this issue within the article, which I have updated accordingly. I think this thread can be marked as resolved.  Sandstein  07:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue. Consensus is not the determining factor here. We have a single-sourced allegation from a questionable source. Not good. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. This is a community issue, therefore consensus is always appropriate. Good! --Dragon695 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. BLP, like NPOV, trumps any consensus arguments. BLP violations may be removed regardless of consensus. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

True. Adding the "Enquirer" allegations as such to the article would violate BLP, which would be a matter beyond consensus. However, the content now at issue is based on articles by British mainstream newspapers concerning the possible impact of the allegations on Edwards' career. That does not, as far as I can tell, violate BLP, because it is based on reliable sources, and leaves open the question of the validity of the allegations themselves. Its inclusion may or may not violate WP:NPOV, good editorial judgment, etc., but that is a matter for consensus to decide.  Sandstein  06:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put the article back to semi-protection again, due to a 100% BLP violation or vandalism rate by IP editors or new accounts during the 10 hours it was fully unprotected. As I also reverted some of those edits today, I'm letting the community review my semi-protection. We haven't had any edit warring over this material by autoconfirmed editors in that period. GRBerry 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep coming across this person who likes to use Wikipedia as a personal game. They vandalize mainly talk pages and user pages, create socks, then accuse their own socks of being Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), before placing a phony indefblock tag on. They also add Elspeth Monro sock templates to the talk pages of already blocked vandals and sockpuppeteers. This is the most recent edit I've noticed, by chance [5]. It's annoying, frustrating, and obnoxious that this person is allowed to just keep vandalizing at will, building up their fake vanity list of blocked socks, etc. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look briefly through the edit histories of the IPs and socks you'll find stuff like this [6]. Each sock leads to another sock or IPsock as they all put fake templates on each others pages. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

check this out as well. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

if this user has alread ybeen indef-blocked, wat more ccan be done??? Has anyone tried issuing a warning? Smith Jones (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think the link posted above by Thingg is the same person I'm mentioning. I could be wrong though. I don't know what issuing warnings will accomplish in the face of blatant socks, both IP and username. What can be done is someone can go through the current raft of socks (and I assure you there are probably hundreds out there by now) and block them and consider blocking the IPs he has used, perhaps even a rangeblock. Perhaps someone with checkuser can help. It's time to deal with this clown. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked David Tombe (talk · contribs) for three months for disruptive editing at Mozart, part of a general pattern of disruption at every article he touches, most notably at Centrifugal force. Some will remember his previous appearances at AN/I in May. I see little prospect of improvement, given his lengthy block history and his refusal to accept advice, and believe that a full ban may be in order. Acroterion _(talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the block: I could not use my administrative tools myself, since I was involved in the editing, and the associated talk page conflict. This is one of the most obvious cases of WP:DEADHORSE I've seen in a while, and it has wasted the time of a lot of people in completely unrelated places. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support Acroterion's block of this patently disruptive editor. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A side note: an IP editor in the range 71.xxx.xxx.xxx or 72.xxx.xxx.xxx pops up reliably when Tombe is blocked to accuse everybody of bad faith and mistreatment of Tombe. Consensus is that it is not Tombe himself, since they appear to be on a different continent, and have a different writing style. The IP can be disruptive on his own account, and WP:RBI should apply. Acroterion _(talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be blocked to prevent disruption. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have confused the facts. David Tombe was attacked by TrustTruth and Rfortner in a nasty way. They should have been the ones blocked. Again, as usual, you have confused the facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.63.21 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I was heading over here to request this very thing, after seeing the Mozart and Centrifugal force disruptions. I think an outright ban may be in order. Eusebeus (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support community ban. He's been blocked several times within a short timeframe (the last 3 months); the misconduct has not changed, and there is no sign of change or improvement in the future either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose I should ask the question: would any admin be willing to unblock? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd rather see what happens after the three month block before going to a full ban. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Ned Scott and standard escalation. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not tell the real offenders that they were wrong. They were rude and nasty to Mr Tombe. I think you guys dont like to face the facts. Mr Tome cited actual facts which were summairly rejected in a nasty way. They should have said thank you for your contribution Mr Tombe, but they were rude and nasty. This is a typical behavior of editors of wikipedai. This needs to stop, but you management people let it continue because of your bias. Wikipedia needs to offically apologise to Mr Tombe for the bad behavior of its editors who dont actually follow the rules, but require that Mr Tombe has to. I think you are being dishonest in your actions towards Mr Tombe.72.64.63.21 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring to your notice some harassment from an editor named Agnistus, who I came in contact with whilst editing the article Zakir Naik. What started off as a small edit war over what to include and what not in a WP:BLP, has now turned into a kind of mischief that he's begun playing on me. He has
a) stalked me to see what other article I was editing and then left behind a personally attacking comment on that article's talk page See [7]
b) Asked me for my personal details (phone number and email ID) saying he wanted to talk to me on phone. See [8]
c) Then, when I politely declined to divulge personal information [9], he said (in an innocent-looking manner) that he also wants to discuss some stuff regarding Islam [10] (I think that was because I've mainly been editing Islam-relating articles out here and also because I am a Muslim). Thinking him to be a genuine inquisitor I agreed to answer his queries if I could, but he has now converted the discussion into a kind of argument and is posting my answers (from this section of my talk page) onto Zakir Naik's talk page, and is making now personal attacks towards me and Islam (See Edit summary -> [11] in general. I've asked him to not spam that talk page with irrelevant information and proposed (in good faith) that we continue discussion on my talk page; I've even initiated it myself by replying to his comments on my own talk page and left a link to it on Zakir Naik's. But his latest comments on my talk page say he wants a kind of public debate (about Islam?) so that people may benefit from it [quote: I will reply point-by-point on the Zakir Naik talk. Its better to discuss threre since everyone can see it and *maybe* benefit from it (just like Naik says he'll only have public debates). Alhamdulillah.] See [12], AND he has also given me comment containing a block-warning for having made recent edits to Naik's article (please note that the edits in question are being discussed over on the talk-page and there has not been any consensus towards them. Agnistus has chosen not to take part in the discussion, and rather issue a warning (?) to me).
d) It also seems that he's had a history of making personal attacks against other co-editors on WP as well and has also been blocked for a 24 [13] and 72-hour periods for such behavior [14].

Well, I guess I've written quite in a lot of words what could have been conveyed in a few; I hope someone takes notice of the situation and does what might be needful to end this harassment. Thanks for your help. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am partial to the dispute in question, I do think the vandalism warning is out of order in what is clearly a content dispute on a BLP. Elazeez, I've placed a note on your talk about this, but one should refrain from off-topic discussion on article talk pages, as it can often impede effective dispute resolution. Agnistus' previous behaviour for which he has been appropriately sanctioned is irrelevant unless there is evidence of further problematic behaviour. That said, I have requested that Agnistus refrain from making accusations of vandalism and that he participate more constructively in the discussion. ITAQALLAH 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I get your point Itaqallah. What started off as a polite reply [15] to his quoting a SlashDot article [16] (which actually spoke of some issue over depiction of images of Prophet Muhammed pbuh on WP) as a basis of making an accusation of vandalism against me [17] just because I deleted polemic content (belonging to an op-ed from 'The Hindu' which compared Zakir Naik to a terrorist organization) that he had put into Naik's article, seems to have somehow irked him really bad. Maybe thats the reason he thought a personal attack towards me or Islam might put me off editing Naik's article and I'd let go of it. (And that is just my side of the story, if someone may call it so). Well, like I said above, it was he who originally approached me on my talk page(which was the ONLY place I intended to continue the dialogue with him) in an (innocent-sounding?) inquisitory tone saying he wanted to discuss something about Islam; while agreeing to help (personal user pages on Wikipedia are probably not the place for it, I realize now) I had no clue he'd go so far and turn it into a round of venting frustrations against Islam instead. His latest post on my talk page reads "I feel pity for you actually, to see you trapped in this cage(you can't leave it, since then you'll be executed!).", which I think just shows his desperation in getting a response to his red herrings on Naik's talk page (amazing co-incidence in his choice of font color as well BTW :-) as well as his non-neutral point of view when it comes to either Islam or Zakir Naik (which might imply that some of his activities may need to be kept an eye on...) ~ 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Libro0 has made several personal attacks against me, has abused the suspected sockpuppet system by branding me a sockpuppet because I disagreed with him (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy) and now has accused me of Wikistalking because I legitimately moved an article about an obscure soccer team from St. Matthew's to St. Matthew's (soccer team), replacing St. Matthew's with a disambiguation page with over two dozen common uses for St. Matthew's. (I should note the only reason I stumbled onto it is because I am keeping track of him making sure he isn't spreading any more lies!) I tried to get him to stop going after another user (and vice versa) and he brands me a sockpuppet. He would not even consider going into mediation with he other user! There seems to be no listening to reason with him. Apparently if you do something that upsets him you are a sockpuppet or worse and he'll make some passive aggressive uncivil comments about you too. This Libro0 is a problem user. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs? Bstone (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The sock puppet report is a bit hard to swallow. While there do appear to be a couple of potential "socks" of Baseball Card Guy (although even then it looks more like he forgot his password or something -- there are only 2-3 uncontroversial edits for each of those accounts), the vast majority of the editors accused appear to just be folks Libro has had disagreements with in the past.

If a CU is available, a quick way to resolve this might be to have one of them take a look at the SSP report. If it comes back the way I think it will, then that would be some damning evidence against Libro (and if I am surprised by the result, it could vindicate Libro and be pretty damning to Your Radio Enemy) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your 'monitoring' of me is what got you into trouble, so why keep getting yourself into more trouble. I left the bballcard pages. Yet this and this showed up. I underwent relentless harrassment here, here, and here. I got to the point I had to get my userpage protected. The sock report shows still more stalking. Jay here seems to think there is a whole slough of people that I have had disagreements with. Hardly. What has transpired at the bbcard pages is that I have been prevented repeatedly from making corrections and adding information. I am the only user there that has chosen to engage in proper discussions. Valid statemnets regarding policy and sources meet with the ususal comments of 'you are being uncivil' and avoiding a clear focus on content. I have been the only one to compromise. As I have said before, any review of my edit history only shows that communication and compromise are solid character traits of mine. Granted I have always dealt with legitimate users that are willing to discuss policy and content in a ratioinal manner. I cannot say this for the accused. I believe it would be better to simply review the edit histories than to provide 500 diffs here. Libro0 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On further review, there is definitely merit to the sockpuppet report, although I still wonder if a couple of the users were just caught in the net. We'll see how than pans out when it is reviewed by an admin. --Jaysweet (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented at the SSP report. There is clearly socking going on here, but I tend to doubt The Radio Enemy and Die Profis are involved. Maybe I am wrong, though, so hopefully we'll hear more opinions.

One thing I would like to make clear is that even if TRE is a sock and he was stalking you, his change of St. Matthew's to a disambiguation page was absolutely correct. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

editing as User:LapsAndLapsAhead. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This should go to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A rather difficult situation has been playing out on the Talk:Taekwondo page over recent months, and I'd welcome administrators' comments on how best to proceed:

Context: The Taekwondo article has a history section in which theories concerning the martial art's origin are cited: that taekwondo is of Korean origin, that it's of Japanese origin, and that its origins are a mingling of influences. Edit wars and protracted debates have focused on this section, with the two extreme positions being represented by User:JJL and User:Manacpowers. JJL asserts that taekwondo is essentially Japanese karate and that no reliable sources say otherwise; Manacpowers asserts that taekwondo is Korean, and that sources support that.

Problem: Gaming the system. While neither have comported themselves well, JJL has been particularly disruptive by questioning the appropriateness and reliability of nearly every source that presents the Korean position. This usually takes the form of asserting that the source doesn't meet WP:RS[18], doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV, that its author is unqualified or biased[19][20], or that its inclusion is inappropriate under a host of Wikipedia guidelines (WP:UNDUE, WP:SOURCES, WP:NONENG, etc.), sometimes a bit rudely.[21][22] While raising questions is fine, the volume and intensity of such questions (and the effort required to respond to them) has ground productive editing nearly to halt and to me suggests an effort to game the system.

I, User:Omnedon, User:Nate1481 and other editors have sought compromise and have tried our best to accommodate JJL and to address the points he raises. The position JJL supports is presented neutrally in the page along with the others and is backed by reliable sources, some of which I researched and added myself. However, he won't stop debating and seems to have as his goal the preferred placement of the Japanese view[23] above the opposing "myth".[24] I'm happy to do anything I can to ensure a fair and well-cited presentation, but months of discussion and two attempts at mediation have so far been fruitless, and he seems no closer now to acknowledging opposing theories than when we began.

What is an appropriate step at this point? I welcome any assistance! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid things are now turning a bit hostile, with JJL trying to characterize me as a belligerent. (The latest is in this thread.) Things are certainly spiraling and I'm at a loss to know how to proceed! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please!?! Official mediation has been tried twice (once stalled, once a party refused to participate) and I am running out of ideas, informal refereeing has been attempted by myself and Huwmanbeing but I have been sucked in to the debate to some extent, we can't get both sides to see use as neutral at the same time, if we say some one might have a point, the response it that we are obviously espousing the POV exclusively. Protection expires on 1st of August and an edit war will happen unless we can get some help. This has previously spilled onto other Korean and Japanese martial arts articles and likely will again. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I unarchived this because the user came to my talk page looking for help but it's not really my area of expertise, so I'd like some more eyes on it. –xeno (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have recommended that the major parties take the three sections on the disputed historical origins and split those out into three subpages, one per major origin theory / history viewpoint. This seems like it would allow all three historical viewpoints to be described in more detail in a less confrontational manner than fighting over it on the main Taekwondo page... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a POV fork and certainly is not a solution. You need to follow the normal dispute resolution process. If negotiation fails you try mediation, if mediation fails, the only other option is ArbCom. Admins really shouldn't start weighing in (in our capacity as admins) in a content dispute. --Selket ^Talk 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a POV content fork - there are competing theories regarding the issue, and there's nothing wrong with separate articles for different theories. Asserting that admins can't informally mediate or suggest options like this is bizarre... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there were two separate thoughts that I tried to get into that post. I did not do a good job distinguishing them. My apologies for a very confusing post. What I meant was that (1) POV forks are bad and splitting the history of TKD into three articles each on one of the three different, competing theories about the origin is a POV fork. It also doesn't solve the problem because something must still be in the TKD article. Also any dispute about whether sources are reliable will now be spread over four pages rather than one. The other thing (2) that I was trying to say was not in reference to you, Georgewilliamherbert. I just meant that we should not take sides in the content dispute as admins. We should either act as admins and remain neutral in this particular dispute, or take a position but not in our capacity as admins. We should not jump in and say "I'm an admin and this source is reliable", which I feel some posters above may have been requesting. --Selket ^Talk 23:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:Weight tell us to keep the disputed histories together and give them unbiased sections with appropriate weight? If there is a dispute over the history, then it should be on the page with an explanation over the claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We have two key problems, JJL frequently refuses to allow sources that other editors propose stating that the are either not RS or just "they are not as good as mine so mine trump them and so they can not be used" (which sounds suspiciously like the spirit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Secondly Manacpowers is just as stubborn in his views and seem to grasp at anything that might support him (e.g quoting the 1st failed mediation) regardless of when others tried to explain he has misunderstood a procces/policy/guideline. Both users have something to contribute, but someone who is actually neutral (and to be honest dose not care or know about the subject) and in an official position (in part to help satisfy Manacpowers 'rules' demands) is needed to help clarify points and, to be honest, act as somthing of a judge on procces/policy/guideline intepritaion. This is why mediation might have helped, but as this had been formally attempted once, Manacpowers felt the issue had been dealt with and he had 'won' (hence demonstrating he had not understood the process). If an uninvolved admin could informally mediate it might prevent the need for the rigmarole of an abcom case, which will not resolve the content dispute (except by default), and may well result in the loss of useful editors. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. One suggestion of a history article (with all the theories) so more detail could be included, has been made, the reaction gives an idea of the problems. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, someone in authority who could and would mediate WP:RS issues could be very useful here. I started a mediation process (not all parties joined), started an RfC, went to the RSN...then someone else tried mediation again (not all parties joined). JJL (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to come and comment on this as I protected the page and so on, but I really don't have a lot that I can do to resolve the situation. I only got to 9th Kup in Taekwando and don't have any real knowledge of the background. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, our friend Stephen Colbert has instructed his minionsviewers to vandalize pages about towns named Canton. I have most of them open in tabs, but I would appreciate some eyes since I will have to go to sleep in a little bit. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Tiptoety ^talk 04:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty sleepy. seicer | talk | contribs 04:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't actually instruct them. He called Canton, Georgia "crappy" and that made the mayor mad. So he apologized and than started ranting about Canton, Kansas calling it "shitty". Wikipedia was not mentioned once. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I don't actually watch the show, but I know about how he is with us so I guess I just jumped to conclusions. I'll try not to panic like this in the future. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And I take it none of those predictions about articles to be vandalized, supposedly based on "inside" information, actually panned out? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Might want to archive this thread before some reader actually does vandalize these pages. — CharlotteWebb 15:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Radioinfoguy has been blocked indef for sockpuppetry, all confirmed alternate accounts have also been blocked indef, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Radioinfoguy and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Radioinfoguy.

Read the story how Gwen Gale has, in my opinion, several times, abused her administrative power here. If you don't see my reasons for this post, then the AfD page has been deleted, or blanked. Check it's history. If the page is blanked, or deleted and restarted, I respectfully ask an admin to restore my comments to the AfD page, as I feel the history, leading up to my nomination for deletion, is important. Thank you.

If I have made a mistake in the way I have nominated Joe Kleon for deletion, please correct it and leave my comments intact. Radioinfoguy (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just at a glance, it seems that Gwen has bent over backwards to try and help you get this article up and running, even admitting that it might not be completely notable, but she has a soft spot for broadcasters and would try and help it stay on the wiki. You trying to delete it now seems to be disrupting wikipedia to make a point, in all honesty. Dayewalker (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the AfD as a pointy poor faith nom that was entirely a criticism of Gwen, with no reason given to delete. I don't see at all how Gwen has abused her admin tools here. Time to drop it and move on perhaps. Kevin (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Question - the previous AfD speedily deleted. What were the claims in this AfD, as per I not being able to read? It would be helpful to find on what grounds people responded (beyond the closing). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The were no contributors except the nom and Hoary fixing the formatting. The whole thing was a long rant about Gwen mostly, but comments such as Clearly this article passes the Wikipedia notability test, and Such non-notable people such as a number one rated radio personality with over 20 years experience, heard at one time on CNN worldwide radio, heard collectively, as a network radio announcer, in over 40 states, published as a writer in a weekly magazine with 60,000+ circulation, for 7 years, someone who has recorded and interviewed over 100 very notable rock musicians, someone who has had their photography repeatedly published, for years, in large daily newspapers and magazines, is clearly not notable. (took this as sarcasm) showed that the nom was not a good faith request for deletion. Kevin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what you say in the the AfD, I disagree with your placing it within an AfD, and for good measure I disagree with the deletion of the AfD as well (particularly after I'd wasted several minutes of my life formatting it properly). Anyway, your main beef is with Gwen Gale. My view on this is close to Dayewalker's, but it's possible that we're both wrong and you are right. If you're serious about this, there are various avenues that are open to you. However, I suggest that you first state your point about the article (not her) as dispassionately, impersonally and persuasively as you can at Talk:Joe Kleon. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Much of what was said was wrong. Joe misrepresented what Gwen had said and done. He claimed meanings that were not there. He critisised her for properly following procedure. Gwen did not create the article because she thought Joe Kleon was notable but to try and help him create an article free of the coi problems that existed in the first version. An act of kindness that he responds to like this. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Submitter, you really should have notified Gwen of this thread. She has a right to present her side of the story. I've done it for you as I don't see a notice on her talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, I spent at least half a day researching this person and rewriting his article from scratch so it would be encyclopedic (admins can see what the deleted version was like). Seven weeks later User:Clevelandmusic24 (likely an alternate account of not named by me for BLP reasons User:Radioinfoguy) added this section about Kleon's non-notable photography and this brought back the old, highly critical attention from other editors. Then User:Clevelandmusic24 showed up on my talk page. Now, after filing that pointy AfD which was deleted straight off by another admin, he's shown up here as User:Radioinfoguy. I tried to help, I guess editors may understand why I don't want to anymore and am not too thrilled about having done to begin with. Whatever y'all want to do about these accounts and this article is ok by me. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notify Gwen of this thread. If you took 2 seconds to look at her talk page, you would see that. Not the brightest bulb, are you? Radioinfoguy (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. And I'm not, either. I spent few seconds looking on the talk page, and another few looking in your list of contributions, and I didn't see it. You notified her of the AfD, but as far as I can see, you didn't notify her of this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Radioinfoguy also claims that he wanted the AfD deleted as well. seicer | talk | contribs 11:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By "it" he means the article, not the AfD, which Kevin deleted as pointy. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or is Radioinfoguy (talk · contribs) singularily unpleasant? Unfounded and personal attacks a-go-go on Gwen on this page, plus this bit of nastiness and this one plus the strange "delete this article or add my choice of self-aggrandisement to it" stroppy demands. I'm feeling inclined to get rid of him permanently. Any objections? ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from me.

He's angry. Yes, there's no reason to agree to his every whim, but there's also no reason to taunt him. He hasn't vandalized anything. Cut him some slack and aim to decrease tensions rather than increase them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While he might not have vandalized anything he hardly seems to be a constructive editor. More importantly, he is disrupting the project.--Ave Caesar (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Better to let it blow over rather than inflame things more. Kevin (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to block just yet. This POINTy vendetta against Gwen is disappointing, irritating, and baffling; but the user otherwise appears to be contributing in good faith (and continued to do so in other areas even during this incident). If he doesn't back off of this one pretty soon, a short clueblock might be in order, but I don't see any need to get rid of him permanently. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an article for deletion (solely to prove that it shouldn't be deleted) is a mind-boggling abuse of process, though strangely I've seen it done before. If he can heed a stern warning not to engage in such stunts in the future, I see no reason for Joe not to continue editing, though it wouldn't be unreasonable for us to ask him to comment on the talk page from now on rather than editing the article directly. — CharlotteWebb 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I asked him to do a month and a half ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I talked to Joe and neither of us want to have a war, or get involved with crap like this. It just seems that a few people have it in for him and are not allowing things that are acceptable in other articles. The double standard is baffling.

I can understand being angry when someone asks for answers and gets none and asks for citing of Wiki poplicy as to why sources are not notable and gets no answer. Why is it so hard to address these points? Gwen has removed sources from large metropolitan newspapers and says they are only "online pictures." They are newspapers like Toledo Blade, Canton Repository, Alliance Review and magazines like Classic Rock Magazine. Read their wiki pages and tell me if they are only online pictures. Please explain why these sources do not show at least some notability as a photographer. They all have wide circulation and meet the criteria for Wiki sources.

Go back and look at the photography section, that was removed. Are the Sport Karate Magazine scans any different from the Scene Magazine scan Gwen added herself at the beginning of the article? Nope. However, to her that one is fine and the ones I added are not. Why was it wrong to follow her example? When I asked for an explaination, she gave none. Make sense? Sounds like a double standard to me. Wouldn't showing notability as a photographer entail having your photos published repeatedly in widely circulated magazines and newspapers and used by notable musicians in their music releases? Hoary hinted that a book needs to be published and reviewed to be notable, as a photographer. Can I see a cite of Wiki policy about this? The photography section, to me, only adds to the overall notability of the subject. He has earned citing and been published in various acceptable sources, from various aspects of his career (radio, recording, photography). There are so many articles that don't have a half the sources. Why is this article such a problem?

Hoary also said in the original AfD that anyone can edit the article, including radioinfoguy. When that happened and I added a few lines about his photography, tags are put up and Gwen threatens to AfD her article. Seems pretty consusing to me. The photo edits I did were very neutral and factual. If they were not, why not clean them up and offer suggestions to help? Isn't that what is supposed to be done? I thought this article may be allowed to grow and develop, asWikipedia says is their goal, for new articles, but it seems that this will not happen, with this article. The photography section, combined with the article that Gwen wrote, proves notability, without a doubt, according to Wiki guidelines.

One more thing. Since Gwen removed the photography section, why does she insist in keeping the COI tag? The article, as it sits right now, is only her work. I do not understand this.

I respectfully ask for answers to these questions, with citing of Wiki policy. Thanks. 16:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). The COI and notability tags were added by another editor. I think they should stay until you stop trying to use the article for self-promotion. The topic Joe Kleon fails WP:BIO. However, you have some borderline notability as a recording engineer and former local DJ in northern Ohio. As for the local Scene magazine scan (which is on your personal website), I told you weeks ago that I had stretched the sources somewhat in trying to make the article whole and encyclopedic for you. Truth be told, the scan indeed doesn't belong as a source in the article at all, I only threw it in because it filled things out a bit, I was struggling to support any notability at all for you as a music journalist and I thought it would at least show some evidence you've done locally published music journalism (which in itself is not notable) and hoped someone might have fun reading it. Online copies of your photos are not sources and whatever you have done as a radio and recording person does not shed notability on your photography. Taking snaps of famous or noted folks is not in itself notable, even if the photographs are later published in local newspapers or used in marketing/packaging materials for independent music releases. To show notability as a photographer, one would need to provide citations showing significant coverage (which is to say discussion) of your photography by independent and reliable sources, or meaningful awards, or exhibitions. I didn't find any when I researched you a month and a half ago and I didn't find any today. I think you either don't understand Wikipedia's notability, sourcing, consensus, discussion, alternate account, civility and disruption policies, among others, or don't want to abide by them, though maybe it's a bit of both. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cf. this edit on User_talk:Barryispuzzled. Barryispuzzled, Felsommerfeld, Bodleyman, and Tokomak1689 are listed as admitted sockpuppets. Barryispuzzled has identified himself as Barry R. Clarke (but while plausible, has not been verified). The two former have been taking a series of extreme positions in the Talk pages of various fringe theory articles (the Shakespeare authorship related articles), and skirted the edges of several Wikipedia policies (tendentious editing, edit-warring, NPOV, WP:POINT, AGF, etc. etc.).

I'd like to request that admins take a good long look at all the edits made from these accounts (particularly over the last month or so, but I suspect previous history will reveal more relevant edits). It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to do a checkuser to determine whether these users are in fact sockpuppets, and if so whether he has any more accounts.

Other editors have jumped through burning hoops to assume good faith on the part of these users, to help them participate productively on Wikipedia, and to deal with the fallout of the various edit wars, Talk page meltdowns, etc.. Several have given up in disguset or burned out over the conflict and controversy generated by, among others, the actions of these editors.

If it turns out that these actions have been deliberate, bad faith, attempts to disrupt Wikipedia, and that the apparent admission of sockpuppetry is accurat, I would suggest actively banning these users and any other sockpuppets a checkuser might turn up.

(Note I've thankfully never had to ask for admin review/intervention before so I hope I've posted in the right place and followed the ce correct procedures / policies. Please let me know if I've messed up on any count.) --Xover (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that user is still active and still pushing for "his" version of the Baconian theory (cf. this edit) despite the message admitting (plausibly) to running several sockpuppet accounts. He's also apparently playing some kind of game cf. this edit and this edit. --Xover (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has a hidden agenda and is trying to dismantle the Baconian article. Puzzle Master (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today, based on an AIV report, I blocked a bunch of obvious socks who were vandalizing Baconian theory. They are Looneytune007 (talk · contribs), DigbyDaDog (talk · contribs), Anneharky (talk · contribs), and Picksauce (talk · contribs). I then semi-protected the page. The socks superficially appear to be barryispuzzled (talk · contribs). I also reverted a personal attack he made on his user talk page. I see now that this appears to be part of a larger ongoing dispute, but unfortunately I will be away from a computer for the next week or so and will not be able to monitor the situation. To any administrator that looks into this issue, please feel free to alter/undo the protection of that page and deal with the apparent abuses by barryispuzzled (or others) as you see fit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

barryispuzzled is the most evil person on Wikipedia. He makes numerous sockpuppets and tries to defend an article he created from people who turn up appearing to be helpful but actually have hidden agendas. Like Smatprt who wants as much Oxfordian material in the Baconian article as he can get away with. Like Xover comes on the article Talk page and talks to me nicey nicey pretending he wants to help but really intends to rewrite the article with Stratfordian bend. By the way, I know I'm wasting my time telling you this because I've asked for protection for the Baconian theory article before on this board but did anyone help? So I want it locked down for a period, maybe, a month so these wolves in sheeps clothing can't get their paws on it. You can if you want, completely miss the point and ban me but I have no faith in Administrators anyway. Never gave me help when I cried out for it. Puzzle Master (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. I'd like you to give me a substantial ban because I know how much fun it is for you to have found a GENUINE bad guy you can release your wrath onto. It's easy to collectively bully someone (after all, manufacturing a common enemy tends to bind people together) from behind a computer screen isn't it, gentlemen. See my personal statement here.[25] Puzzle Master (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone's mad at me: [26]. NJGW (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Join the club. Blocked. MastCell ^Talk 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Randy Pausch was a Unitarian Universalist. It deserves mention and has been omitted from his biography.

Randy Pausch was "a Unitarian Universalist who first came to (the) faith as a member of the First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania".

Source: http://www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/117142.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan bromirski (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This should really be discussed on the Randy Pausch talk page, not here. I'm not sure what you'd need administrator action for in this case. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gcarini has been notified about this thread

This user is a hot-blooded A.C. Milan fan who likes to push unconfirmed transfer moves without any sort of official announcement. He also managed to call me a "fool" [27], threatening me to push "a complaint against me" [28], and defining me "hardly unbiased" and with a "ridiculous and biased attitude". It's not the first time this user acts this way, he called another Wikipedian a "liar" [29], and another one as "rubbish" [30]. Since I am a Wikipedia administrator, and a long-time WP:FOOTY user with plenty of valuable and recognized contributions in Italian football articles (including even AC Milan's article), I feel these attack words as offensive against me. Obviously I am not going to block him as one of the involved parties, but please have a couple words with him, I'd like to avoid situations like these in the future. Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you decided to take this to this level. You obviously have no objectivity in this matter and I stand by my actions and statements. I feel that you have a strong bias against Milan. I am not changing my attitude. All the transfer moves I put up ARE CONFIRMED OFFICIALLY. You cannot dispute that. Gcarini (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadian (talk · contribs) wants to make more friends and has added external links to his various profiles on dozen of articles on social networking sites(e.g.: [31][32]). I've reverted some, but I think admins have some magic wand to do this in batch. Would anyone help? --Damiens.rf 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Warned for addition of spam links. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done –xeno (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The dicussion page topic "False claims about the Jewish descent of the Bethmann family" in the article "The Jew of Linz" contains entries by an anonymous editor, one "Number17 (talk · contribs)" (who also edits under the name "Goodmorningworld (talk · contribs)") who has been systematically removing references cited in this article and in other relevant Wikipedia articles, without providing his own supporting references to justify the deletions. I'm not sure if anything can be done about it, but I am drawing the matter to administrative attention. I would ask anyone who attends to these things to read the discussion page topic for details. Please let me know if anything further is required, and the final administrative decision on this matter. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: "Kimberly Cornish" is the name of the author of the book the article concerns. Skomorokh 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kimberley, can you provide us some diffs showing Goodmorningworld and Number17 removing verifiable references? I only see two edits by Goodmorningworld to the recent page history of Jew of Linz, (none by Number17) and they both seem to be constructive. On the other hand, this edit in of yours in particular worries me: [33]. Please realize that if you are actually the author of this book, your editing this page constitutes a potential conflict of interest, and I would strongly encourage you be very careful not to make biased edits like the one above. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the article for a moment, this Number17/Goodmorningworld thing has more to it than meets the eye. Number17 stopped editing in June of last year, and has no contribs since then. Goodmorningworld has <50 contribs and has been editing less than a month, and he uses Number17 as his sig, e.g. here -- hence Kimberly's confusion.

Block log is clean for Number17, so it is definitely not a block-evading sock -- but in any case, it's confusing as hell. Maybe he just lost his password from his previously retired account? heh... I will ask Goodmorningworld about it on his talk page, as well as notify him of this ANI thread. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, their interests seem diametrically opposed too... maybe GMW didn't realize there was already a user Number17? In any case, I eagerly await his clarification. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When I registered to Wikipedia, I wanted "Number17" for my user name, in order to be consistent with postings of mine on other message boards, where I already use "Number17". However, Wikipedia told me that "Number17" was not available as a user name, so I made up another user name instead, i.e., "Goodmorningworld", and used the "Nickname" feature of the Wikipedia system to have "Number17" appear as my signature. I intended no deception by this. See WikiAnswers page here for where my discussion with Cornish began, I used "Number17" there and wanted to use it here as well to avoid confusion. (The thread on WikiAnswers has been locked by the management and edited, there is one error about a third of the way down where the WikiAnswers people put in a bolded "Number17" twice in succession by mistake, other than that their edit is accurate.)--Number17 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am still new to Wikipedia and learning the ropes. I just discovered the page on fringe theories. Based on my reading of that page, I am proposing that the entire "Jew of Linz" page be classified as "Pseudoscience". --Number17 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS: See, this "Jewish Bethmanns" canard is actually just one minor strand in Cornish's whacky book. It just happens that I already knew a bit about the Bethmann history. But if the book in its entirety is a mountain of madness, we've barely even reached the foothills. There is a great deal more craziness. Take, for example, this bit from Cornish's self-promotional Wiki (he refers to himself in the third person): "Cornish also points out that the pianist and composer Franz Liszt Franz Liszt had abandoned the mother of his children, the Comtesse Marie d'Agoult, for Princess Carolyne Wittgenstein, who had taken the Liszt/d'Agoult children away from their mother. Liszt's daughter, Cosima Liszt, thus grew up hating Jews and her father's paramour Carolyne Wittgenstein in particular. (Cornish quotes the opera singler Dietrich Fisher-Deskau [sic] as his authority for Princess Wittgenstein's Jewishness.)"
This is nuts, totally nuts! Regardless of what Fischer-Dieskau had to say (if Cornish even quotes him accurately at all), of course Princess Wittgenstein was not Jewish!
Cornish is amazingly productive in throwing out factual claims, many of which upon closer inspection turn out to be false. But who has the time to go over every one of these claims with a fine-toothed comb, ferret out the false ones, and then spend weeks and months fighting Cornish tooth and nail over each and every one of them (for he simply refuses to acknowledge when he is wrong)?
I for one would not trust Cornish to give me the time of day!--Number17 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation regarding the username confusion. I would suggest putting a brief explanation on your user page so that people understand what's going on here. Normally, putting a different nickname in the sig is fine, but since it's the name of a different user, that causes some confusion. Luckily, that user appears to be retired, so I think this is okay.

Regarding the difference of opinion over The Jew of Linz, I would remind both parties that AN/I is not for resolving content disputes. I would urge you both to continue to engage in dialog in an attempt to find a compromise, and if you can't, I would recommend various forms of dispute resolution. One place to start would be either Request for Comment or the 3rd Opinion noticeboard. I can help you fill out an RfC if you would like, but first, try to work things out yourself if you could. Let me know on my talk page how you would like to proceed. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/BLP_vios_on_Obama_Talkpage

That should pretty much kill any discussion of the issue. Nice work. Kelly ^hi! 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I happened across a new page the other day that was a short article about a completely non-notable criminal. The page was created by User:Nanny's Boy (contribs) (also using IP 99.243.60.43). Looking through the user's contribs list, it appears that he has created several articles that are of the same questionably notable subjects. I have tagged a couple for speedy, ones that were blatently NN ("he was a criminal, he robbed people, he died" type articles)... Before the user in question starts thinking I have some strange vendetta against him/her/it, and before I start appearing BITEy, I would like someone else to take a look through the contribs, and see if they can help sort out the possibly notable articles from the obviously non-notable... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Mobsters are often of popular interest and can command a lot of independant sources (rather the other kind!). Without access to The Brothers Bulger: How They Terrorized and Corrupted Boston for a Quarter of a Century, for instance, Francis_X._Leonard is kind of hard to judge, but assuming this information is researchable, and not personal knowledge on his part, it probably passes WP:N. WilyD 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am posting this here rather than one of the other noticeboards because extra eyes are needed: it involves

1. mention of lawsuits (that don't rise to the level of WP:THREAT but do give rise to concern),
2. BLP (Antonini Wilson, who reliable sources say is cooperating with the FBI in the Maletinazo investigation, and others),
3. possible COI (an investigating company may be involved), and
4. political scandal (Maletinazo was a Venezuelan–Argentine scandal involving the adminstrations of both Presidents Hugo Chávez and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner).

See Talk:Maletinazo#Antonini Wilson background

I left a talk message for Jossi yesterday, to bring in extra eyes that read Spanish, but have had no response (the Spanish sources say the same thing as the English sources). Until someone else who reads Spanish can check the sources, I'll assert that there is no WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR in the disputed section of the article: it contains claims asserted by multiple English- and Spanish-language reliable sources, and does not string claims together in synthesis. The Antonini section of the article reports what multiple reliable sources say (I haven't checked some of the rest of the article as thoroughly ... much of it was written by others, and some of it is poor English, but it is only the Antonini section that is being challenged).

A new user, Alessio.aguirre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (not a common Hispanic name) has been deleting text relating to reliably sourced mentions of the companies, ProArepa and American Food Grain. The reliable sources connect ProArepa to the Chavez administration and the Maletinazo players and scandal.

Googling Alessio Aguirre yields: Profile: Alessio Aguirre. "Born in Argentina, grew up in Venezuela, now live in Miami. I work at Kroll (www.Kroll.com) as director of r Computer Foresnic Services for Latin America." See the nature of Kroll.com's business, which is the basis of my COI concern.

Alessio.aguirre mentioned on the talk page that:

I understand that there may be any number newspaper or other media articles that make the same claim, after administrative or legal actions with them the articles were taken down, sometimes with a simple email, sometimes after a simple “Libel" and "Slander” lawsuit.

and

I usually deal with news agencies or webmasters and need not worry about internal policies and other internal documents.

So, there is some evidence it may be the same Alessio Aguirre, working for Kroll.com.

Sources for the text include The Miami Herald (no longer available online, but text is is quoted accurately in the footnote), St. Petersburg Times, USA Today, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and leading Venezuelan and Argentine newspapers (El Universal, Clarin, and La Nacion).

Because there is the potential here for COI and legal concerns, I'd like others to get involved: it would help if others could read the sources in Spanish. I do speak Spanish fluently, all of these are leading and reputable sources, and they are accurately represented and agree with the English sources, but extra eyes are needed here. I'm unsure if Wiki will be inclined to delete the reliably sourced text anyway, because lawsuits have been raised on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Without speaking to the rest of the problem, all the text that is cited to Spanish sources in Maletinazo#Antonini Wilson background reflects the content of one or more sources accurately. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tonight, 213.205.225.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and on previous nights using a number of IP addresses within the 213.205.x.x range has been making infrequent uncivil edits on my page and other pages. The problems started when I made a request to semi-protect the TalkSPORT article because the user had been constantly adding violations against the Biographies of Living Persons policy and potentially libellous information about one of the presenters [34]. Discussion was started by other editors on the talk page to no avail (other than an uncivil comment to another editor [35]). Since the semi protection was granted for the TalkSPORT article, the user has been taking out their frustration on me and making personal attacks, including adding a fair use image on my user page twice under two IP addresses[36][37] and changing my messages on the aforementioned discussion on the TalkSPORT article[38][39]. Because they keep switching their IP address at least once a day, it is proving difficult to communicate or prevent this user vandalising pages except for reverting again and again. Is there anything that can be done which won't result in collateral damage for other users? --tgheretford (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Back again. Please block Dark Angel X5 Max (talk · contribs) and protect Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header/GNU. Algebraist 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could step in and review the following situation.

Our story starts over at Teaching English as a foreign language where Boldautomatic pops up every now and then to insert a link to a wiki which forms part of the website of ICAL, an online TEFL course provider. The insertion is removed by multiple users, and only when they're on the verge of a 3RR violation does Boldautomatic take it to the the talk page, where they consistently fail to answer (reasonable) enquiries about whether they have a conflict of interest, cast aspersions on the motivations of those who are removing the link, and generally taking umbrage about the fact that their link was deleted.

On reviewing their contributions, ICAL (TESL Provider) had cropped up as a page they created about the organisation itself, which didn't assert any notability whatsoever. I flagged it for deletion under A7 (on the basis that I was semi-involved, so didn't want to delete it myself). That then lead to a whole diatribe of argument on the talk page against deletion by Boldautomatic, which essentially boiled down to (i) other crap exists and (ii) ICAL isn't a website, it's a school. By the time the page, and its talk page, are deleted by Accounting4Taste on the grounds of A7 I'm pretty blue in the face at having to repeatedly explain the concept of notability as it related to online organisations and point the user in the direction of the relevant policies and guidelines.

Sadly it doesn't end there. Boldautomatic then moves to my talk page (starting the conversation with "So, GB, you managed to get the ICAL page deleted. I expect you're feeling very pleased with yourself", which is possibly not the greatest way to open a conversation). You can read the rest of it there, and on their talk page. All the posts fail to actually address the issues with the ICAL article, but instead amount to little more than barely-disguiged baiting and poorly hidden arguments along the lines of "well, if you're not going to let my article stay then this one should be deleted too". By the time the last post comes around this is explicitly clear, but if you're anything like me you'll be bored to tears by that stage.

To cut a long story short (too late, probably), I've answered their questions fully and repeatedly, and once the extent of the trolling became clear, asked them once, twice and three times to stay off my talk page, the last time accompanied by a pointer in the direction of the help desk where they could ask any further questions, and a warning that if they continued to ignore my request I would be asking for them to be blocked. Their response to that post is pretty indicative of their behaviour generally.

It's not clearcut vandalism, so I'm not at WP:AIV, but I'm fed up with the disruption being caused to me by an editor who it is fair to assume has a conflict of interest and I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review and take whatever action they feel necessary. _GB^T/C 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm having great problems with GB's attitude as an editor. If the deleted page conversation is checked you will find that he requested it be speedily deleted because ICAL is an online school. When I pressed him (I assume it's a him and not a her) on this matter he went back on previous comments and finally admitted that it was requested for speedy deletion because it was not notable enough.

Checking the site, my understanding is that speedy deletion is not actually a remedy for non-notable pages. I am at a loss to understand why GB was so adamant that the page be removed in this manner. Perhaps someone can explain this.

Re talking on GB's talk page - just trying to get a straight answer out of him. They make a comment on my page, I respond on his page. I, for one, am fed up with the rather high-handed attitude GB exhibits and the way in which he has consistently refused to give a plain answer to a straight question, all the time prevaricating and going back on previous comments.

Very disappointed in the standard of this editor! --Boldautomatic (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is now getting seriously tiresome. My comments on the talk page of ICAL (which I've temporarily restored here for ease of reference) speak for themelves. I start by flagging ICAL under A7 (web) - "an article about a website ... that doesn't indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - he can't say he didn't read that bit, because he quotes it in his first post to the talk page. I end with "None of [the comments above] are predicated about its inclusion or not solely on the basis of whether it's an online organisation, but about notability, and specifically whether it satisfies the criteria of notability as they apply to websites.", and I'm not exactly sure where along the way he gets the idea that I was "prevaricating", "going back on previous comments" or somehow "finally admitted" that it was not notable enough. Halfway through the discussion I am even told to "Forget notability" - an interesting thing to tell me if a little later on I'm supposed to be changing my tune and suddenly saying it's all about notability.

As the talk page shows clearly enough, Bold's responses and arguments were :

1. it's not a website it's a school (answer : no, it's website);
2. why are you biased against ICAL (answer : I'm not);
3. let's delete all the entries that lead onto commercial sites, starting with Microsoft (answer : no, let's not, let's just make sure that non-notable organisations aren't included);
4. I'm going to flag a (physical) school for speedy deletion to spite you then (answer : physical schools don't fall under A7 - have a look right there in the wording of the tag itself, and sure enough the speedy was declined);
5. ICAL is a school because it has students and offices (answer : it's a website, see (1) above);
6. So, online educational establishments aren't allowed on Wikipedia, then (answer : they are, if they're notable enough);
7. Forget notability, are ONLINE educational establishments allowed on Wikipedia (answer : any organisation is allowed on it's notable and that notability can be verified through reliable sources);
8. "So now we can discount all that you said about about it being removed because it relates to an online instituation" (answer : have you actually read and understood any of the comments above?).

I've been banging my head against a metaphorical brick wall so hard I'm in danger of getting a real headache. Would someone please read the talk page (and that includes you, Bold, since I'm not convinced you actually read any of it first time around) and post their views. When you've finished, Bold, can I suggest you also read this page on speedy deletion - if you had done before writing your post above you'd have found out quite quickly that speedy deletion is a (astonishingly frequently used) remedy for non-notable pages.

As for being "high handed" and being "disappointed in the standard of this editor", well, until Bold answers the (straightforward) question of whether he has a conflict of interest or not, and not that I see anything wrong with how I've behaved, I don't see why I should behave any differently to a user who has, amongst other things, insinuated that (i) the flagging of the page for speedy deletion was an underhand tactic carried out by a rival (oh, out of malice, too), (ii) I must be "very please with [my]self" that ICAL was deleted, (iii) I must work for another commercial organisation because I (and others) removed a link he kept inserting, and (iv) when in the minority, the concensus (sic) is ganging up against him. _Gb^T/c 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me break this down. GB deleted the page because - in his opinion - it referenced a website which was not notable. Thus there were 2 criteria which he needed it to fulfill: 1) it needed to be a website and 2) it needed to be non-notable.

The article was not about a website. It was about a school. A distance learning school. Like OU only smaller. A school with over 10,000 students operating for over 10 years and arguably the largest and most established in its field.

Later on GB admitted that online organisations can have entries here (if they're notable). So that negated the first criterion. He thus wanted to delete it because it was not notable only.

Is ICAL notable? Well considering the above facts about the school that is debatable. In trying to find out the criteria for notability I referenced several other articles which GB was happy to allow on the site, notably this one which he refused to delete because according to him it was "physical" therefore it was allowed. He did not mention the notability of the article I referenced.

Herein lies the problem. GB allowed the Nanjing school to remain (though it contains no verifiable references) because he must have felt it was notable (physicality having been proved to be irrelevant) and yet he deleted ICAL even though it was similar in style and content.

Furthermore, when I tried to establish from GB what aspects of this page constituted notability he steadfastly refused to explain. I know he's unpaid, but it's hardly professional. (I now note that the page in question has been flagged for deletion - not speedy deletion like the ICAL page, note, but a more considered deletion. It is a shame such care could not have been taken over the ICAL page - why was that?)

As for GB's accusation of trolling, I am afraid that I fear this is GB's excuse for not being able to answer my questions in full! --Boldautomatic (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's late and I'll post a full reply in the morning, but in the meantime :

1. If you're going to break things down, at least get them correct. I didn't delete the page, I flagged it for deletion. The policy two criteria are that (a) it was about a website, and (b) the article didn't assert the notability of the website concerned. If you'd actually bothered to read the policies at any stage you'd know this.
2. That'd be, what, the fifth time you've been asked if you have a conflict of interest? Do you? If you have no conflict why the reticence to answer?
3. It's interesting to note how quickly you back away from your assertions about what I said when presented with the actual record of our discussions. In particular I note the speed and ease with which you moved from "[I] requested it be speedily deleted because ICAL is an online school" to "[I] deleted the page because - in [my] opinion - it referenced a website which was not notable" when presented with the substance of our conversation. If only you could read the relevant policies you're being pointed at repeatedly with such ease.
4. I'm loving the irony that despite having wasted untold posts on you, and having asked on numerous occasions whether you have a conflict of interest, without having received the courtesy of a reply, I'm the one that hasn't answered your questions in full.
5. In the time you've spent discussing this you could have re-written ICAL as a featured article, and yet you persist in running the same argument time and time again. Would you still like to assert that you're not trolling?

Let's try and keep the next exchange short and sweet. Do you have a conflict of interest? _Gb^T/c 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I await GB's full reply in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not getting it until you answer the question that I have asked you repeatedly. Do you have a conflict of interest? _Gb^T/c 08:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that it would have been that difficult a question to answer. I've provided you with some pointers on your talk page. _Gb^T/c 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple. It is apparent that boldautomatic has a conflict of interest because it is unlikely that someone who didn't wouldn't be pushing it for this long of a time. Since the school is online, it is covered under webcontent and organizations, under A7. If you want to create an article about this organization, provide 2 reliable sources which cover the subject in depth. As for the other article getting an AfD and not a speedy, that school is actually a subsidiary of a notable university. The question became whether it has any notability on its own, or only in the context of the parent. Your article is not such a subsidiary. End of story is nothing you will do short of providing reliable sources will get the article created. These sources are not press releases, blogs, forums, self-published websites, minor online "news" sites, and don't include trivial coverage like a larger article which name drops the institution or just talks about them for less than half of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

why is robj1981 allowed to edit???? he seems to constantly be in trouble with other user. he is not a very nice editor. he is uncivil editor who is always on civility patrol. can you make him go away already. He runis everything he touces and is always getting someone banned when he is really the problem. is this community so blind they can't see thru this stuff? He is always running to ANI telling on people and doesnt even tell people when he does it. very uncivil. he has 28 days left on his ban to serve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.42.104 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on "is always getting someone banned when he is really the problem" I think it safe to assume that the above IP is a block evading sock. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm looking into it a bit more I'm reasonably sure this is either User:SLJCOAAATR 1 or one of his friends meatpuppeting for him. (See his talk page to see what's been going on). I've hardblocked the IP for a week, which is a bit harsh I know but this sillyness needs to stop.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

i have nothig to do with SLJ saying u banning my ip was unjust and rude. i am aware of situation. User:RobJ1981 and User:A Man In Black may very well be meatpuppets of each other. they have both edited 369 different aticles together yet theyve only talked a few times?!?!??!

369 articles in common- noitce they never disagree in AFD

Also look here- amib nominates, rob votes to support in 7 minutes. clikc here alot of fishiness going on here 70.211.199.121 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, Rob wanted to keep the article, while AMIB wanted to chuck it. By the way, I have nearly 300 pages in common with RobJ1981. I also have 364 pages in common with Theresa knott. Does that mean we're meatpuppets? Of course not. I've never even talked to her before. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no denyimg it. The IP sock is on to us;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a persistent unregistered user marked as 151.196.170.14 who keeps adding that Family Guy Volume 6 might have 16 episodes. However, there is no official proof of that, though this user still does not quit. I do admit that I have been changing this person's edits on this article for quite some time now, which I am unsure was the right thing to do, as it seems to have begun a relentless edit war. This does not seem to be noticed, so can someone please look into this? Immblueversion 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note to find a source or desist. I'll keep an eye on the article. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Carpaticus and IP 212.17.85.18.
I don't know if Checkuser is needed here, it's pretty obvious. Yesterday the "two" together also broke 3RR despite warnings and stopped using the talk page after I asked them if they were the same editor. Multiple editors including an administrator have reverted their edits across several articles.
Also deleting well-referenced material while adding unreferenced information. I asked the account again if they're the same person, but I received no answer. The account first showed up when an uninvolved editor asked the IP to use the talk page and warned him of 3RR. Squash Racket (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: no Checkuser needed. I notified the IP about this report and I received a message from Carpaticus. So he had seen and read all the warnings I left at both the IP's and the account's talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Large_amount_of_Rangeblocks_by_Raul654

Related archived AN thread

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) has been unblocked by Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after Guido den Broeder redacted his legal threat. Tiptoety ^talk 07:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Guido indicated that "legal action has been concluded", and therefore a WP:NLT block no longer appears justified. I asked it be brought up here, since there was a pretty long thread on the matter previously. Prodego ^talk 07:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He retracted the legal threat, it seems. Readying legal threats for publication would not be grounds for an unblock, I think. Appropriety Nazi 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I formally vehemently object to highlighting not only my ISP but my private IP number on my talkpage. This is a very, very serious invasion of privacy not to mention leaving my computer open to attack from disturbed users. The IP number is totally irrelevent to the debate an dissue at hand. I understand that wikipedia may monitor PRIVATELY my IP for future violations- but publicly listing is an extremely offensive violation of privacy in extreme. Therefore I request that not only this information be deleted as soon as possible, but permanently deleted from the history of the talkpage (or made only visible to Wiki bureaucrats and admin). Relevant page: [[42]]

Re: User:Aldwinteo

Furthermore, although I am in now civil and cordial relations and I understand we have cleared the air, I request ADMIN to request some written confirmation that as accepted my apology and LEGALLY CONFIRMS HE WILL NOT TO MONITOR MY INTERNET USAGE as he has indicate he may do so: I view this invasion of privacy as extremely serious. I sincerely hope this issue does not devolve into me being forced to lodge complaints of wikistalking Starstylers (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to advise you against making any statement that may be construed as a legal threat. Tiptoety ^talk 07:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit doesn't exactly inspire confidence. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Response: To avoid repetition, pse refer to my reply here. Kindly note that I've not interest to engage or continue any discussion with or on this agitator as he has a long history of launching personal attacks or acts of incivility against members of the Wikipedia community previously & including recent ones like [43], [44] and more. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Look if he is an agitator and has made numerous attacks againast people, community ban him from Wikipedia. But noting his IP address on his userpage does look like an invasion of privacy to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted (not oversighted) the revision in question. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Undertheheavens and User:Binarymonkey both appear to be single-purpose accounts created in order to add links to www.yourlocalweb.co.uk to articles. I've reverted and blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Beetstra has also noted User:86.157.238.54, which appears to have a similar activity profile. -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

After some discussion with the user, who now seems to understand the problem, Dirk has unblocked User:Undertheheavens, which seems fine to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just PRODded a whole pile of articles like this one on Disney songs from this editor, since song articles can't be speedied. This displays all the attributes of being a MascotGuy sock, but has been around since 2007. (Look at the talkpage!) Thoughts? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since many seem to be plausible search terms they should really be redirects to the films they are from. --Rividian (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• User also created a bunch of categories related to songs from Disney films. Six categories that I counted, possibly more. Enigma ^message 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• User has now been notified of the discussion. Enigma ^message 00:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - to be honest I didn't bother informing because the user doesn't communicate - he has precisely zero edits to talkpages in his entire history and practically nothing to usertalk (another MascotGuy marker). And look here... (in association with the LTA page linked to in my initial post). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about biting, here. What sort of user would have an interest in Disney songs? Then what sort would create an article per song? You may be dealing with a very young user, so let's be as professional, polite, and respectful as possible. Explain, then explain why redirects are going on. Little guys have endless energy. (Or it could be a vandal or a frenzied person, but it wouldn't hurt to be as polite as possible and assume the first case.) Geogre (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

CameronPG also uses the IP 67.161.238.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); often the closest thing you get to communication is for him to repeat edits you've warned him about while logged out. To be honest, I thought he was a MascotGuy sock as well when I first saw him, but his actual editing pattern is a bit different (he makes section edits, for one thing). According to his userpage, he claims (or a parent claims) that he is autistic, which might account for similarities - and if a parent placed that notice, he might also be a child. In any case, Wheelchair Epidemic is correct; he never responds to talk page messages. If that's a problem, he's always going to be a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been using that IP again today to revert redirects. I've put a polite note on the IPs talk page asking him not do to that and pointing him to WP:MUSIC, but I doubt it'll have any effect. I note that both Cameron's and the IP's block logs are quite long for this sort of thing, but if he is an autistic child we obviously want to AGF as much as possible. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 made a personal attack against an admin a while ago.[45]

But recently Levine2112 made a comment about keeping an article on the admin who he previously attacked.[46]

I notified Levine2112 about this issue.[47]

He made a bad faith comment in his edit summary.[48]

I gave him a notice about his bad faith comment[49] and then he made another bad faith comment.[50]

What is the best way to resolve this situation with Levine2112's continued behaviour issues.[51] QuackGuru 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The original comment was made in September 2007--nearly a year ago. As far as I can tell, this is not an "ongoing" issue, and any problems arising from that comment were apparently dealt with in due course. Editors are free to comment on any AfD discussion they please, and so while I wouldn't term your warning "harassment" (which to me implies a pattern of behavior), I do agree that it was out of line. It might not hurt for you two to steer clear of each other for a while, but I see no situation that needs resolving here. --jonny-mt 07:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see a serious ongoing problem here. He did indeed make an attack on that admin, but that was a year ago. His comment on the AfD (while I wouldn't call it a great argument) did not in any way refer to the previous situation or make any kind of personal reference - it's quite possible he'd forgotten it was even the same person after such an extended period. Honestly, I think your post on his talk page seemed unwarranted and unnecessarily stern - I just don't see a big problem right now with what he's done. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 10:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru and Levine2112, I will pay each of you $100,000* if you promise not to report the other editor at AN or ANI anymore or warn each other about perceived misbehavior. You don't like each other. We get it. *payable in ZWD dollars --barneca (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is indeed an ongoing and wide ranging dispute between these two editors (and many others). This report is overblown. QuackGuru's concern about the AFD comment is not a reasonable concern, and it is not surprising that matters deteriorated after QuackGuru tried to tell Levine2112 that he shouldn't have made a reasonable AFD comment. Disengagement needs to be used more often and better in this dispute - QuackGuru failed to even try, and Levine2112 used edit summaries that didn't help disengagement occurred. GRBerry 14:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Without checking the links (I don't think I need to in order to determine who is involved), although the AfD itself was probably opened in bath faith, there are very few comments other than that of the nominator which are likely to be in bad faith. (In other words, QG, I'm not blocked, and I know where to comment if I see things happening which are inappropriate.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[52]. Something needs to be done quickly. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 11:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it and will let an admin deal with the rest of it. I come back one day to poke around and this... sheesh. spryde | talk 11:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Rodhullandemu blocked the IP for six months. Is this resolved, or is any other action needed? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 11:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't we normally contact the authorities, no matter what? From my POV, if it's a joke, the person needs a wake up call to show that threats are taken seriously, and if it's not, then the authorities definitely need to know. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RBI - don't waste their time. Schoolboy vandalism. –xeno (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Papa November (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

.. is persisting in violating WP:NPOV, and specifically the WP:TERRORIST style guideline, despite being warned, has removed one such warning from his talk page, and is undoing rollbacks of his edits. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's OK for a user to remove warnings from their own talk page. It simply proves that they have read them! I'll check his recent activity now Papa November (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread. Papa November (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think administrative action would be a little premature for the moment. There have been no reversions since the latest warning, so hopefully he has now familiarised himself with the style guidelines. I'd suggest reporting this again if similar editing occurs. Papa November (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gojira09 has had absolutely no constructive edits whatsoever. Every one of their edits has comprised the addition of trivia and/or original research, such as here, here, here, and here. Despite two (!) final warnings, this user has continued their streak of unhelpful edits (and yet they haven't been blocked). I think they should be stopped, because they clearly aren't here to help out the project. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that what you have here is, to use a technical term, a "child". I don't think they are bad faithed, but just are slightly incapable of following the preferred practices of the encyclopedia. Under the circumstances I think the best procedure would be to revert and ignore, unless they start making bad faith edits, and oppose the inevitable RFA in a couple of months time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Olmec please. Godheval (talk · contribs) has inserted statements[53] which I removed as OR[54]. Since then we've gone to the talk page and another editor has stepped in also reverting the OR, but Godheval keeps reinserting the OR/removing OR tags without acknowledging that it needs a source. They've even stooped to personal attacks on the article talk page] and on my talk page. NJGW (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring stopped for now; discussion seems to be going on at talk page, but I think some new previously-uninvolved eyeballs would be good. Although I can't force it on anyone, I'd recommend ignoring the fairly tame personal attacks, and just keeping your focus on the article. --barneca (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's day two of my adminship and I'm already in over my head! Yikes... All right, so I need some advice from experienced admin-folk. Here's the story. I was contacted on IRC by a user who was the brunt of a rather nasty personal attack by User:Fourtildas (diff) after warning him for vandalism on Israel. I read through his talk page and decided not to immediately block at the time, left him with a level-3 no personal attacks warning, and resolved to look through his contribs later. Well, it's later now and I'm starting to think, just after reading through a few, that I probably should have blocked. He has been frequenting the Talk:Israel page with borderline uncivil comments and today went so far to describe Jews as "totally disgusting" (diff). I'm not sure how to proceed. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you did fine--just remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. You might want to follow up your warning with a personal note about what is and isn't acceptable and advise him that further disruption or personal attacks will result in a revocation of his editing. Then I'd suggest watchlisting his page and keeping an eye on his contributions. Warnings sometimes take a little while to really sink in. --jonny-mt 08:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "Jews". Where did you get that idea? I was talking about people who try to insert their religious beliefs into Wikipedia in ways that would mislead some readers into thinking it was history. The "Land of Israel" article with maps is a prime example. I actually assumed it was mostly Christian fundamentalists doing this. Fourtildas (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you do realize that it doesn't really matter who you were talking about, the comment was still wildly inappropriate, right? At Wikipedia, civility is one of our most cherished values. Hostile comments like the one you made at Talk:Israel do nothing to improve the article and only serve to hurt feelings and make the editing climate more tense. Please, cease and desist. L'Aquatique[talk] 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, people who try to insinuate their religious beliefs into Wikipedia and represent them as facts are fine folks, the salt of the earth, I love them. (BTW, you don't need to apologise for your false accusations of anti-semitism) Fourtildas (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it is you who should apologize big time, but apparently you are not able or willing to do that as instead of apologizing you continue to insult other editors. Novidmarana (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I need to get some sleep now, but I will write a personally tailored warning tomorrow and hopefully this can be sorted out with a minimum of fuss. : ) L'Aquatique[talk] 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I am in the right place or not. There is currently a conflict over the neutrality of the article on Kathleen Battle in relation to the coverage of her firing from the Metropolitan Opera. There are no problems of civility in this discussion, but there are some suspect interpretations of WP:NPOV floating around and some Wikipedia:Gaming the system by User:Hrannar. This user reverts or removes information that supposedly is a neutrality violations or violations of living person bio guidelines even when the info comes from multiple major news sources such as the New York Times and Time Magazine. How do I solve this? Please help.Nrswanson (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the question is relative emphasis. A dramatic event gets a good deal of newspaper coverage, but the rest of the career is notable also. As there were some indications that the article was being deliberately edited in a negative way, perhaps the BLP noticeboard would attract the appropriate discussion. DGG (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Right now we are trying to discuss the issue with the aid of a mediator. If that doesn't work I will pursue the blp noticeboard.Nrswanson (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG, it is true that dramatic events cause noise out of all proportion to their long-term significance; I know (IRL, that is) one Gareth Kirkwood who would give you an excellent case study on that. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case, however, the event occured 14 years ago and so enough time has passed to judge the effects on Miss. Battle's career. After the firing, Battle has never appeared in another opera or with another major symphony orchestra. She basically became blacklisted.Nrswanson (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sardanaphalus has apparently unilaterally decided to rename templates to meet a new naming convention. I can find no discussion in WP space about this issue. It came to my attention when he renamed Template:Texas History to Template: Texas history sidebar [55] and my watchlist exploded. There was no discussion or notice on the template talk page or at the Wikiproject that it is listed under. A quick perusal of his talk page (as of right now [56])shows that this is not an isolated incident. There are many messages from people who disagree with the renaming of certain templates, warnings that the rename of a template has broken other links, and complaints that the matter was not discussed beforehand, either at the particular template or at a community-wide forum. Despite those, Sardanaphalus is still moving templates with no discussion to meet "standards" that are not codified anywhere. Unlike bold changes in article space, changes in template space can be very time-consuming to fix. As his talk page appears to show that Sardanaphalus is not responsive to individual efforts to convince him to gain consensus first, I felt that this needed to be brought to ANI to let the community weigh in. Karanacs (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs of people asking Sardanaphalus to please gain consensus before making these types of changes: [57][58][59][60] [61]Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my responses to Karanacs at the thread on my talkpage. Going by my talkpage alone, "many" messages from people is, unfortunately, an understandable misrepresentation. The claims that I'm "still moving templates with no discussion" and that I'm "not responsive to individual efforts" is also less than accurate, as posts on users' and templates' talkpages should indicate. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please move the appropriate discussion here. If you are discussing on certain template talk pages, that is good, but there are apparently more that you are moving with no discussion (for example, yesterday's move of Template:Texas History). Has there been any discussion of these moves in any WP-wide forum? Are these "naming conventions" that you are enforcing for templates codified anywhere? Have you attempted in any way to gain community consensus for these moves? Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If you look at the talkpages of those handful of templates that have prompted comment on my talkpage and/or the talkpages of those users who posted comments, you'll begin to get an idea. Otherwise, the discussions are scattered far and wide in time and template talkpage space. I'm sorry, however, if it seems I'm trying to "enforce" my own naming conventions -- although that sounds a little like hyperbole..? My attempt to gain community consensus is via WP:BRD followed by WP:SILENCE (or not). Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:BRD is an essay meant to supplement WP:Bold and WP:Consensus. WP:Bold urges caution in non-article namespace, and says of templates specifically "Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." You've been very busy, so I don't see if you've proposed the renaming of templates on talk pages and at appropriate WikiProjects, but it seems to be a good idea. :) These have wide-reaching impact and may not be the best case to apply BRD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it has "wide-reaching impact"; redirects work just fine with templates. --NE2 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I'd see them having wide-reaching impact because they don't affect just one article. When BRD is applied to an article--particularly as recommended articles that do not seem to be monitored where conversation at the talk may not attract attention, it has a limited impact: specifically, the one article and its editors. Templates are obviously meant to impact multiple articles--no reason for them, otherwise. This makes questions regarding the template (including the name) of potential interest to editors who work on those articles, which may be a pretty broad spectrum of contributors. Dropping a note at a WikiProject or even the template talk page doesn't add much delay, and it seems to fit within the recommendations and spirit of WP:BOLD, by minimizing fall-out and drama. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
            • They don't affect any articles - you can continue to use the old name as if it had not been moved. --NE2 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
              • If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that renaming them makes no difference because the redirect is equally useful. In which case, surely, renaming them would make no difference, as a redirect would be equally useful...and so why not create a redirect? Either the name is important or its not. If it is, then its likely to be important to all the editors who use them, which is my point--wide-reaching impacting. If it's not, then there's no reason to be "bold", the purpose of which is to "help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia". If it makes no difference, how does it help? The fact that the issue has been raised suggests that it does matter, and to more than one person, which would suggest that discussion prior to implementation is a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A second issue is that I can't find any place that details the naming conventions that are being enforced. If they are important enough that lots of templates need to be moved around to be consistent, then I would think those conventions would be documented somewhere. Karanacs (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The other day, 130.126.39.148 (talk · contribs) was vandalizing several articles by sticking Image:Walrus.jpg on them, the IP got warned several times and stopped. I just noticed that 130.126.39.104 (talk · contribs) did it again yesterday to one article. Any way to keep track of these guys other than to keep watching what articles the image is on? Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I just AO blocked the IP range (130.126.39.0/24) for 72 hours, with account setup permission left on, and a note in the block message about image vandalism. That might help convince them to quit it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I despise reverts, and had to revert an inappropriate edit:here regarding my agonizing decision to DISCUSS Gutting Template:Reflist( talk links history)... See the talk bottom.
2. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bjweeks#Wrong_decision
   1. In any event, knowing how widely used this template is, a discussion with full community input is I thought the best course, not just us template coders in VPT.
3. Bjweeks felt it was appropriate to close the TFD without even giving me time to tag the template /doc page per the discussion spilling over from VPT to the talk template page. (Template:reflist/doc)) Nor the basic elementary courtesy of discussing his thoughts and reasoning first.
4. When I followed that advice, the link failed per Bjweeks closing the page. Following, I reverted him. Now someone else's reverting me. CFD was officially rename DISCUSSION for just this reason two years back (Were either of these two even editing then?) so "D" didn't carry the stigmata of DELETION... TFD should be of similar nature, imho.
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:reflist
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_1/reflist
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_1/reflist&action=history
5. So add MBisanz (talk · contribs) to this complaint.
   
   
6. I'm wasting time doing my best TO NOT DISRUPT THE COMMUNITY (Such as a long discussion on the PUMP DOES), and these youngsters are preempting my attempt to do the best for the whole community... per some narrow reasoning about their understanding of TFD. So the question is laid here:

What is so wrong with discussing a community issue on a template DISCUSSION PAGE, and why the hell do these two arrogant excuses for an admin, if they disagree, at least make a compensating edit... to the talk or village pump and/or AT LEAST discuss it with me.

I really hate this kind of shit. I could have been editing productively the last two hours here or the commons if I hadn't dropped in on the VPT and did my duty. POLICE THESE FOOLS. People like this make wikipedia a hostile place to want to contribute 'volunteer time' -- I could be out boating on this gorgeous afternoon! // FrankB 21:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any action you to be taken, or are you just throwing that out there? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a boat ride, that sounds great! Chillum 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If the choice is between a) battling people on Wikipedia over something on TFD, or b) boating on a gorgeous afternoon, the choice should be very obvious. Grandmasterka 21:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: my first edit was July 21, 2005, which was 7 weeks after Fabartus' first edit, and I'm a 22 year old, so thanks for the compliment on being young :) MBisanz ^talk 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
   [When you're pushing 54 too, that will be hilarious and a case in point on why I choose with a lot of forethought my words. Recklessness, discourtesy, and youth all seem wrapped together. I'm confident you're a nice enough fella, but you shoulda been able to figure I was making links elsewhere. ;) So make haste more slowly. This is a serious issue, and your action, just complicated something with self-evident worth.] No hard feelings, but I didn't need another timesink! // FrankB

I expect this forum to adjudicate whether the place to discuss this page is where I set it up, and let people know [HERE]. I'm not interested in anything but getting away from this, and despise rv's and TFD nominations in general. This was not an easy choice to make, and the topic is serious. // FrankB 22:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) (Edit conflicted)

Typically, the kind of discussion hosted at xFD is a discussion about whether to delete, keep, merge, or do something else with an article. Raising technical issues at WP:TFD (which is still named "Templates for deletion") probably won't get the right audience for the discussion you want to have. You mentioned WP:VPT; did you also raise the issue on Template talk:Reflist? That would be a good place to do it. Also, if editing Wikipedia is causing stress, and you'd rather be out boating on a nice afternoon, then log off and head for the dock. There is no deadline here at Wikipedia, and you might find the boat ride relaxing. You might come back more refreshed. Come to think of it, what am I still doing in the office coming up on 5:00 on a Friday afternoon? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
   It's not the editting that's stressful... it's the reversions of A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO DO THE BEST THING. // FrankB 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with multi-column reflists has previously been raised at Template talk:Reflist, the response from the "community" there has basically been 1) an agreement that multi-column reflists are not compatible with most browsers, and 2) there is opposition from some of the more "vocal" tech-minded editors for making Wikipedia compatible with the most widely-used browsers. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    AND IMHO, the forum is TOO NARROW... or I would have gone onto to old business. Too important. // FrankB 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So... is there something that you want administrators to intervene in? Anything that is actionable? seicer | talk | contribs 22:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought that plain... I think the community discussion on this should have the benefit of the clean page I started, and was twice "Closed".

1. If you admins agree then that page needs reinstated -- it has the benefit of being visible to those of us who patrol TFD discussions from time to time, which is why I chose the method.
2. If you think the template talk page is the right place, the Admins actions have confused the matter for folks on the VPP linked above...
      AND for the TFD patrollers... so those 'aspects' need resolved... NOT linking to someplace on TFD is nonsensical... the whole point was to involve the whole community, forsooth!
3. So once there is a consensus here, one way or another, someone should tidy up the posts on TFD AND VPP to link to the discussion, and if on the template talk, then it should imho, be in a new section[62], since I've called the question TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY... not the few editors of the template. I've also asked Brion Vibber for fresh input. I think we'd all like his clarifications.
4. I'd appreciate the courtesy of someone taking responsibilty per that diff, and so forth per the consensus reached. The discussion is needed, or I wouldn't have bothered. Thanks... I really need to go back to open edits in progress off site. I've been on the commons most of this month and wikiversity too has open business I need to address and finish. // FrankB 22:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Someone annotated the VPP to use the talk page, so since there has been no discussion (I'm disappointed in all of you.) here on the admin's preemptive disruptions, I'll consider the matter closed and annotate things accordingly. Thanks for asserting the principle of equality of editors and admins so effectively. Sheesh. // FrankB 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis this now archived discussion (indentations and small text mine):

== [[WP:BLP]] violations on [[Talk:Barack Obama]] ==

Resolved

 – Closed at request of filing party. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/BLP_vios_on_Obama_Talkpage

That should pretty much kill any discussion of the issue. Nice work. Kelly ^hi! 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently not over. One editor plans to file a report shortly urging another to be topic banned - see the discussion on my talk page here. I wouldn't want to deny anyone their right to bring good faith concerns here for administrators' attention so if that's what they want to do, so be it... but I fear that if the issue is brought up in that way at this time it will lead to a lot of wikidrama with no likely prospect of constructive administrative resolution. There's also a socking concern involved, which I've tried to postpone. Are there any wise, calm heads who have any suggestions on how we might keep things under control? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

VMORO (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked for edit-warring on Maleševo-Pirin dialect for 31 hours. An anon 213.16.62.226 (talk) has now reverted to the same POV material here. He also seems to be suggesting/admitting that it's him in this diff. Something needs to be done. BalkanFever 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: The IP is definitely VMORO, as it responded to a comment on his talk page here (Bulgarian). Also, I believe WP:ARBMAC may be warranted. BalkanFever 23:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been harassed by this user for some time if you go to his User talk:Swampfire page you will see that an admin left a warning there to stay away from my talk page but he has left continued messages there. He continues to edit war on the Forrest Griffin article despite myself and all other users taking part in a disucssion, he takes the liberty of making his own edits without anybody reaching a consensus. I believe his edits are in bad faith as he has distorted the articles references to cite things that they do not reference and he has written the article so that it hides noteworthy information while pandering to his own opinion on a subject as if it were fact. I have tried to get an admin to arbitrate but my calls have gone unnoticed or ignored. --Xander756 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have time to look into this in too much detail (I just wanted to let you know that this is being looked into), however I would remind you that rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, not when you disagree with another's edit as you did here, and at several other places in that page's history. I have removed the tool from your account - if you demonstrate that you will use it only for vandalism, it can be reinstated. Regardless, the situation will be looked into - don't think you're being ignored, and I've notified Swampfire of this discussion so that he can explain his reasoning for what's going on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not used rollback function in this scenario, all reversions I have used the undo function, not rollback. I use rollback when patrolling recent changes on wikipedia or reverting vandalism on lacrosse articles as part of my function on the wikiproject: lacrosse. I would appreciate re-instation. --Xander756 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Four diffs have been left on your talk page that show the use of rollback in this conflict. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When you check into him. Also note the reverts that were just made. I believe Xander756 has now resorted to sockpuppetry. After he returned to the page and left the new subsection alone. 2 mysterious accounts were created the first one has one edits in it. And it was to revert my last additon. The second new account also has one edit, and it was to remove the new subsection. Kind of weird don't you think for a new user to create an account and come directly to Forrest griifins page and do this. They both seemed to remove exactly what Xander756 doesnt want on the page, and yet that are their only editsSwampfire (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also both I and User:Aktsu have rewritten this article to a NPOV. But Xander756 refuses all edits at placing it to a NPOV. What he wants said is in there, it was not deleted. It was expanded on to represent the entire scenario with valid citations. That he has removed more than once. Also he has abuse WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL while attacking me on several occasions. All of which are evidenced on his talk page , but he has tried to hide themSwampfire (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Aktsu has since expressed his doubt over that edit on the discussion page of Forrest Griffin. I wonder if he would be surprised to see you are claiming him to be your ally in this? --Xander756 (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the 2 accounts that mysteriously showed up to remove exactly what Xander745 has been removing. The first one was Deshicalanor here is the first removal [63] and here is the second by user CthulhuGuldo[64] also I notice that both of these mysterious accounts showed up to remove these at almost the same time, he had his rollback removed according to what is said up there^^^^ by Hersfold. According to edits made by Xander756 he left a comment on Forrest Griffin talkpage at 5:17 then disappears, then still at 5:17 Deshicalanor shows up to remove what I had just editted and Xander756 did not want there and it is the one and only eddit by this user. Then at 5:20 CthulhuGuldo shows up to remove the subsection Xander756 doesnt want on the page and again it is the one and only edit by this user as well, Then at 5:22 Xander756 leaves a message on Hersfolds talkpage asking for his rollback back. Funny how Xander made no edits between 5:17 and 5:22 at the exact time the 2 sockpuppets showed up to remove what Xander didnt want on the page.Swampfire (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And what I said about Aktsu was he rewrote the article and you reverted it too. The proof of his rewrite is on my talkpage.Swampfire (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my edit history I actually made an edit to the talk page of Forrest Griffon at the exact time this first "sock puppet" showed up. Links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forrest_Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=228752060 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forrest_Griffin&diff=228752040&oldid=228745421 I would not be surprised if this was another scheme to try to get me into trouble here by Swampfire. Is it just mere coincidence that after these accounts showed up an IP address began to defile my talk and user page? Is there any policy against accusing people of things without evidence? --Xander756 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I already stated I have nothing to hide let them check my IP. Also I believe you left the comment on the talkpage at around 5:17:01, while already having a page open creating a new account. Then logged out of Xander leaving the new account page open and made the edits at around 5:17:59. then created a second, to remove the rest. at 5:20, then logged back in and went to Hersfold page at 5:22 to complain about no longer having rollback.Swampfire (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found a third and new personal attack on me here [65] yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me.Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that diff that is a violation of either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is both editors aggressively edit-warring on the Forrest Griffin article.

I propose that both Swampfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xander756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are subject to an editing restriction of WP:1RR for 2 months on the Forrest Griffin article. Should either editor violate this restriction, they are to be subject to short blocks of no longer than a week. After 3 blocks, the maximum block duration may increase to 1 month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No way - these guys have never been blocked, let alone for edit warring. I'm seeing nothing remotely near the sort of disruptive behaviour need for an editing restriction. Get them to file an RfC on the content dispute - that's all that's needed for now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, this was intended as a measure to be preventative in edit-warring on the article (and possibly more effective in letting the message sink in than blocks). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, let them file an RfC, if that doesn't work, then mediation might be a better course of action. All of these should be tried before we result to editing restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They've tried to get others input for a few days now - but it hasn't significantly changed their editing pattern on the article. I still don't see why we should wait for blocks first, or why they shouldn't be subject to 1RR as opposed to the standard 3RR per 24 hours (note - it's not the 1RR per week restriction). If it was just a content dispute in the absence of edit-warring over a number of days, I'd agree - Article RFC or mediation is enough to deal with content issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't give people editing restrictions for edit warring on an article over a couple of days. Send them to MedCab and be done with it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it's been 5 days. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan - despite the flaming row that broke out on my talk page after I logged off last night, neither of these editors would be benefited by such a restriction at this time. Should the dispute continue - and this should possibly be considered anyway - the page can be fully protected until both sides can agree on something, even if it is just to disagree with each other. An editing restriction will just continue tensions; what we need to do is try to get these guys to actually talk to each other. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason that a solution such as this would be unfair is that I have been attempting to get other's input on the subject. I was the one who appealed for admin arbitration and who messaged admins in an attempt to get a 3rd opinion. I have been the one to attempt a discussion before edits while he has simply tried to force his way onto the article. To treat us both equally would then be unjust. If you look on my talk page, the other user who was involved in the debate has posted that he thoroughly agrees with me and that I was right in defending my position. Why then should I be punished for this? --Xander756 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war - yes, you did attempt to start discussion, but you then need to stop edit warring, which you didn't. It's standard procedure to treat both parties equally, as it would be considerably more unfair for us to "take sides" in that manner. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Hersfold. Also, it's not as a punishment - it's just so you both don't edit-war, and instead, discuss your differences rationally. Personally, I think that if both of you voluntarily agree to the restriction, you'll feel much more compelled to edit in a way that isn't considered disruptive. But if this dispute grows from being between both of you to several editors on either side, then sadly, the page will be fully protected and you won't be able to edit it at all - you'll only be able to discuss on the talk page (which is sort-of what this proposal was encouraging - discussion to the point you have consensus, rather than revert after revert). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rooting for the page to be fully protected. I requested it days ago but my request mysteriously vanished. I would be all in favor of full page protection until the discussion can reach a general consensus. As for what Hersfold claimed about how it would be unfair for you to "take sides", I don't see the logic in that. Would it be unfair to block someone from wikipedia for repeated vandalism? In effect by doing so you would be taking the side against him. Obviously nobody here would claim that is unfair, and this scenario is no different. --Xander756 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well genuine content disputes are different to WP:VANDALISM. When it's a content dispute where you both appear to be genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia/site in terms of quality, it's generally not so easy to know who's causing the edit-warring, or to rule on content (as in, who's correct, or which version should preside). Obviously, exceptions apply - and sometimes you can see who's causing the edit-warring. Ideally, all editors should follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You boldly insert something, someone reverts it, then you both discuss your differences as to why it should/shouldn't be included, or why/how it should be modified. Consensus does change over time - if someone boldly remove something that's been there for a long time or as a result of a previous consensus discussion, that can be reverted, and then the cycle starts again. When editors use the Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert...cycle (or with unresolved discussion in between each revert), it's considered disruptive edit-warring and damages the encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not how it played out at all. The other user reverted edits from the page without reason. Another user reverted his reversion. He reverted the edit for a second time so I then reverted his reversion. He reverted AGAIN and I changed it back and added a new reference. He didn't bother reading it and simply reverted it again. I asked for admin arbitration and I asked for a 3rd opinion. I even asked for page protection and NOTHING HAPPENED. I wasn't going to simply sit there for days while someone vandalized an article and the staff didn't bother to step in.--Xander756 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 'staff' here are all unpaid so it can take some time before your concerns or issues are addressed. What was the conclusion(s) at 3rd opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It never came. Though another user involved did recently weigh in on my talk page stating that he clearly thinks I was correct in the issue. --Xander756 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to log off now and won't be on for some time. I recommend you take a look at our dispute resolution system, and try either Article RFC, mediation, or if necessary, RFC on user conduct (bear in mind that 2 users need to certify the basis of the dispute). See how you go from there, and let me know of any updates (maybe tomorrow), okay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you actually look at the edits, You will see after removing the word because it did not belong. I since then have continually tried to add the full context of the discussion. I even incorporated what he wanted said into the article with valid citations. He reverted, removing valid citations as he only wants exactly his wording in it with no explanation over why less than 15% of the crowd viewed it as controversial. To use the word controversial in the context it was used without explanation in an encyclopedia format gives the impression that a majority viewed the fight this way. When in fact 80-85% viewed the fight positively and 15-20% or less viewed as controversial. Dave Meltzer (someone that Xander756 had quoted in this several times) of Yahoo! Sports was there and states. When Griffin was announced as the winner, I made sure to look at the crowd for the reaction. Eighty to 85 percent people at Mandalay Bay standing and cheering, with a large percentage practically dancing and celebrating the title change.^[1]. Dave Meltzer also says this In those situations, boos are always louder than cheers, but this was very clearly a decision most of the crowd agreed with, no matter how it may have sounded on television.^[2] So in an encyclopedic article over the Biography of a living person to state the fight would in that manner would be going against WP:DUE. So if you actually try looking at the whole discussion. You will see I have continually tried to improve the article while it is Xander756 that has not. I have also been a victim or personal attack by Xander on several occasions. Also I Initiated the discussion on Forrest talkpage not him. He was the one that chose to take it off the talkpage and me responses on his talkpage was just that responses to him leaving something on mine. The timestamps show that. I have tried in every manner to appease this person. He clearly stated his only beef was he wanted it to say controversial. Well I editted to say that that but with a full explanation. In fact let me take this one step farther. If he truly thought it was the fight that was controversial he would of added the word controversial to Jacksons page as well but he had never even been to Jacksons page. In fact I had monitored Jackson page the whole time and the word was never there. In fact when someone finally placed it there a lil over a day ago. I removed it and no one cared. Then I made an addition to Jackson's page expanding over something that wasn't there. Xander756 followed me to the page(making his first edit on it) and reworded a lil portion I had added, which I had no problem with. But in the edit summary he noted that he hoped we could agree on Jackson's article as is. Yet if you look he did not try to add controversial. Which is as I have been saying the whole time. If it is not obvious to others, It is obvious to me that I believe that his only problem is he has issue with Forrest, and not the decision. Otherwise this whole time he would of been trying to add it Jackson's page as well.Swampfire (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I have never harassed him, stalked him, and all the other things he has claimed. All you have to do is view the timestamps to see this. I have just merely had to defend myself on about 100 pages, because he goes everywhere making false claims. If he had not tried this stuff on so many pages. I would not of had to go there to defend myself. But he tries to do the same thing on so many different boards. He goes there and make a false claim against me as well as personal attacks. When I go there to defend myself he says I am stalking and harassing him for doing so. Check my edits vs his. You will see to my knowledge I have not been on any other pages after him, unless it was about me. I havent left a message on his personal talkpage unless it was in response to something he left on mine. I can also point to atleast 3 places where he persoanlly attacked me. Not including calling me a stalker. Also note that through all of this I have merely defended myself, and did not try to start any cases against him.Swampfire (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:aktsu has weighed in on the subject in agreement with me. --Xander756 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The original conflict was over the inclusion of the word "controversial". Xander756 added (diff) multiple source with atleast one spelling it out ("Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win"). Xander's reverts readdind the word I agreed with, as it _was_ a controversial decision - and it was sourced. The conflict escalated to be about a rewrite of the entire section (which I helped wrote as an attempt at a compromise). Xander felt the rewrite was unnecessary and too long, while Swampfire argued it was a good compromise as it explained the controversy. In that conflict I was originally for the rewrite, but am now unsure - and think maybe simply saying it was controversial might suffice. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid there's nothing that can be done here about it. Article RFC or mediation as linked in WP:DR is the way to go. I've basically spelled out the editing rules for both of you, so don't edit-war, and instead, discuss. Until then, try to agree to a temporary version pending the resolution of Article RFC and/or mediation. Currently, that's best for both of you, and for the encyclopedia. Thank you for giving a bit of context Aktsu. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He has returned again to vandalize removing valid cited references. In an effort to make the article onesided. As I have stated. Also note I think he will never quit vandalizing without intervention. The second paragraph of WP:DUE clearly states using the minority view over the section is not to be done and the reason's why.Swampfire (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Xander756 has now returned to restore everything I had added. He even left a message on my talkpage stating it. I hope he is thru running to so many pages making false accusations. Peace, to all that took time to review this. Swampfire (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I did? --Xander756 (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't think they can see it? Also please do not stalk me. You have now show up on several pages right after me. Articles you had never been to before and yet you show up right after me. After the verbal attacks you have already made and the false claims against me. I feel as though you are now trying to threaten me. Please stop.Swampfire (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe he is stalking me, He signed on an hour ago. First place he went was to Quinton Jackson's page right after me a page he had never been to until right after me, Then ‎the next article he went to was Juanito Ibarra‎ yet another article he had never been to until right after me. If no one has notice through this board and the others he can't seem to let go of something. He also in my opinion can't control his temper as he did here. [66] when talking to the admins that did not agree with him and told him about his attitude he says, ""There's no use in arguing with the ignorant. You believe your title makes you infallible so there's nothing I could say or do to change that"". I hope this opens some eyes because I was not a part of this discussion at all. Just him and admins. But this is the same way he has been acting the whole time against me. Also I have not been on any article page after him. After the conflict on Griffins page I chose to stay away from any article he contributed too. And yet he has not doen the same. Swampfire (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that making edits to an article could be considered stalking... --Xander756 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You tried to say I was stalking you when all I did was go to pages you libeled me on to defend myself. I did not follow you into any articles. Yet you have now followed me to 2. 2 that you had never been to before. Please stop scareing me.Swampfire (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon LeVay has publicly complained about the way that Jokestress edited the article about him, pointing out that she inserted many misleading and poorly sourced claims about his scientific work, and that she was motivated to do this by personal hostility [67]. However, Jokestress has continued to edit this page [68], has recently tried to use NARTH (an anti-gay organization) as a source for a quote from LeVay, and has proposed inserting further controversial and derogatory material related to eugenics [69]. I strongly urge that Jokestress be banned from making any further changes to this article; her past behaviour there probably amounts to a violation of BLP. Skoojal (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This would be extremely unusual for Jokestress, who usually researches content thoroughly and understands WP:BLP very well having been subject to defamatory edits on the article about her. Is there an OTRS ticket? Guy (Help!) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, I do not think that this is correct. Jokestress used a defamatory quote from Roy Porter about LeVay, which implied that LeVay endorsed the use of eugenics to prevent homosexuality. Jokestress is currently proposing comparing LeVay to an infamous Nazi, Carl Vaernet. This would obviously violate BLP. Skoojal (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to me more a content dispute than anything else. If LeVay has concerns about his portrayal on wikipedia which can be deemed violations of BLP, then contacting OTRS is an option. Looking at the history of the article, it seems Skoojal could be considered to be approaching ownership boundaries given the substantive nature of recent edits and edit summaries which seem to indicate writing on behalf of the subject. Minkythecat (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nearly every single piece of criticism of LeVay that Jokestress added to the article was misleading, and it was appropriate for me to remove this stuff (I wish I had done it more quickly). It created a very distorted and inaccurate picture of LeVay's work. In the case of the Porter quote, it was also defamatory. Skoojal (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jokestress has a substantial history of engaging in off-wiki attacks against scientists she doesn't like (such as by writing letters to their employers recommending they be fired), and creating (or substantially editing) their bio's on wikipedia to make the pages appear to back her accusations up. Typically, these are sex researchers who have published data in RS's that challenge user:Jokestress sociopolitical views. My opinion is that user:Jokestress is in clear violation of WP:COI in editing Ray Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey, Ken Zucker, and related pages. When contested, User:Jokestress will use the talk pages to convince other editors that off-wiki accusations should be recorded on WP, but fail to reveal that she herself was the very person who filed those accusations with the scientists' employers. For example, see Talk:J._Michael_Bailey#Scientific Misconduct?. In my opinion, she should be banned from editing not only Simon LeVay, but sex researchers in general.

In the way of my own full disclosure: I am myself a sex researcher. Although user:Jokestress has never targeted me (outside of snide comments she makes about me on her personal website), I am of course acquainted with some of the people she has targeted, many of whom are colleagues of mine.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This situation is similar to a number of previous situations where I have edited controversial biographies and editors with strong POVs have objected. My goal is to be fair but not to shy away from controversy. In the case of LeVay, User:Skoojal has been systematically removing quotations from noted academics and others who have drawn clear connections between LeVay's endorsement of "a new eugenics" and historical problems with labeling oppressed minorities such as gay people as biologically distinct. These include Nancy Ordover, who discusses LeVay at length in American Eugenics, and noted historian Roy Porter, whose review of LeVay in the New York Times has already been purged by Skoojal. Skoojal is also resisting any mention of LeVay's connection to eugenics, which I have proposed on the talk page before adding. Most of Skoojal's edits, on the other hand, are unilateral deletions, and his talk page gives a sense of how he interacts with other editors and administrators when confronted about edit warring and BLP (here and here). Examples:

• "I do not need your condescending advice."
• "Please don't be arrogant and tell me what to do."
• "If you yourself don't have the power to block me, you are wasting your time telling me that I can be blocked."

Just as troubling, Skoojal has been systematically removing other reliable sources he does not like. This does feel like a case of WP:OWN, despite Skoojal's claims to the contrary on his User page.

As for User:James Cantor, his first order of business involving me on Wikipedia was to add unflattering information to my Wikipedia bio: "Some scholars have likened her as 'the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort' of activist." The source for this quotation was a blog, and the quotation was made by him.[70] Adding himself as a source for unflattering commentary in my bio reflects his ongoing efforts to suppress dissent and discredit critics of his employer, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. In other words, both complaints above seem to be based on their antipathy for me because I have included reliably-sourced but unflattering information in biographies of controversial people with whom they agree and/or work. In James Cantor's case, he has already gone through a mediation (here) for his attempts to add negative information to critics' biographies, including mine. He reminds me of other editors engaged in questionable "science" who attack biographies of scientific skeptics like Stephen Barrett. James Cantor accuses me of some sort of impropriety daily and is trying to import a style of interaction to which he is accustomed off-wiki.

Thanks to my fellow long-time editors who weighed in above. Jokestress (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress's claim above is false - I have not removed the quote from Nancy Ordover (although I may possibly do that at some time in the future if, on further investigation, I decide that it is inappropriate). The 'quotations from noted academics' were deeply misleading in almost every single case. Jokestress's quotations from me are also misleading - most them in fact apply only to one edit warring incident and none of them apply (as she implies) to BLP. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The COI seems pretty blatant at Talk:J._Michael_Bailey#Scientific Misconduct?, but past precedent doesn't give me any confidence that proper action will be taken in this matter. SashaNein (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can ban her, but a review of Levay's critique certainly would be right about the duplications being unneeded (id they still exist.) However, looking over the linked articles, she certainly seems to be heavily pushing an agenda against anyone who suggests that homosexuality may be genetically predetermined. If a ban is placed, it probably ought to be a topic ban on the topic of 'research and researchers into the causes and origins of homosexuality', so as to widely cut her off from causing fights, while certainly allowing her to continue editing articles about gay and transgender (transsexual? gender Identity? not sure which is PC these days) topics, like activisms, histories, protests and conferences. ThuranX (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed an odd ending to the article; we don't need to attack fellow editors, nor ... SOAPBOX... (i messed that up in the edit summary)... about how accurate it is. Levay can go to OTRS, he can register and bring this all to the article talk, or other options, but let's not play childish games on the page. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my removal of a WP:SOAPBOX vio is causing troubles at the page now. I removed it because it's a poorly worded attack on Jokestress, citing a blog-like essay by the article's subject, which at best is a Primary source, not personal essay (blog?). I feel that regardless of her behavior, and of the fact that I support a broad topic ban for her, per my suggested definition above, the article should not become or be used in any way as a platform for him to war back with her. This is better accomplished by linking his essay to the talk page and reviewing it to fix the problems. I took a once over of the article, where I find a lot of time being spent playing with refs and warring over how to snipe at each other. most of the article consists of pulling out Levay quotes and SYNTH'ing up an article. Frankly, locking the regs out for a week and bringing in one of the rescue squads would do more than anything else. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that ThuranX is on the right track, but I believe also that genetics of homosexuality is only one of several agenda’s Jokestress is pushing. Another such topic is conversion therapy. Conversion therapy (or reparative therapy) is a process by which some clinicians attempt to change homosexuals into heterosexuals (usually with some levels of homophobia and religiosity motivating the endeavour). In order to discredit him, Jokestress recently started pushing the agenda that Ken Zucker engages in such therapies (which he does not). Jokestress tried changing the definitions on conversion therapy to make it seem like he does [71], editing Ken Zucker’s bio to make it say he does [72], adding the same text to the bio of Susan Bradley (a colleague of Zucker’s)[[73]], and editing new pages to express the same idea yet again [[74]]. Thus, I believe a broader topic ban is in order.

I believe that SashaNein is correct to note Jokestress’ obvious COI with regard to J. Michael Bailey. However, Jokestress’ off-wiki involvement includes many sex researchers, as noted above. Her personal website include copies of her own letters to scientists’ employers and others. Thus, this too suggests (to me) that a broader topic ban is in order.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that Joketress is doing the right thing. Can we take a breather and look into this before a topic ban? Bearian (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undone ThuranX's change to the LeVay article. It is extremely unusual to attempt to deprive LeVay of the chance to respond to misleading and defamatory accusations about him. Giving LeVay the chance to do this is not a 'childish game' but a perfectly appropriate response to James's insertion of rubbish into the article about him. The fact that Andrea James is a wikipedia editor does not mean that she is above criticism. Skoojal (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have REblanked that part. The edit Skoojal refers to adds a violation of at least three policies: WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:SELFPUB. I am hitting 3RR, but my understanding of BLP is that that supersedes 3RR. Admins who aren't going to log off right after posting they're all over this are welcomed to review this. ThuranX (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you may be right or you may be wrong, but doing it this way in a matter this much disputed was not a good idea. As for the blanking, let's wait a while before deciding whether to undo it. Let uninvolved editors do what is necessary.

I've tried to work on some of this before, and i have my own opinion: everyone involved in the editing of these articles mentioned above has COI sufficient to disqualify them from the topic. This should not be read as endorsing any position. It is possible that all their negative criticisms of each other are all of them right to a certain extent--that is often the case in academic disputes. It is also possible that some of it for all of them is unjustified abuse--that is even more often the case in academic disputes. I suggest we leave them all to their own web sites, for we will not settle the issues here. But if Bearian wants to look into all of this and conduct a binding mediation of the issues, or an evaluation of just who should be banned from what, I can think of nobody better who is still with us. That's not formal procedure, but this is a model case for IAR. the alternative is to send this all to arbcom and wait three months for a result that will be no more reliable. DGG (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The No Personal attacks policy is not relevant. Invoking it here in effect means saying that James, as a wikipedia editor, is above any kind of criticism, which I find shocking. If an editor becomes involved in events and does something wrong, then it should be acceptable to mention this in articles about them (and especially in an article about someone that person has attacked - how is it OK for James to insert something defamatory into the article about LeVay but not OK to mention that the person thus defamed objected to it?). As regards BLP, it's up to ThuranX to say how specificially it is relevant in this case. I will be strongly inclinced to restore any deleted content. Skoojal (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that ThuranX appears to have made a personal attack against Simon LeVay on the talk page. Perhaps I have misinterpreted that comment, and perhaps ThuranX will be willing to retract it, but if not, then his involvement in this dispute perhaps becomes problematic. Skoojal (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is childish wikilawyering. One: LeVay makes a lot of disparaging claims about James in his piece. Two, what SELFPUB is perfectly clear about why it shouldn't be included. Three, one gay sex researcher/activist attacking another gay sex researcher/activist in his blog is a violation of BLP, plain and simple. Any of these three is enough to justify removal. Further, it's an out of place comment, placed in the sexual research section. Finally, the claim was made that this dispute was covered in reliable sources. Use those reliable sources to build a criticism section, do not link to what is little more than a blog. I'm not, as Skoojal keep hinting, opposed to Levay standing up for himself. I'm not opposed to Levay at all. However, That link and subsection are not the right way to advocate for his side, which we shouldn't be doing at all. I've made clear how to solve this problem, Skoojal is just not interested in paying attention. There are no personal attacks agaisnt Simon LeVay, this is a red herring to try to keep me from commenting. ThuranX (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone (namely LeVay) of acting as though he were using meat puppets (myself and James Cantor) certainly may look as though it is a personal attack, even if it is not. It's important not just to not make personal attacks, but to not make comments that could easily be interpreted as such. In addition, I will note that ThuranX seems to be implying that LeVay's and James's sexuality has some relevance to whether there is a BLP violation here or not. I find this to be a deeply disturbing and unpleasant suggestion. Perhaps ThuranX could retract that comment, or clarify that that is not what he thinks?Skoojal (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested taht editors here were acting in the manner of MeatPuppets, and not that LeVay was coordinating such. Consider it tagteam violations of policy, then, and not meatpuppetry if it assuages your tender feelings. As to sexualities, I'm stating that it's a childish war between two people in the same highly charged field, at apparently opposite ends of the spectrum of controversy. You're awful sensitive to the emotional state of Mr. LeVay. As for my writing style, I'll say what needs to be said, I'm not in a popularity contest, and no one's suggested I try to by an admin in months, cause I'm too good as being blunt and pushing for resolutions instead of heading upstage for my turn at the drama. If Wikipedia editors tried to make sure no one was ever ruffled by what they had to say on a page like this, nothing would ever get solved. That's not how it works here. ThuranX (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above is deeply uncivil. I do not think that making deeply uncivil comments on this noticeboard is a good idea. Whether something is meatpuppetry or not has nothing to do with anybody's feelings, and it's not sensible to suggest it does. It would be a good idea to stop making insulting comments about someone whose article you have become involved with. As for LeVay's feelings, I never mentioned them. Skoojal (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What utter bullshit! I 'got involved' with that page because YOU brought it here. Nice game playing to assert that now I'm 'involved' and can't be a rational part of this. ThuranX (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that was the reason you became involved. Didn't suggest otherwise. Despite your incivility, I don't think (and wasn't trying to say) that you can't be rational. If I inadvertently suggested that, I apologize. Skoojal (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, as the history on that page shows, Skoojal is edit warring. I've provided multiple comments and explanations here and at the talk page for the removal of a smear piece against a living person, and without addressing the issues (other than to throughly dismiss them) He has three times in 24 hours restored them, even after being told to stop by user DGG. As such, I request a 24 hour block to prevent further edit warring. As it is a BLP, NPA, and SELFPUB violation, I will have to remove it again fr reasons I've repeatedly made clear, and do not want to see this distract from the major issues at the article. ThuranX (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask all of the involved parties to take a break, immediately, for at least 24 hours from this article. I'll block on sight otherwise. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You logged off after calling me an idiot, and now you're issuing threats against people who got involved here? Lock down the article if you really think there's a problem, to prevent sock use. Otherwise, this is just an intimidation technique designed to keep uninvolved editors from contradicting you as you let Jokestress off the hook. ThuranX (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've never called anyone "an idiot" or anything close to it. Anyway, even if I log off you can always email me at my Hotmail account 24/7. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Jokestress is not off the hook yet. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped edit warring, having been warned by Bearian. I was not the only person doing this - ThuranX was equally guilty. The description of LeVay's response to the way James edited the article about him as a 'smear piece' is misleading, especially since LeVay was responding to a probably defamatory claim about him made by James. I accept that SELFPUB is an issue; I do not necessarily agree that other policies were violated. Skoojal (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not edit warring. Removal of BLP violations is exempt from the 3RR. Further, I used edit summaries and the talk page to explain my actions. ThuranX (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this isn't just about whether Jokestress should be banned - several editors are accusing each other of serious misconduct in different articles, some of which are BLPs. Would it might be better for ArbCom to open a case on this, for all the evidence be weighed up, and for all the contributors' conduct to be considered? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Several editors asked me to get involved as a mediator. I've tried to keep all parties calm, short of actually banning or blocking anyone involved. Perhaps I got involved too late. It appears to me to be an off-wiki conflict cascading into a BLP edit war. I've insisted on following the rules as near as possibly without Wikilawyering. ArbCom may take months, and as User:DGG has pointed out, may not be a satisfactory process in this case. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While we are discussing this, I would certainly urge Bearian to go right ahead and do whatever blocks he thinks necessary to end disruption. DGG (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a final warning here [75] to User:Skoojal. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

--jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 days. Nandesuka (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has continually made accusation after accusation; each meritless in their own way, and demands everyone retracts their statements or strikes them when he is the only user who disagrees. He filed a WQA against S Dean Jameson - no editor or admin [78] felt it warranted any action or warnings whatsoever because it was meritless. He disagreed and it remained open for sometime. I closed the WQA with a similar view [79]. He refuses to let the issue go, as can be seen at the bottom of my talk page, and has declared ([80]) that Risker is abusing authority because of commenting on the situation at my talk page and asking him to stop being disruptive. It is very clear to me that this editor has no intention of letting it go and will continue to use Wikipedia as a battleground. His block log speaks for itself. I request he be blocked for no less than 6 months. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any diffs here. I'm pretty sure this request won't go anywhere without some of those to show the alleged misbehaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding them - but his last 20ish contributions contain the bulk of it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, meritless accusations below by Ottava Rima. This is probably the first occasion I've interacted with S Dean Jameson, and here he is claiming bias at every single editor and admin who has tried to deal with the WQA, including myself, who closed it as a complete third party. His behaviour continues to be blatantly disruptive - Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the only defending i'm doing is by invoking the DefendEachOther meatball for his inappropriate conduct re: Risker. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked the user to retract his closing of a wikiquette request here with the comments "Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input" and "I find that the claims made here are meritless, so I'm of the opinion that it be dismissed. As the filing party has so far not agreed at all with the similar opinions expressed here, I'm closing this as stuck". The reason why can be found here. I believe that the user made false allegations about my feelings on the matter, did not actually read the discussion, and allowed his previous relationship with User:S. Dean Jameson to conflict with his ability to be unbiased in the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also- "It is very clear to me that this editor has no intention of letting it go" As you can see from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, et al, I have repeatedly attempted to "let the matter go" but the person Ncmvocalist is defending refuses to. The user he is defended, i.e. Jameson, even criticized a user here for giving me a barnstar for my constant asking for people to stop using personal attacks in disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(with ECx2)Crap. I hate finding myself on the same side as NCMVocalist, who I'd rather have nothing to do with. However, OR's behavior as regards all things Wilhelmina Will has been questionable; in fact, I pointed this out in the thread about WW that was just here on AN/I, and suggested that OR needed some time away from things. I'm not sure 6 months is right, but given that following the WW debacle, OR ran right to swinging wildly to see who s/he could take down in revenge or anger, I'd certainly support a one or two week block to ensure that OR returns to the project with a level head and no more interest in these sort of tit-for-tat antics. Let's prevent more needless drama.

Further, as seen post-EC, OR's insistence that s/he is right absolutely is more than mildly irritating, and this isn't the first time i've seen her throw that attitude around. It's disruptive in and of itself; every time OR sees a response that doesn't agree, the saem talking points and self-righteous indignation appear. everyone's a biased involved party, of course by nature of getting involved in the previous thread as uninvolved folks, and soon we'll run out of such 'uninvolved folks'. Block to prevent gaming as well.ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What am I "right" about? That I believe there is a problem between Jameson and I? And that I sought help via Wikiquette? Otherwise, how is your comment on topic? I am sure you will try to say this is me further trying to be "right" because you established a logical loop that would critique any response as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were right about anything, I said you 'insist that you are right'. there's a difference. 2+2=5, and I insist that's true! doesn't make it true, but I'm insisting I'm right. Similarly, you continue to insist in multiple venues that you're right about whatever the topic is, no matter how much else is said by however many others. Look at that WQA, or the WW thread above. lots of people say A, you say 17, and insist that it's always been and will always be 17, no matter how many people say A. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Question, are you saying that I would not understand my complaint and why I filed it better than others reading it? It seems to be what you just stated. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment redacted Ottava Rima (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In no fucking way am I an associate of his, beyond noting him in an AN/I thread and commenting there, and possibly in the related articles. This is the gaming the system that I'm talking about. EVERYONE who ever talks to each other is an associate, thus exploitable by OR to avoid the spotlight on her behavior. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, I suggest cooling down a bit. This discussion is getting a little heated.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted the above comment in order to further that end. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A glance through ThuranX's edit history shows he's in a different universe. But I see nothing that would prevent an association, other than the fact we're both here to edit an encyclopedia, and it appears we don't edit any articles in common. --Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I have already redacted the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I too find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Ncmvocalist's actions on the Wikiquette thread. Ottava Rima complained on Ncmvocalist's talk page that he did not have the authority to close the thread because he was not an administrator,[81] so I piped in and said that, as an administrator, I agreed with the close, and asked OR to stop as his behaviour was becoming disruptive.[82] In response, Ottava Rima tried to bully me by implying that I was acting improperly, threatening to start a thread here about my "inappropriate" actions and hinting that admins have been desysopped for such behaviour.[83] It seems that welcoming other editors onto my talk page, and having them ask me to comment on articles, somehow renders me biased in favour of such editors in Ottava Rima's mind. Unfortunately for some who have visited my page, that is not the case at all.

Ottava Rima has some skill at editing and has proven helpful on some articles, but has also been involved in multiple tendentious situations. I would like to hear from some of the people who have found his editing to have been helpful (or some who have benefited from his "mediation work" that he referred to in his post to my talk page) before considering any type of sanction other than to simply say "cool off". Risker (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the diff and quotation where I said that his closing was improper because he was not an admin. I wrote the section, I've reread the section, and I am unable to find it. Also, there was "cooling off" as per User:Fritzpoll, where I stopped posting responses to Jameson, but I can show where he refused to do the same, and his associates attacked my character in Wikiquette. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[84] Two consecutive posts by you, the first demanding to know if Ncmvocalist was an admin, the second insisting that he remove the closure of the Wikiquette thread or "if needed be, I will apply for an admin to remove your close". Are we done here? Risker (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Two different points. I hope that clarifies things. Also - stating that I would apply for an admin would mean to go to AN or AN/I, asking for an admin to act, as if I were to act, that would be edit warring. Knowing if he was an admin or not would be important to prevent possible Wheel Warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading through this and the related threads, I strongly suggest that you learn to stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's block log reads like a seven-month long train wreck. Their most recent unblock was on June 23rd, and ironically reads "User has committed themselves to collegial and non-tendentious editing - ergo block is no longer needed". On the basis of the interactions here and elsewhere, Ottava Rima's commitment doesn't seem to have stuck, because this whole interaction has been less than collegial and tendentious. I am therefore blocking Ottava for 8 days, or twice 96 hours. Nandesuka (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've been involved in two lengthy arguments with this user, the aforementioned WW thread and the one above under "Raul's reply". I must admit, that it can be rather frustrating to debate with this individual especially when they say things like: Therefore, you have no argument and your complaint is moot. Please strike accordingly. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC). Support block and agree with Guy's assessment. –xeno (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Per xeno. A special thanks to Nandesuka for being bold and tackling the issue for what it was, and preventing damage for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima has suggested that his unblock request is just an attempt to get attention rather than to get unblocked (deliberate disruption, it seems). Frankly, I think he's been much luckier than other editors in terms of the circumstances leading to his blocks - in the past 3 months alone, on multiple occasions, he was counselled by several users about his poor conduct. It doesn't seem to be sinking in, even now. All avenues of trying to get him to understand (& stop) have been exhausted (except through mentoring, if anyone is willing and able to handle it). In the absence of any such agreement, assurance or understanding by Ottava Rima (prior to the current block expiring), then I note that serious consideration needs to be given to deferring to Moreschi's initial indef-block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: after seeing my above comment, he has made the following edit(s).

• (This will be my only comment on this situation.) I completely agree with Vocalist here. I expended a lot of "WikiEnergy" defending myself against Rima's baseless accusations the past two days, and it appears many other editors have been treated similarly over the course of Rima's time on the project. I think an indef-block, until that time when Rima will commit to stopping this type of behavior, is wholly appropriate. S. Dean Jameson 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Er... S. Dean Jameson, OR did commit to stopping this type of behavior at their latest block, you know.[85] I think he's used up all his chances and all our good faith and all our patience, and I suggest an infinite block. Yes, infinite, not indefinite. Indefinite was last time, and he quickly reneged on it. We've surely expended enough wiki-energy on this user. Also, note that not even "infinite" is the end of the road; the possibility of eventually appealing to ArbCom will remain, provided there's no socking.
I've removed the "resolved" template and propose that the user be temporarily unblocked to take part in the discussion of an infinite block. (To edit this thread only, not talkpages etc; enough with the talkpage attacks already.) For background, see these ANI threads:

20 June: [86]

23 April, 2008, "Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima: [87]

21 April, 2008: [88]

21 March, 2008, "User:Ottava Rima mass-editing articles without consensus": [89]

See also many a talkpage, recently, User talk:Ncmvocalist, a good example of OR's standard manner of communication with other editors: [90].

Bishonen | talk 16:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

The only reason I oppose this right now is that OR doesn't seem to grasp the wrongdoing for which he/she is blocked. If we Indef Ban now, I have every confidence this user will return as a SOCK, and will continue socking. The user is too committed to 'the truth', currently, As such, mentoring offers far more hope that we can get OR to 'get it', and at least understand WHY an indef ban is being proposed. If OR rejects or fails to seriously engage in a mentoring process, then we've truly exhausted all options, OR can appeal to ArbCom, and then the indef ban can set in. ThuranX (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was looking for evidence that OR has been prepared to acknowledge the valid concerns raised numerous times over the weeks, but can't see any; feel free to point out any I missed. All I see here is a troublesome user who is taking more time to keep in line than can be justified from the benefit of their contributions, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly support this. Not only does Rima not acknowledge any wrong-doing, but there seems to be a martyr-complex thing going on. Rima composed a "poem" about this, and has been soapboxing about how s/he's been wronged. It's apparent to me (in reply to ThuranX above) that OR will never "get" why what he does is wrong. Extending the community's good will any further in dealing with this "bad actor" is not necessary in my view. S. Dean Jameson 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• There is a fear that OR may disrupt Wikipedia whatever course of action is taken. Which then is the lesser of two evils? The choice seems to be between further (arguably good faith/unintentional) disruption of the type documented ad nauseam in the AN/I archives, and presumed new intentional/bad faith disruption such as sockpuppetry. To me, it seems like a logical error for the community to choose not to ban OR based on a bad faith view of them. Perhaps a ban accompanied by friendly advice and counselling about where OR went wrong? I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be qualified to offer that, but it does leave the door open for future positive contributions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, he shouldn't be unblocked. We can have a discussion transcluded between pages if necessary, though. Frankly, I think the following alternative remedy would be worth considering, and I doubt it is something that would be too different to an ArbCom remedy either.
  • Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should Ottava Rima resume editing Wikipedia after this period, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist Ottava Rima in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.
• Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

thought: It's ridiculous that all of this (recent stuff) got started because OR decided to stick up for WW, who just got the book thrown at her. If OR had reread what had been said about WW, all of this could have been avoided. I notice that Kim Bruning is talkign to OR on OR's talk page. SHould we see if that can yield a change in behavior? ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, Kim asked OR, "What was it this time?" OR responded with more obfuscation, denial, and blame. I'm not arguing with you, ThuranX, but just pointing out how this current "interaction" seems to be simply more of the same. S. Dean Jameson 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw, And i think we all know how this will turn out, but in the interest of avoiding more sockmaters, I made the suggestion. ThuranX (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support for the "infinite" ban. This is not for "incivility" in the usual sense, because I oppose the usual sense, but for threatening, hostile, and really quite schizophrenic lability. It's hostile to hateful to loving to hostile to complimentary to hostile, and lots and lots of pretense. It's impossible to edit with or near such a user, and the user himself is intent on gathering attention. This is poisonous. Geogre (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Please see here for further tendentiousness. Rima acts as if Fritzpoll somehow concured with him, when in fact, he did not. In fact, when Fritzpoll initially questioned Rima's reasoining in bringing the WQA, Rima accused Fritz of being "involved" and unable to judge fairly what was going on. This is a habitual problem, and there is no remorse at all for the crap he put me (and Blechnic, among others) through the last two days. S. Dean Jameson 19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough. Chillum 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see some clarity whether we are being asked to consider an indef block or a community ban? I agree with ThuranX's concerns about sock-puppetry but I would not consider that to mitigate the problems caused by Ottava Rima rather the opposite. And I second SheffieldSteel's remarks that a ban accompanied by an explanation might be constructive. The fact that I can't find any diffs indicating that Ottava Rima understands why their behaviour is problematic does not help their case (if I missed that please point it out). For the moment I am leaning towards supporting a community ban--Cailil ^talk 19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh? In practice it's the same thing. A community ban is decided in and by such a discussion as the one we're having here. If the discussion leads to consensus for a ban (which is beginning to look likely), somebody will indefblock the user. Any admin can put the ban into practice by blocking OR. Me, for instance, since I made the proposal. Is that clear now, or what exactly is the question? Bishonen | talk 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC).
    • I do catch your drift Bishonen and I'm aware of the difference and similarity of indefinite blocks and community bans. However I think it would be somewhat clearer to say "community ban" rather than "infinite block". The issue for me is that with a block there is an implied possibility of unblocking, however if we are discussing a community ban we are seeking consensus for both an indef block and for a resolution not to unblock. Especially in case that Ottava Rima appeals this process it would good if we were all crystal clear about what we are implementing. I'm nit-picking and I know know it - but I'd prefer to have all our ducks in a row. Also having considered the evidence further I do support a community ban of Ottava Rima--Cailil ^talk 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I find Ottava to be a largely constructive editor: Samuel Johnson, which he largely wrote, is only days away from FAC, imo. He is able to collaborate, but in urgent need of socialization into our community norms. I think an outright ban would be self defeating to the project; maybe a probation period during which he is mentored and resticted from posting in cetrain formus and name spaces. Mentoring I'd be prepared to take on myself; although I have no experience in this area, I do get on with Ottava. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  (ecx500000)For the record, no one "baited" him in this last episode. (And from the research I've since done into his background, he has rarely been "baited" in the past.) This was written before you refactored out your "baited" claim. He simply started firing baseless accusations of "personal attacks" around, with little regard to the veracity of the claims. And his block log (and recent comments) show a recalcitrance that does not lend itself to the belief that there is any hope that he will forgo this type of behavior in the future. S. Dean Jameson 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No Dean sorry; I wasn't being specific about baiting there; that was just a general observation / musing. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Striking, per your above. Probably still a bit flustered from spending quite awhile defending myself against the baseless accusations. S. Dean Jameson 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Understandable on ANI! Look, I'm not denying or confirming or holding any paticular openion on anything above or on either of ye in this; I'm just saying restrictions and mentoring in Ottava's case are worth a try from my experience of him. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil, this is what I was talking about: lability. He can be fawning, then impossible. "His" is a lot, even though very little of it is. Samuel Johnson is "his?" Why does that make me fear for the article? Is it all Jackson Bate? When OR has insisted most loudly on being expert, he has been novice. His knowledge is limited, his ability to take correction zero, his ability to tolerate edits, nil. I don't know anything about the reality of the person operating the account, but it seems like a "first year," but one with a hideous personality. The inability to recognize, much less respect, other people and their skills, the intolerance of being in error, the histrionic response to being over-ruled, these are the issues that matter in determining fitness for a cooperative editing project like Wikipedia. Regurgitating Irvin Ehrenpreis and calling it Swift or tossing out Bate and calling it Johnson is something his professors will teach him not to do, but neither is going to balance out the poor writing, the bad syntax, and the personality. Geogre (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes well, <ahem> I have my own openions about Ottava; which I'm prepared to share with him in private, but not on a public noticeboard ;) Swift and Johnson are outside my area so I wouldn't be able to spot OR there, and for sure I see that in disputes he's well, y'know. But so sanction him, take him out of areas where he most comes into dispute (FAC usually), and restrict him to colleborative efforts at adding content. Put him on strict civility patrol /1RR for a year, ban him from FAC/FAR etc for 6 months, article talk for 3, 9for example) strict mentorship; and if that doesn't work; pah, throw away the key. Dunno, I had hoped earlier (a few weeks ago only), to work with him on pages I would have a stronger grip and more familiarality on the sources (romantic poets), and would be able to reason with him from a more informed pedestal. That I might not get the chance is dissapointing. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, I was not commenting on the person. I don't know the person. I was commenting on the behavior. The behavior is what I have seen (and what I once did) as a first year: you find a textbook account, and you charge in telling the world that this is it. Very, very soon, humility or humiliation will teach you to back off, to look for nuance. I wouldn't just clip Leslie Marchand for Byron; that's something a mug or a fool would do. Marchand has his position, but he's been superseded and augmented and was never sufficient to begin with. What I have seen is a consistent jumping up and claiming ownership of all knowledge on a field based on a single book. It's textbook "fool" behavior (a fool is not stupid; he is unwise). But what makes it a matter of AN/I and people wanting bans is the reaction to any word. I have seen no nuance, just extremes, and that kind of brittle zooming about just makes other people want to stay clear. That's the opposite of collaborative editing. Geogre (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If we indef blocked (or banned) every editor matching the description Geogre gives, we'd lose a lot of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, indeed. It isn't the hubris that's blockable. It's the reaction to cooperative editing. I've made this clear throughout. The hubris means that he's going to make big mistakes, and that means that he's going to need to have other people edit. When they do, though, he goes berserk. That renders him unfit for cooperative editing environments. A person who goes about modestly adding "and love Big Macs" to the articles of burger eaters is not going to need to interact a lot, but someone who says, "I know all there is to know about Samuel Johnson, because I checked Bate out," and then "I know everything there is to know about Swift, because someone told me to read Ehrenpreis" is going to be involved, quickly and often, with people having to take away the wide eyed and clumsy mistakes, and such a person needs to have an appropriate temperament. OR does not. Geogre (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this assessment. The issue is not, in my view, that OR is a great editor who happens to run into trouble with other editors from time to time. He or she is an editor with decided limitations (we all are, of course), who doesn't realize what those limitations are, and tends to react rather badly when they are pointed out to him or her. That is certainly the backstory to the dispute with User:Awadewit, for instance. On the other hand, as I've said, he or she is not always wrong, and can sometime (increasingly, I think) work well in collaboration. I support the idea of mentorship. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Euf sorry Geogre; if only I had the gift of the gab and not the ability to put my foot in it. Sorry, didn't mean to imply; just was having a sly dig at the fact that my own openions are rarely fit for public consumption. I'm just going to leave this settle, my offer is simple, either people think its a good idea or not. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

4 and a half admins supporting a community ban.... If Guy confirms his support, then that makes 5. Any admin who does not? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just throwing it out there, what about a topic ban from Wikipedia: namespace? –xeno (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Much of Rima's damage was done on talkpage's as well. I'm not sure how effective a straight namespace ban would be. S. Dean Jameson 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Add my name to "support indef" if you're counting heads. I fail to see how "but they'll make illegal socks and continue because they are dense regarding what Wikipedia is Not" is an argument against a block or ban. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, were only counting admins; see above. Ncmvocalist I find your "4 and a half admins supporting a community ban" comment highly offensive. And your cry to Guy to be the last word beyond the pale. Shame, it seems you prefer a head to a solution. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Struck cmt; expalined below. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a shame you don't assume good faith. I suggested a ban and mentoring - not just a ban like above. Strawpolls do not determine consensus - they're just one measure. I called Guy's comment half-a-vote because his reasoning seems to support the ban, but it does not explicitly state 'Support'. If he confirms, then (obviously) it's a full vote. That's why I asked if there is any admin who does not support it. You're reading too much into it; so much so, that you're way off base. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying - pls clarify? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"4 and a half admins supporting a community ban.... If Guy confirms his support, then that makes 5. Any admin who does not?" - If thats not stawpolling, then I wonder what is not. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure its strawpolling. What are you saying about it, please? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm an admin and I'm against the ban ( see below ). What does that signify in these terms, exactly? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I took offence because I found the remark "Any admin who does not" to be exclusionist agianst us non admins. Maybe a bit over sensitive, but not the best phrased headcount I've seen so far. It came accross as if I was being talked over. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - I genuinely don't see the significance of admins' opinions in a community centred discussion, and I say that as one of "them". Fritzpoll (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. Well, I'm not sure its still on the policy, but at one point at least a community ban was when "no admin is willing to unblock" - so any admin objecting would mean not a community ban. No offense was intended, I am sure. Head-counting the supporting admins has often been used to guage whether enough admins have looked at the situation - 5 is not enough, certainly, for this issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Chihuahua, I'm not a frequent visitor here. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opppose, sorry, but I concur with Ceoil, and since he has offered to mentor, I think that is a good option. Ottava Rima brought Samuel Johnson to FAC-ready status with about one weeks' work; he clearly can be a productive editor. Further, the way this thread and issue has been conducted is reminiscent of the issues that led to the shutdown of WP:CSN: I see a bit too much of a hurry to indef block an editor who has done good work, and I'm concerned that WQA can't be effectively used as it is intended to be used because threads are being closed and archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Sandy, I'd encourage you to look more deeply into the baseless accusations Rima was throwing around against first Blechnic, then me. Distracting at best, disruptive at worst. There's no acknowledgement of error from him, no remorse for the distraction he caused, and he's still blaming me for the whole thing. He's a good editor, but is that enough to make up for the disruption he caused (and has caused in the past)? I say no. You disagree? S. Dean Jameson 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  What I see is that someone has offered to mentor him, which makes the issue of an indef block look like a lynching that will end up at ArbCom. In the meantime, Samuel Johnson stands as a testament to OR's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  PS This is what Johnson looked like before Ottava Rima started working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  There are people one knows just enough to make a hash of, and there are people one knows well enough to know not to try it. I won't edit the Pope page or the Johnson page, because I know how fast-moving they are. It takes a certain amount of hubris or actually supreme work (not the kind done in a week, I assure you) to write a fair job on either author. What's easy is to follow one of the standby authors, to act as a clipping service. What's hard is to be accurate, complete, and concise. I have no problem with an overly bold person rushing forward and making a stew of things, but I wouldn't praise them for it. Geogre (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I understand the feelings of some of those here arguing for a community ban, but it is not in the interest of the project to ban this editor at this time. It is true that OR is excessively forceful in their opinion, and this certainly has to change. As far as I am aware, however, and certainly in relation to recent events, no lasting damage has been caused by this user. At worst, some users have had their time wasted (and this could have been avoided in some cases by not rising to the comments) and whilst this is in itself disruptive, OR is not merely a timewaster, but someone has done good work and who seems to be genuinely defend the project's principles, albeit in a misguided manner. The best thing we can do as a community is make out displeasure known (as we have) and attempt to mentor OR back into the fold. Banning should be a final step, not our first resort. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry; first resort? That is almost amusing. Various people have spent a great many hours, and there have been multiple warnings and blocks. Kim Bruning tried mentoring a bit, as did others to different extents. This is hardly the "first resort". KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Well, perhaps "first resort" was the incorrect term. However, the meaning of my post should be clear - I think there is room for one more chance from the community. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think "do not respond" is a good choice of behavior with User:Ottava Rima. I learned that on my talk page. I have watched over and over as editors have fed into his/her responses. It is not necessary to do this. Responding gives some editors a feeling of unresonable power. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said Mattisse, though sometimes very hard to do! ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors are now responding over and over on his/her talk page. This will just make the situation worse, in my opinion. I think the best way to go about this is to let the eight days pass in peace. After eight days, User:Ottava Rima will have had time to think. Not, however, if there is a constant interchange of emails and talk page posts that are stirring the pot. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it's getting embarrassing and setting my teeth on edge. Please don't rise, keep it on ANI. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

• Oppose. I have had my share of run-ins with Ottava Rima; at times I have felt driven to distraction, I admit. He/she often takes up positions that are best described as "odd," and defends them with stubborn tenacity. I can quite understand where people are coming from when they ask for a block. But sometimes, in my view, he or she is right. And an "infinite" block seems to me to be way over the top. Ottava Rima can collaborate productively with other editors. It is true that he/she often falls off the wagon but there has to be a more refined measure (topic bans, 1RR, mentoring, whatever) than the crude use of this ultimate sanction. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose if the editor will simply admit that he or she made some mistakes with his or her attitude, and that he or she will try to do better in the future. Ottava is an asset and I would hate to lose that. Someone who has shown a willingness and ability to contribute should be given many chances. Enigma ^message 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is apparently impossible for the editor to do at this time. Please, just let the eight days pass. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So just make it a ban from the namespace, as suggested. Let the editor contribute content and strongly discourage the bickering part of it. Enigma ^message 23:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose none the less a potentially excellent editor in terms of content. I would support a log ban on using WP and WPT space--even indefinite-- to encourage the concentration on article writing. DGG (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Commment I find this editor extremely difficult to work with, but even so, he's clearly a productive article builder. I think that one more chance, with the knowledge that an indefinite block awaits if he continues down this path is merited. A WP/WPT ban also seems like it might be a good idea. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. It appears that OR is a valuable contributer. . .though s/he doesn't know when to just "let it go" at times. It's a big jump from 8 days to indef, and I don't think it's called for at this time. Speaking of "letting it go" this thread should be archived soon. It doesn't appear likely that this will garner consensus, so there's no need to further fan the flames. Suggest that this thread be marked resolved and archived in the interest of moving on. R. Baley (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still concerned about the breakdowns that are occurring at WQA, which is where this issue should have stayed. And, the notion to ban Ottava Rima from WP and WPT spaces also concern me, particularly considering the breakdown that occurred at WQA and the heavy-handedness that is going on there. It's supposed to serve for dispute resolution. And if OR is prohibited from WP space, then he can't nominate Johnson to FAC or GAN? Not good. Again, this is too reminiscent of the breakdown at the now-defunct WP:CSN and the banning of Ferrylodge, who appears today to be a productive editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose baby with the bathwater. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Ottava Rima's attacks against me were so baseless, off target, and hard to understand that it's clear the response his/her attacks merit and should routinely be given: just ignore him/her. There was a level of expertise in the attacks, among the ramblings, that should be dealt with though Also, he/she should have been blocked sooner, for less time, in my opinion. In addition, a cool down period is in order, before banning for a year, in my opinion.
• I'm concerned about people who don't address the level of nastiness of the attacks since they consider OR's contributions worthwhile. Where is that line drawn? I don't give OR any credit that can be exchanged for bullying and threatening other editors for valuable contributions. --Blechnic (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was dismayed that Ottava was blocked for eight days apparently just for taking a complaint to wikiquette which he is fully entitled to do. Although I've yet to find the time to wade through the total record, I can say that I've yet to see any truly egregious breaches of civility from this editor - at worst he just seems to be a somewhat difficult person to negotiate with at times. What I have seen from him however, are plenty of solid contributions in Wikipedia mainspace. Carcharoth reminded me only the other day that not every productive editor has an engaging personality and that admins needs to take that into account, and I think this may be a case in point. So please let's try and keep a sense of perspective. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• What's an infinite block? I thought Wikipedia didn't do those? Or do you mean a ban? (non-admin comment) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose indef per SandyGeorgia. However, I'm not thrilled about OR's comments at the VPP about BLP issues and think that in addition to DGG's excellent suggestion of a ban on WP space, that close attention be paid to any editing by Ottava Rima of non-public-figure biographies. His incivility addressed to us is one thing, but I really saw no indication in that discussion that he understood that articles can harm people even if they are not libellous. Furthermore, you cannot be sued for libel about something that is true is a true statement, but that's not the final word when we're dealing with people's reputations. Darkspots (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a pity to let this thread run out in the sands along with the other four Ottava Rima ANI threads over the past four months, which I linked to above.[91] We're surely not going to do this once a month ad infinitum? <sigh> People are already citing lack of time (see Gatoclass just above) and/or reluctance to "wade through" those threads. Next time, when it's five threads instead of four, the wading will be yet more daunting, and even fewer of those that post will presumably be in the best position for forming an opinion. I suggest, instead, that Ottava Rima and the community should accept Ceoil's handsome offer to mentor the user. Ceoil, thank you for suggesting it. Could you perhaps undertake to do it per WP:MENTOR, and to report to this board in case of serious problems? If appropriate, the ban issue could then be discussed again. Would that be acceptable ? Your thoughts, please?(Everybody's thoughts, not Ceoil's exclusively.) Bishonen | talk 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

• As the admin who blocked this time, I specifically suggested mentorship to Ottava Rima, and I think that this is a good solution. That being said, in the past some editors have offered to mentor other users, and then found that they didn't actually have the time. But if Ceoil is sure s/he has the time and the bandwidth to take on this project, then by all means let's go for it.
• If the mentorship fails, and OR can't reduce the Drama Quotient, then I'll almost certainly think it is time for a community ban. Nandesuka (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I could support this measure, especially if it's provided that the next incident of baseless accusations and the like is the last time it happens. I'd encourage those who only looked at OR's article work to take a peek at the accusations he leveled first at Blechnic, then at me (for defending Blechnic), then at anyone who ventured onto the WQA to let him know it was a baseless report. It's an interesting (and frustrating) read, to be sure. S. Dean Jameson 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The accusations were not "baseless." How they were pursued may be another question. But, for the record, I was asked by Dean to look at them, and, lo and behold, OR was essentially "right." However, he ran into a brick wall, as is common with such. Being "right" isn't enough here, being able to collaborate with other human beings is also very important. --Abd (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The accusations were completely, utterly, totally baseless. At your talkpage as here, you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what even provided the genesis for these "complaints" by Rima. I've placed a nutshell view on your talkpage, so you can fully understand just how baseless Rima's "complaints" were. S. Dean Jameson 19:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)]

If you have accusations against me, Abd, report them to me, to AN/I or somewhere, with diffs, but don't toss them around as if they exist without confronting me with them. As you failed to confront me with the accusations they the poorly built houses S. Dean Jameson calls them. Even OR had to retact his/her last accusation against me, that I was an associate of another editor. Not a crime on Wikipedia, by the way, but a quick view of both of our edit histories, which OR apparently did not make, shows we have no association. Accuse me or don't, Abd. --Blechnic (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• At this point the consensus seems to be for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. After a certain point, however, the house becomes so full of bathwater that you just have to open the front door, even knowing that the baby will surely be swept away. I hope Ceoil will be able to make this clear to Ottava Rima. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support mentorship for Ottava Rima by Ceoil. Also, SheffieldSteel's comment above resonates with me a good bit, OR would do well to consider it. Should there be a definite time frame on the mentorship? R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The block was entirely appropriate, and WQA is (and continues to be) utilized as it were intended in dispute resolution, often being cited in later steps in dispute resolution (including a few of the more recent arb cases) - despite what a certain FAC-regular has predictably claimed about it all. Although I wanted a definite-duration ban in filing this to begin with, as stated earlier, I'd support a mentorship proposal - it's worked in some cases, and I see no reason not to refuse it here, unless of course, there is no one who is willing and able, and qualifies. But per SheffieldSteel and one of my earlier comments, if mentoring is not sufficiently effective (even moreso if further sanctions/blocks are required), then I think we're at the last option - community banning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support the mentorship proposal. It is great that Ceoil volunteered here and I hope Ottava will accept Ceoil's offer. Ottava has, to put it diplomatically, a difficult personality and can be obstinate as hell, refusing to let go even when it is clear that the best option is to walk away from a particular conflict. In the WilheminaWill episode Ottava's position on the core issue of the dispute was, in my opinion, quite irrational (It is clear that WW's edit summaries,[92][93] were in fact insults directed at Blechnic; the attempt to explain them away as meaning something completely different from their apparent meaning was not credible[94]) and O.R.'s dragging the matter to WAQ and beyond only made things worse. However, it is also the case that Ottava Rima has made many valuable mainspace contributions and is a good content editor whose main motivation is to improve the project and not to disrupt. It would be a pity to lose such an editor. Mentorship would be a good way to go here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support but with a frown. If C. can manage the user, then that's great. If my doubts are unfounded, that's great. If the person learns how complex major author fields are, that's great. If the person learns to listen to people and accept help graciously, admit faults politely, and let go a bit, that's wonderful. If the user is too much to mentor, then we can at least be sure that amicable solutions have been tried (sorry about the passive). Geogre (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support No reason not to try it. Ceoil, an effective mentoring job would be extremely helpful! Enigma ^message 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. There needs to be some kind of formal guidelines set out for this. Something to the effect of, "Before reporting users to ANI/WQA/RfC, please refer the issue to Ceoil" or something like it. I say this, because a mentor in name only would almost be worse than no mentor at all. S. Dean Jameson 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support but I do want to point out that some of the people he's come in conflict with on article content issues are every bit as stubborn as he, and any mentor will probably in practice need to be a mediator here as well. DGG (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply; I would be pleased to be able to give this a go, providing of course that Ottava accepts the terms placed on him. I'll be away for the next few days, but will speak to Ottava when I return, and after that talk to others who have done something similar. Note that I'm not an admin, and its been suggested that it might be useful if one work with me, even from the sidelines, in the (likely!) event of drama. Hopefully this thread can be closed now, any restrictions, terms etc can be discussed elsewhere when the current block expires. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Mentorship is something that should be used more often. One point is crucial: the one being mentored should voluntarily accept the mentor; and should also be able to suggest other possible mentors. While it is desirable that a mentor be as experienced as possible, any editor in good standing, reasonably familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines involved in the apparent problems, should be able to serve. If a mentor, or the mentored one, find that the relationship is not working, either can withdraw and the situation returns to the prior status. To my mind, the real benefit would come if an editor who is experiencing problems (or others are experiencing problems with the editor) finds someone reasonably trustworthy, who is going to understand the issues raised by that editor and assist in their resolution. Which includes telling the "pupil," "You're all wet on this, and here is why," with reasonable chance that the pupil will swallow, read it carefully, and absorb what is acceptable of it. Or, alternatively, "You're right, and here is how to pursue it. Don't touch the live wire, instead, go to the glove closet, etc., etc."--Abd (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support mentorship for Ottava Rima by Ceoil. To plagiarize one of my fellow editors (an associate in Wikipedia). There's no reason not to try it if Ceoil is willing, and, above it appears Ceoil is ready to set ground rules and take it seriously. Good luck. --Blechnic (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Ceoil is very generous to offer this solution and I wish them good luck--Cailil ^talk 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, with three caveats:

1. I consider it more important to get extra eyes on the dysfunction at WP:WQA than on Ottava Rima. OR is one editor; systemic problems are developing at WQA that affect many editors (I've seen it going months back, but recently escalating), similar to what happened at the now defunct WP:CSN. More eyes are needed there if it is to be an effective step in dispute resolution rather than a place where disputes are escalated.

2. Ceoil is not an admin; it will be hard for him to be successful if an admin doesn't volunteer to help out, particularly in the event baiting of OR becomes an issue.

3. OR runs afoul of editors who have similar characteristics to those they attribute to him (reference also DGG post above); Mattisse nailed it about those who can't walk away (I've tangled with OR, and found that backing off for a day allows him to return to jovial productive editing, unlike others who hang on to grudges long after the incident passes). When editors with similar charactersitics tangle, it's like putting two scorpions in a jar, but since OR and Ceoil's aren't admins, without an admin helping out here, OR is at a disadvantage, and may eventually be hounded off the Project. Another reminder that Ferrylodge is a productive editor today, although he was almost banned under similar circumstances. It wouldn't be right to set OR up for failure by not finding an admin willing to back up Ceoil's offer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying it again, and hoping someone will pay attention. WP:WQA is out of control, and responses there (by the same group of editors showing up frequently at ANI) are furthering disputes rather than calming then. WQA is not working, and is heading the direction of WP:CSN, where a small group of editors, operating outside of broader input, determined outcomes that ended up festering until they came before ArbCom. If the early steps in dispute resolution continue to be rendered ineffective, with WQA used as part of a popularity contest, we'll keep seeing long threads like this one at AN/I, and festering issues ending up in front of ArbCom. I hope some readers here will have a look at recent threads on WP:WQA to see the inconsistencies there from the same editors who are crying foul about Ottava Rima here (quickly, since the trend at WQA is to archive 'em off the board before others see them). If editors can't turn to the first step in dispute resolution for consistent responses, disputes will fester as the Ottava Rima situation did. We need more experienced eyes on WQA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. I'd put up a cautiously encouraging message on OR's Talk.[95] Then, User:S. Dean Jameson posted to my Talk page,[96], "I'd encourage you to look a bit deeper into the User:Ottava Rima matter. The way he treated me (loads of completely baseless accusations, hours and hours of wasted time) was despicable. The links can be found scattered in the ANI thread." and, as requested, I investigated and came back with comment, which, apparently, Jameson did not like. Here's a permanent link to today's version of that discussion. Definitely not a user who gives up easily. And that seems to be what happened in the first place. Ottava Rima was apparently concerned about what he saw as a personal attack (by a different user, on a different user.]. When I reviewed it, I agreed, it was indeed such, though not severe by our rather weak operational standards. Jameson continued, though, to claim that OR had made "baseless" charges. It is certainly possible to argue that the other user's "attack" was justified, i.e., by necessity. That is a separate question, which would require careful research to determine. But the appearance was clearly of a personal attack, as defined at WP:NPA, and thus not "baseless." And then the situation seems to have become one of massive WP:AGF failure, on the part of many editors. Too common. If an editor accuses me of something, it's my obligation to assume, at least at first, that, even if I know I'm "not guilty" of that thing, that it must have appeared so to the editor. And then it becomes a matter, if it is important, of looking underneath the hood, so to speak. What actually happened?--Abd (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)