Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Yooden (talk | contribs)
Yooden (talk | contribs)
Line 1,534: Line 1,534:
::There is no requirement that the threads stay along long enough for the bot to archive them. It's also probably difficult to follow when you'd commented last, with no timestamp in your signature. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::There is no requirement that the threads stay along long enough for the bot to archive them. It's also probably difficult to follow when you'd commented last, with no timestamp in your signature. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::: Yeah, like that's the reason the thread was closed. Let's see. --[[User:Yooden|Yooden]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Yooden|&#9774;]] 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::: Yeah, like that's the reason the thread was closed. Let's see. --[[User:Yooden|Yooden]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Yooden|&#9774;]] 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to a place to appeal the decision to close the thread. --[[User:Yooden|Yooden]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Yooden|&#9774;]] 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


== {{user|69.253.242.57}} and legal threats ==
== {{user|69.253.242.57}} and legal threats ==

Revision as of 17:56, 18 April 2008

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

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


    Another instance of a hatchet job by "insiders" on the unsuspecting

    Resolved
     – Nothing further can come from this discussion here
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Comments on the above

    You have pretty much been the only commentator. I gave up trying to follow along your long-winded soapboxing pieces, where you have deliberately kept the thread alive for far longer than it needs to be, so that it's not archived. Perhaps if you can condense your posts and get to the point, others would have voiced in their opinions eons ago. seicer | talk | contribs 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact there were, to date, over twenty (20) commentators, most of them making multiple postings, and mainly to protest, with indignation, your actions, which were a clear abuse of administrator's privileges. You were well advised to disappear, as you did, for some time, but ill-advised to return to the discussion if you were incapable of learning something from the comments made, and incapable of making more pertinent or intelligent remarks than these. I understand that you have difficulties understanding the arguments and the issues raised, but perhaps if you try carefully to read through the main points, you may eventually be able to understand better. You might start by reconsidering your own abusive action, and apologizing for it. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")[reply]
    Well Seicer, you could simply have offered your regrets for escalating the situation with a bad block. But, you chose to offer that gratuituous parting tweak instead. I can see that quite a few people have voiced their opinions, and not one has endorsed your lousy judgement or cowboy actions. R Physicist is not the problem here; no one is forced to read this thread archived or not. However, there is a problem around here — admins making bad blocks (just recently mongo, giano, r physicist) and then getting defensive and snarky instead of gracefully admitting their own error. That said, r physicist should just let it go. I learned long ago that Wikipedia is not a place that values or respects expert contributions, so experts should simply steer clear of their subjects or expect incredible aggravation. User:Raymond arritt/Hobbyist has it about right, and this farce is yet another perfect example of the wikipedia worship of form over actual substance. Jpmonroe (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:NPoV, WP:N, WP:COI, WP:CIVIL, WP:SMITE. Only kidding. There are notions here we might heed and think about. Thanks for sharing your thoughts so straightforwardly. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the constructive contributions to the AfD that I oh-so-tyrranically collapsed in a collapse box. God forbid these essays get hidden so that someone could try to read an AfD without getting 7/8 of the page covered in essays about the elite administrators lording over the Wiki with their Dark Age ideals. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an example of how bonkers/tendentious RP has let things get. That or his newest gigantic essay above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you stop already? You're making yourself look more foolish than someone who has posted a long rant on this page. Imagine how much effort that takes.
    As for the rant itself, I find it both amusing and interesting, and may put it up on my userpage on days when I am inundated by the ignorant adding nationalist sources published in 1922 to support some absurd irredentist claim. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm on my way out of the Wiki, I might as well just be frank. Shut up. Just shut up. This is obviously something you don't care enough to actually consider, and you've clearly already got your agenda about this one decided. You're perfectly happy to chime in and criticise, but you know what, if you came across an AfD as fucked as that one, you probably don't have the brains or courtesy to try to clean it up. I'm sure it makes you really good to advocate for science and experts and all of that, and I'm glad you found such deep philosophical meaning in RP's rants, but ANTI-WIKIPEDIA RANTS DO NOT HAVE AND NEVER HAD ANY PLACE ON AN AFD. WP:SOAP isn't vague - ranting about elite Wikipedia administrators using Dark-Age reasoning to dismiss one's expert opinion and destroy science is absolutely not appriate. Fucking up an AfD repeatedly, when people step in and try to fix it, accusing them of being a part of some vast conspiracy to undermine your good name... that's how we work on a collaborative, community-built encyclopedia? I'm glad you've found your bandwagon, but none of that changes the fact that this is simply a SPA, expert or not, who's using the AfD process (and now the ANI) as a forum for unchecked anti-Wikipedia rants, and an opportunity to lash out at people that he imagines are attacking his character or destroying science. I will also point out that, for the record, several of the people chiming in on this ANI have had previous undisclosed disputes with me, one of whom (Colonel Warden) actually suggested that I should have done exactly what I did (collapsing RP's long rants to make the AfD manageable), instead of some other horrible thing he has fabricated that I might have done. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I look at that AfD, and I don't start seeing the rants until after random accusations of CoI and collapsing of discussion...
    Anyway, how hard is it anyway to say "sure, perhaps I over-reacted"? Presumably harder than to type that last little -er- rant. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because no one has said I over-reacted. No, I have been accused of destroying science, besmirching someone's reputation, driving away experts, etc. The moment you downgrade your baseless do-nothing accusations against the only person with the presence of mind to try to salvage that AfD to "over-reaction" and I will be happy to apologize and let RP go be an expert in his fancy physics research, while the rest of you can get back to collaborative, cooperative Wikipedia-building, without interruption by ranting anti-Wikipedia "experts" with persecution complexes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you over-reacted, you posted a longer piece of senseless drivel than R Physicist, including a large amount of foaming in the mouth swearing, and still stayed on your high horse... /shrug I only see one person losing face here and desperatly, oh so desperatly trying to save it. Its easy to slight someone, its VERY hard to say "Sorry" 195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Etc.

    It's amazing how R Physicist can accuse me of taking his stand-alone rants out of context, but snipping things out of conversations/exchanges is perfectly fine. I called Proscience rude when he threw WP:SKILL out the window. Taking a cheap-shot at someone for speaking English well, but apparently not well enough (in an already tendentious AfD) is not appropriate. I told Proscience and Ngn to stop bickering when it got to the point that Proscience was threatening to expose "this situation" (the AfD) to "the media" - a threat to "expose" Ngn (IRL) as some sort of bad scientist. That's not appropriate either. I won't comment on the rest of RP's above, except to say that the SSP case was right and my suspicions were confirmed, and only then did the two come forward and mention that they're married (SPAs in an AfD who are married? classic meatpuppetry) and in addition to the SPA status, they both seemed to expect that their opinions be counted twice and with special weight because they are "experts." --Everyone's favorite scapegoat, Cheeser1 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame that you've run into some of the odder -harder to use- bits of wikipedia so quickly. Although people bold comments an Article for Deletion discussions they are not voting. The tally of votes shouldn't really sway the closing admineditor's mind - just the numbers of people making reference to WP policy. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I'm not an admin, never claimed to be one... and I recall that I was pretty even-handed in my appeal to this noticeboard in not singling anyone out (or rather, singling out several and not saying anyone was to blame). SamBC(talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I will say now, with hindsight and looking back on things with calm consideration, is that the nominator seemed unsatisfied with the idea that the article be considered in terms of wikipedia's established criteria (such as notability and verifiability), but the criteria that the nominator felt we ought to be using. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with such a suggested change in criteria; there may or may not be, I've not considered them deeply. It's just if we've got our ways of determining what merits an article, we shouldn't bait-and-switch just because an expert says so. SamBC(talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One may be an expert in one's field, but not an expert in collaborative, volunteer development of an open encyclopedia using wiki software. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly why we should not bite newcomers, as was done so dramatically here. No one starts as an expert in wikiminutiae. Jpmonroe (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, let's see what I told R physicist, shall we? [2] [3]. The response to this was a section "Desist from vandalism and bullying" even though I explicitly and deliberately made it clear to him that I was making every effort to AGF while keeping the comments that don't belong in the AfD off the AfD. For this, he launched into numerous tirades (including this ANI thread) because he has decided that I am a usurper, a vandal, an evil upstart bent on destroying his scientific credibility and besmirching his name. So who did what? WP:BITE? I think not. More like WP:AGF on a non-BITE. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheeser1, I'm not talking about you. The big issue here is not a quarrel over an AFD, whatever the merits of the specific case. The big issue is the apalling way administrators here chose to respond to criticism, with the banhammer. AFD disputes come and go, but if we cannot make constructive use of criticism, if we habitually drive away knowledgeable people so pointlessly (3 established physicists in this case alone), then this pretence to be an 'encyclopedia' instead of a tome on pop culture is pointless. You're just some random editor; you can't do much harm. Admins can, and in this case have. Jpmonroe (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    this whole mess has shades of the drama of ScienceApologist to it, only this time, years of effort were pre-empted and we went right to the ban of someone whose skill and expert knowledge ina subject frightened some editors into killing that which they didn't understand right away. I'm sorry, but R Physicist should be unbanned post-haste, and this stupid self-promotional article resubmitted to AfD. I know how I'll vote. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This comment is not helpful at all. R_physicist can be excused for making mistakes like this, where shortly after being unblocked by Jehochman he accuses him of having blocked him. That's exactly the kind of confrontational behaviour based on mere conjectures that caused the original situation in the first place. (I am not trying to say that the other side was any better.) But someone with your Wikipedia experienced should know better than to confuse a very ill-considered and undiscussed block by a single admin, already undone by Jehochman based on consensus, with a ban.
    As to the article. Normally I would have voted for deletion. I didn't vote at all, because R_physicist, with some help by Cheeser1 and me, had ensured that the AfD was a complete mess. One of the reasons it was such a mess was excessive repetition of personalised arguments such as the article being "self-promotional" (note I am not saying it isn't). In such a situation there are always strong non-personal arguments that you can use instead. And if it's a particularly egregious case, normally you won't be shot for a single sentence in which you make it clear how much you have constrained yourself. The same holds for expert authority. If you demonstrate it by showing insight into the matters that nobody else has, then you will be taken seriously. It's a bit less efficient to say "as a physicist working in the field it is my professional opinion that", but that would still work. But trying to win the discussion by shouting louder than all the others and repeating your opinion each time someone else has expressed the opposite view will never work; if it did, the Pokemon crowd would have taken over the science articles by now. This strategy won't work for R_physicist, and it won't work for Cheeser1, either. It's counterproductive. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The preceding remarks are the views of a person who ought to have better judgment, but who is incapable of distinguishing between the actions of a bully and manipulator and those of the ones trying to defend themselves against such attacks. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")[reply]
    In an online community it is much more important than in real life to take cognitive biases into account, because some of the correctives that we have in real life are missing. If we don't do this, and don't follow some of the other correctives that have been established here instead, then we cause a lot of unnecessary drama: Two people who can't stop "defending" themselves against each other. Do you think that when Cheeser1 goes to bed he thinks: "Today was a successful day. I have defended a worthless article against a distinguished physicist, and I have shown him his place."? Nobody thinks of themselves in such terms, but everybody is ready to act as if others did. This is called actor-observer bias, and it's a universal fact about human nature.
    As far as I can tell Cheeser1 saw that you were messing up an AfD, against your own interest, and he tried to help. When he saw your reaction he attributed it to your character more than to the specific circumstances under which you acted. That made him behave as he did. It became a problem when it was clear the strategy wasn't going to work and he continued anyway. He did not continue because he liked doing it, but because he felt that someone had to do it.
    It was the symmetrical situation for you. You saw Cheeser1's actions, and you attributed them to his character rather than to the fact that he found himself in a very unusual situation. I guess that normally your word carries a lot of authority in interactions not only with other scientists, but also with ordinary people. At least that's how you come across here. The problem with this kind of authority is that it does not carry over to Wikipedia because once it is filtered through the wiki it is not sufficiently distinguishable from the behaviour of those half-educated bullies who we don't want to give control of the wiki. So you get the treatment that is intended for them. You are writing long rants about how Wikipedia has to change in order to solve the bully problem. What you don't understand is that Wikipedia already has rather good strategies to deal with the problem and that that is exactly what you have tripped over.
    If better judgement means not seeing both sides of the coin, then I don't want it. Of course I could have shown better judgement by being quiet altogether. All I seem to have achieved is that both you and Cheeser1 are angry at me. But I am used to this kind of situation. In my experience here, when one side of a conflict thinks I am right it's a good indication that I am wrong. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since my actions are being discussed on a public forum, I find it necessary to clarify a few points. This is a singular contribution to Wikipedia, as I have no intention to reverse my decision to inactivate my account. I am making these comments ``sine ira et studio", for the sake of accuracy.

    First, on the issue of (what I consider to be a very offensive terminology) ``meatpuppetry": as mentioned above, my spouse and I are both scientists, with established credentials and a common interest in promoting scientific truth. We share the same opinion on some issues, and disagree on others ... for instance, she does not approve of my returning to this discussion. From what I have seen on this board, people in our situation are automatically suspected of collusion and dishonesty when casting a vote. It was said above that we ``did not come forward" to disclose the fact that we share the same IP but after we were ``discovered". What is the point of this statement? Each of us could have used a different IP from work (as I do now, mind my full disclosure of this fact). It is precisely because we saw no issue at all with expressing our views from the same IP, that we did not bother to broadcast a warning! If you are innocent, you take no steps to ``defend" yourself pre-emptively. At any rate, based on the reaction of User:Cheeser1, we would have been suspected regardless of such actions. As a novice contributor, leaving in the real world, I have to say that this point of policy is extremely offensive: there is no presumption of innocence - which makes you feel that Wikipedia is (in that sense) like a typical oppressive society.
    Second, on the issue of my ``exchange" with the author of the article nominated for deletion, which led to the intervention by User:Cheeser1. For those who participated to this debate and are not trained scientists (it is clear that several of the contributors fall under this description), I will make the following analogy: experienced Wikipedia editors are proud to follow policy and rules which apparently rule this enterprise. They criticize, rebuke, and collaborate with other editors in accordance with said policy, and reject ``other rules" from outside Wikipedia, in case of a conflict. We, scientists, have a similar code of rules that we adhere to, which takes precedence over any alternative. For example, we are supposed to use only proven facts, invoke scientific methods, use logic, reasoning, and make arguments within clear boundaries. Without these rules, there can be no consensus and no progress. Moreover, it is a duty for any scientist to ensure that she knows what she is talking about before arguing - or else indicate her ignorance and ask for instruction. I pointed out to User:Ngn, assuming her to be a fellow scientist, that her argument was illogical, and that is much more relevant than her less-than-perfect command of written English. In fact, I never considered her lack of linguistic abilities a negative factor throughout these debates: her knowledge of English is completely irrelevant at this stage. Her lack of logic when responding to my argument, her attempt to present to the general public those equations as part of established scientific literature, her claim that criticism aroused by the article is due to a conspiracy with specific national overtones, these are important issues, and - as a scientist - she should be held accountable for it following the established rules of communicating science. Just as you, editors experienced in points of Wikipedia policy, criticize and hold accountable other editors for violating policy. However, rules of science take precedence over rules of Wikipedia at this point, because (however far-reaching and wonderful the influence of Wikipedia over the general public), the importance of scientific truth is much more fundamental for all of us. Billions of dollars in grants, millions of jobs, entire industries and military entities, all rely of scientific truth. Of all people, we scientists have a duty to point out fallacies, inadvertences, fraud and self-promotion - wherever they might occur. This is the point of my exchange with User:Ngn. If she is (as I assumed with no prejudice) a scientist, she will respond to my constructive criticism (lack of logic is something any scientist should very worried about, and thankful for being warned about). If she is not a scientist, then she should, by all means, write about any notable subject, in Wikipedia, or any other non-scientific (i.e. not peer-reviewed) medium. However, at that point I (and others) have a duty to warn my fellow scientists about such claims. It is not personal. I care not about what User:Ngn stands to lose or gain from this. What I care about is setting the scientific record straight. Every month, I am invited to peer-review 3-4 articles submitted to scientific journals, I do it (sine ira et studio), to set the record straight. In that sense, the debate has never belonged exclusively to Wikipedia, and my warning of ``exposing" incorrect practices to the scientific community was not a threat, not an attempt to intimidation, just a fact. As you must surely realize from the caliber of other scientists involved in this history (myself not included), the scientific morality aspect of the discussion has already crossed into the academic world.

    (Retired user Proscience). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.96.184 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New AFD

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination). The purpose of the restrictions is that the fact that we allow an unspecified degree of threaded discussion, repeated comments, etc, on an AFD normally has led to strife in this instance because of people disagreeing on where the line is drawn. This is not an attempt to suppress discussion, it can still carry on without interference on the talk page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I must question the imposition of a gag rule in the project page of this AFD which says "absolutely no comments other than a single delete or keep [with reasoning explained] (or a comment from a user who has made neither) will be permitted below - anything else will be moved to the talk page." When someone makes a misstatement of fact (such as claiming references exist which do not) or a misstatement of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or make a "Keep" or "Delete" argument based on reason not generally valued ("I like it," "Seems notable enough," "Lots of other crappy articles exist" etc), the place for a comment in response is immediately following the offending "Keep" or "Delete" argument, not segregated on a talk page where they cannot be related readily to the offending argument. Only clear soapboxing rants or other comments violating established policies or guidelines should ever be removed, collapsed or banned from being placed as comments. The gag rule, as stated, is inappropriate and unjustified. Allowing an arbitrary gag rule to be imposed on this one AFD sets up a precedent for arbitrary gag rules to be imposed on any other AFD, wherein inappropriate "Keep" or "Delete" arguments could stand with their shortcomings unexposed. It is too reminiscent of the recent establishment of "Free speech zones" in the U.S., which place political opponents of a President in a fenced enclosure out of site and hearing of the locus where he is to speak or to appear in a parade. Just as all of a country should be a "free speech zone," all of an AFD should be a suitable zone for any comments which properly address the issues at hand. It may be inconvenient to have the tallying of "Keep" and "Delete" arguments slowed by the interspersed comments, but this inconvenience is counterbalanced by the need to allow response to ill-formed Keep/Delete arguments immediately following their appearance, even if the commentor has already !voted. Edison (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already common practice to move comments to the talk page when they are excessive in some unspecified way - this is simply an effect to apply a consistent rule rather than a case-by-case judgement, since that's led to disagreement, hurt feelings, etc, in the 2nd AFD. Why can't you respond to those ill-formed arguments on the talk page? --Random832 (contribs) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like the AfD is going smoothly this time. I don't see it as a "gag rule" at all. On the project page, editors are sharing their thoughts and discussion on the talk page is helpful and ongoing. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, responses on the talk page are not readily associated with the !vote they refer to. Also the "one comment" rule could leave a comment shining on the main page which deserves a response which would be buried on the talk page. Exile of comments to the talk page is only appropriate for comments which do not belong on the main page. I dispute the right of a nominator (or other editor) to set his own policy which prevents other editors from placing apropriate comments on the main page of an AFD. The identificatioin of single purpose accounts should certainly be done where the !votes appear on the main page of the AFD, as has been done in thousands of prior AFDs. Was there a consensus somewhere that the gag rule should be imposed on this AFD? Here or at Arbcom or at deletion review? Edison (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of Right to Vanish?

    m:Right to vanish is supposed to be a system that provides editors an "escape" from their previous history. It allows them a fresh start, so as to edit Wikipedia without the baggage of their prior edits or comments.

    By coming here after invoking RtV, then openly self-identifying, has R Physicist abused this right? If so, what should the community response be? -- Kesh (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please. R Physicist doesn't even know what "Right to vanish" is. He hasn't invoked it. He hasn't claimed any of its privileges. All he has done is abandon his account, abandoned any intention of editing articles, but retained involvement in this dispute via his IP. Hesperian 03:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although your track record for doing so is.. poor, you could at least try to get the facts straight. RP had, for example, his userpage/talkpage deleted as a part of RtV. He was not blocked or otherwise censured for his inappropriate anti-Wikipedia soapboxing because he was exercising his RtV. His vanishing is what lead to a huge amount of criticism lumped on people (mostly me) for "driving away experts" and yet here he is, still doing the only thing he's ever done - lashing out at constructive, long-term Wikipedians and Wikipedia itself. Secier correctly assessed the situation, and while a block was perhaps not necessary (that is debatable), he un-vanished for the sole purpose of creating a long-after-the-fact ANI report about me and this ludicrous situation for which he is squarely and unequivocally responsible. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe in your insular Wikipedia-centric universe, everyone is intimately familiar with every convention in this place, and anyone who has their user page deleted can be assumed to be implicitly invoking the benefits and obligations of RTV. But in reality, some people are new around here, and wouldn't know RTV from a bar of soap, and have no idea that having your page deleted implies to some of us an invocation of RTV, and have no idea that RTV is a contract that places certain obligations upon the invoker.
    Apparently it isn't enough that we bit this newbie for not knowing our AfD norms; no, we also have to punish him for not knowing how to leave properly. Give him a good kick up the arse on his way out the door, huh? Pathetic. Hesperian 05:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And oh the irony! You want to censure this guy even further, for hanging around after claiming he has quit, but lo and behold! you yourself have had a "retired" template on your user page for four days! And you're still here stirring the pot. RickK said it best: "Pot. Kettle. Black.". Hesperian 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, mister smartiepants. I haven't exercised my right to vanish, I've simply retired, and I'm only at this ANI to defend myself from ignorant fools like you who'd rather let a self-important, disruptive "expert" chase off good contributors (in the name of WP:BITE no less). Why don't you pull yourself out from under the irony bus before pointing any fingers at me, huh? I've spent years contributing to the Wiki, and it's idiots like you who step in and throw me under the bus for trying to salvage the mess RP made of that AfD that have lost Wikipedia an actual contributor. And ignorance of policy is not an excuse for heeding it once you are told. If a policy is here to prevent disruption, one cannot be deliberately and single-purposely disruptive (returning from RtV to simply disrupt some more) and then plead ignorance. --24.59.252.11 (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although your track record for doing so is.. poor, you could at least try to get the facts straight. RP had, for example, his userpage/talkpage deleted as a part of RtV. Where does it say that? He tagged his talk page with {{retired}}, he never requested deletion or used the word "vanish". As for his user page, (diff) 20:07, 25 March 2008 . . R physicist (Talk | contribs | block) (29 bytes) (moved User:R physicist to User:Lost cause: Change of emphasis) - that could just as easily be an attempt to change username as to delete. --Random832 (contribs) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Put simply, no evidence has been provided that R physicist ever attempted to invoke meatball:RightToVanish. --Random832 (contribs) 14:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. In that case, what's the point in editing from an IP rather than his (still active) account? -- Kesh (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His user talk page was deleted per RtV. Once again, let's all try not to talk about things we don't know about. How utterly crass and foolish. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, if you check, he even asked here that his user talk page be salted. Not only did he request RtV, he requested more than what would ever be allowed under RtV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    holy crap, are people not allowed to change their mind? Calling it "abuse" and blocking the IP address was the worst possible response. --Random832 (contribs) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But anyway, it's still not clear that he understood what "right to vanish" meant (it was suggested to him by another user), and it was never explained to him that it was poor form to return. And in any case, he's not banned and trying to misconstrue "right to vanish" as including an obligation not to return is flatly ridiculous. --Random832 (contribs) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the right to vanish can be "abused" at all, such abuse would be in using it repeatedly to cover your tracks, not in using it once, then after some time to cool down deciding to come back and see if just maybe his bad experience was a fluke. And, don't forget, he had been accused of being part of a russian conspiracy - you weren't the one making those accusations and he never said you were, so I don't know WHERE you get off saying he came back to make an ANI report against you. --Random832 (contribs) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you continue to comment on things of which you have no understanding? The admin who RtV'd RP clearly and repeatedly explained to him what RtV is, and it is clearly and unequivocally a measure one may invoke when leaving the project permanently. There is no ambiguity here, and to return to continue to make a fuss is hardly something we should consider a good-faith return to the community in spite of the clarity of RtV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can this end now?

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

    What about this conflict still requires the attention of administrators on AN/I? Is there an admin action remaining to be done (or undone) or is this thread basically rehashing the same issue over and over at this point? Reading the above, I'm not even sure exactly what the current status is. Who is blocked/unblocked/banned/vanished? Avruch T 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Giano II

    Moved to subpage at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Signed w/o timestamp to prevent archiving. MaxSem(Han shot first!)

    Adambro vs. Crimsone

    Adambro (talk · contribs) vs. Crimsone (talk · contribs)

    • I want an apology. This is not acceptable, and should be acknowledged as such

    The first encounter ( [[4]] ) I have had with an admin named Adambro has resulted in repeated incivility. Adambro, rather than commenting on my contributions, decided to comment on me personally in a negative sense regarding my memory of an obvious and unforgettable wikipedia principle (namely, the whole "be bold" thing). I find this to be unacceptable on it's own but would usually let it pass. However, Adambro opted to do this in the third person while replying to the comment I had just made, before once more referring to me directly - " Crimsone seems to forget this is a wiki where users are encouraged to be bold whilst of course remembering our key polices and guidelines."

    This left me inclined, in my reply to Adambro, to point out the incivility inherent in that remark, which one would assume is likely to leave anybody with the realisation that it did not amuse me, and I infact found it offensive - apparently it was intended for the discussion as a whole, though at that point there were only the two of us discussing it. However, rather than apologising for any unintentional offence, or even just plain ignoring it, what I got in reply involved yet more incivility through a complete failure to assume good faith...

    "You're welcome to stand up for a "better way" but perhaps consider avoiding suggesting other editors are not being civil whilst you do so. Certainly annoying other editors who you happen to disagree with is not going to make the Wiki any better, better for you perhaps but not better for the readers."

    ... whereas all I'd done was to argue a point without getting anymore personal than to point out that to negatively and without very good sound cause, refer personally to an editor who's comment you are responding to in the third person is incivil, and certainly should be done merely because you disagree with someone. It should be fairly clear that making personall suppossitions about people publically is not ok. I did my best to make it clear, but apparently, I am out for me and my own ego rather than the good of the encylopedia - lets not forget here that if Adambro has seen my other contributions, he'll have realised that I've been a member here since 2005, am a rollback user (granted to me by complete suprise by the way... I didn't ask, but was one of the first to get it seems) have contributied significantly to, and nominated an FA which was accepted... blah, blah, - and if he hadn't seen my other contributions, he had no business making such remarks, having no good grounds on which to make them.

    This is where I demanded an apology. The emphatic answer came back "No", the reasoning roughly being that he's an administrator, and so has substantial experience thus clearly knows better than I do about all these things, and I am the one that's wrong for being offended. You know... up untill that second insult, I could almost have ignored it had it not come from an administrator, but administrators aren't supposed to be administrators unless they are inclined to follow the rules and guidelines as best as possible and set an example. I somehow doubt that WP:IAR really aplies to me getting an apology... yet it was all but implied, in that I was categorically told that he would discuss it no further because it was all getting in the way of making the encylopedia better, and simply wasn't going to apologise. Apparently, debating the issue of him offering an apology for his incivility is a "waste of time". In the process of which, I get my command of my mother tongue (English) insulted - where, I do believe, I have a userbox clearly on my userpage, quite clearly stating I am a native speaker - not to mention that I've used it pretty well, and the only possibly cause he had to assume my english to be anything but a first language is that he couldn't apparently see (after I'd explained it) why I should make note of his original incivility. Fact is, I'm sick of the incivility on her, and I'm sick of being personally slurred by implications and suppositions, and patronised as though I only arived todat when I mention something wrong with an article on a talk page... I'm not about to let it go unchecked from an admin, because if an admin is free to do it, then what's to stop anybody else?

    So... after explaining again why it was incivil, and that I want an apology for the lack of good faith and the incivility, and the insult over my command of my mother tongue... And in fact I demand that apology (and in the process agreeing that the venue for the continuing conversation was wrong, and pointing out that thus without an apology to end it, I would bring the issue here)... and finally making the point "one further thing... what makes you think it's in the slightest way OK to get personal with me at all, let alone in the third person to the rest of the discussion as you say? Whatever happened to "discuss the contribution, not the contributor?", I get...

    "Well considering that English is your first language then it surprises me even more that simply referring to to you in the third person was enough to start upsetting you to merit you mentioning it. I will once again inform you that I will not be apologising for what you perceive I may have done wrong and your threats of raising this at ANI will not prompt me to. Good night.!"

    ...in reply. Apart from the obvious dissatisfaction with that response, and apart from the obvious fact that what I "percieve" is in fact what is there... namely, ...

    • A third person supposition of my inability to remember and recall key Wikipedia principles
    • An assertion that I'm damaging the encyclopedia through being out for myself rather than the encyclopedia
    • An insulting comment suggesting poor command of my mother tongue to the point it would be suprising if it were my first language
    • An assertion that I am being unreasonable in being offended at the original third person supposition
    • An assertion that all of this incivility is in my mind, and that I don't know what's incivil as well as he does, as he lorded his administratorship as though that meant I couldn't possibly surpass his experience (whatever happened to administratorship not being a big deal?)
    • A failure to assume good faith

    ... I finally get ...

    • An accusation that my mention of ANI was some kind of threat, thus suggesting a lack of integrity n my part, a sense of untouchability on his, and once more demonstrating a lack of good faith

    ...when in reality it was merely a run of the mill fact, and here I am, on AN/I, taking to discussion to a more appropriate venue (which is the reason I'm here with it now and not there - and the only reason). All I want, and all I wanted after the second round of incivility, was an apology for it. And that's still all I want now... and administrator or not, after that behaviour, I rather feel I deserve one. In fact, after that lot, I'd demand an apology of any editor. It's not, in my view, something that is excusable in someone who cites their administrator status as evidence of some manner of superiority in understanding of wiki's basic rules in the least though. I want a simple apology, that's all - is it really so much to ask? I do believe it's even mentioned as a recommended course of action by the relevant policy. Crimsone (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like both of you are being petulant and combative. He should stop being a prat and accept that you want an apology; you should stop being a prat and accept that he doesn't feel like apologizing. Failure to assume good faith is not a fault of one party, here, but both. Sometimes civility means being the bigger person and moving on. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No... I'm just demanding an apology for invivility. Originally, I merely noted the uncivil comment. If was th proceeding, worse, instance of incivility with it's inherant lack of good faith that's got me demanding an apology, and his insistance that he's done no wrong and that I'm being unreasonable in being offended that's got me entrenched in said position. All I want is all I asked for - a simple apology for failure to AGF. That there has been a gfailure to AGF is evident, and that there has been incivility is evident. I have not failed to abserve AGF, but rather, no sooner did I mention that I considered the original comment incivil, no good faith has been shown. Quite simply, all I've got is a string of further incivility and insults, when a simple apology would have sufficed (and indeed, had there not been that second instance of incivility, not even an apology would have been required. I see little unreasonable in that. Whether he meant to be or not, he was uncivil, and on seeing it pouinted out, the next course of action is ignorance (ie, moving on) or apology - not further incivility and insults. I was prepared for the moving on option.) Crimsone (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking an off-the-cuff remark as a "slur," demanding an apology for it, demanding further apologies when your counterpart doesn't suddenly reverse their position or stroke your ego at the expense of their own, implying several times that the other user is a terrible Wikipedian and a stain on the community, repeatedly inferring nefarious motives, compiling a growing list of your counterpart's offenses even as you lecture them for failing to assume good faith... yeah, obviously you are a paragon of AGF, here. :p 76.114.18.153 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello IP 76.114.18.153. If you read what I wrote here (and indeed, perhaps if you read the original discussion), you will find that that off the cuff remark (which was indeed incivil, though I did not call it a slur, but good call - it was a slur of sorts, intentional or not) was merely noted with the same half-serious off the cuff tone that the remark was given in... a sort of "touche" at the very worst. It was only after the second round aimed my way that I demanded an apology. At NO point did I call Adambro a terrible wikipedian, or a stain on the community. I didn't imply any nafarious motives (and if I felt they were particularly there in an admin, I'd be suggesting more than a demand of an apology), nor did I compile a growing list. That was indeed the list as I compiled it for this post, at this point in time, as a summary of incivility recieved to this point in time(ie, the basis for complaint). The thing is, Assume Good Faith doesn't mean that after somebody insulted you and was generally incivil to you repeatedly, then says "good night, I'm not apologising.", clearly assuming the worst of you by suggesting you are threatening AN/I (the implication of threat being of hostile intent in the hope of sanctions of some sort)... Well, AGF doesn't mean that you assume it as all because he was trying to be nice to you. It might suggest that perhaps originally the offence was not intended (which doesn't mean the comment wasn't incivil - it was), but it doesn't mean that that event and all that follows it should go unnoted. Crimsone (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Compiling a list of offenses is what anyone does, and is supposed to do, when filing a grievance. That's not an AGF violation. And I'm glad this user is merely demanding an apology rather than suggesting a de-sysop, as many users often do when their conflicts involve admins. I think an apology would be reasonable in this situation. Equazcion /C01:44, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    Oh gawd no! The whole "off with his/her head!!!" de-sysop thing is infuriating - and in some ways worse than that which I'm seeking an apology for. I don't really know why it happens, but I do know it's kind of beyond a joke at times - mostly when it's beyond all reasn. I think people tend play the de-sysop card either for politics or revenge (save for occasions where it's actually justified of course, but they are comparatively few) Crimsone (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you read what I wrote here" So the only reason someone might disagree with you is poor reading skills? :)
    "I did not call it a slur" "some manner of slur"
    "It was only after the second round..." Fair enough, that's a point in your favor.
    "At NO point did I call Adambro a terrible wikipedian" Never said you did. Wonderful word, "imply."
    "I didn't imply any nafarious motives" Except that you've repeatedly and apparently willfully taken the worst possible interpretation of Adam's actions. You were offended by his post, he replied (tersely) that no offense was intended and expressed confusion, and you took more offense at his unintended offense in a wonderful sort of chain reaction.
    "The thing is, Assume Good Faith doesn't mean that after somebody insulted you" That's missing plenty of chances to AGF, though. Adam's already stated no insult was intended, and didn't understand why you took offense. Confused people say stupid things from time to time. It can be important to know when you're speaking with a non-fluent counterpart (granted, he could have asked more gently, if he needed to ask at all, and that sort of question is more likely to cause offense if the speaker is fluent). Likewise, we could AGF and wait to see if he continues this sort of behavior in the future, or if he learns from it.
    For what it's worth, I do think he might as well just apologize to you, but I don't see the productive end in getting too caught up in it, either. 76.114.18.153 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. IP, sarcasm is what got us here, so saying things like "Wonderful word, 'imply'" and "...poor reading skills", well, let's just say "I don't see the productive end" in that. Equazcion /C17:36, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    I wrote a rant here. It was huge. then I decided not to post it. And now I'm deciding not to post. No apology, no more contribution. I'd like to say it was nice being here, but, sadly, as you can tell, for the most part, including this incident now, it wasn't. A few of you have been great - thanks. The rest of you, I have no words for. Quite soimply, I've had enough, and I will not accept that it' OK for admins to behave like this, clearly have caused opffence, whether intentional or not, and fail to apologise for it.
    By the way Mr. IP, clearly your knowledge of Wikipedia is great, which isn't bad for an ip whose only 2 contributions are in fact to this discussion, over the course of a good many hours (making it very unlikely that the IP is dynamic). How about you sign in, eh? Crimsone (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I've had plenty of my own encounters with editors who like to use the "seems to forget" phrasing. That seems to have been where this started. It's not exactly uncivil, but it is snide and sarcastic. About 90% of the times it's used, the person saying it doesn't actually think anyone "forgot" anything. There's simply a disagreement, and the person saying it wants to get their shots in, rather than simply voicing their disagreement.
    The comment about English possibly not being your first language was harsh and completely uncalled for.
    I'm not sure if an enforceable apology is in order though. I'd say probably not. I understand you're peeved, Crimsone, but you really need to develop a thicker skin. Unfortunately, people do resort to sarcasm often here, even though it's really, really unhelpful. This isn't the first time you'll encounter situations like that on Wikipedia (or anywhere), and it might be wiser to try and come up with ways of dealing with it on your own, because running to ANI each time will become tiresome (WP:WQA is a possibility, though).
    That having been said, I think Adambro might do well to decide to offer an apology of his own accord, in the interest of settling this, even if offense wasn't intended and this was a misunderstanding. Equazcion /C00:52, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    I had a thick skin once, but when it got to the point where I had to walk away from just about any article I edited owing to this sort of behaviour, it caused me to leave... shortly after that FA I mentioned was promoted actually. It got to me, so I left... I tried again, (and see the result of that on my talk page! accused of comparing rape to politics of all things!!! and other stuff!) I know a thinck skin would be the easier answer, but one of the reason I'm being firm on this, is because it's this sort of behaviour that drove me away in the first place, and drives other editors away. It's not on, and even for the lighter remarks, it's about time wikipedia got back at the very least to a policy of commenting on the contribution, not the contributor. Especially for admins, who are looked up to, and are the ones that tend to be responsible for any actions dealing with such behaviour - what kind of example and hypocrisy does that set up if admins are free to partake f such behaviour themselves without apology? Crimsone (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Adambro was short with you but it sounds to me as though you're dealing with some wider worries (which is ok). You might want to keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia and you weren't discussing something which had to be sorted out straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    76.114.18.153 makes some good points. As I've already said elsewhere, I will not be apologising. Adambro (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't you just say you're sorry and not mean it? I do it all the time. It would be very adminly of you to give an apology in the interest of peace even if you don't think you did anything wrong. Equazcion /C09:24, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    The IP makes no good points, because the points the IP makes up are all invented... they claim I said things I didn't (another thing I'm sick of)... and you will note that I answered them. Crimsone (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. Demanding an apology from an administrator who is under no obligation to do so, and has stated he will not do, is only fueling more hysteria in your case. seicer | talk | contribs 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think lots of unhappiness with Wikipedia has been funneled into this wish for an apology, which seems to be sought for a lot more than the brush with Adambro. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ← It appears the user has retired over this. That is a shame. This could've been resolved with a simple apology, regardless of where the fault lay. Pride got in the way of resolving this, and now a user who's been editing for about 2 and a half years has left. Again this is independent of the specifics of the conflict. If you're an admin and a simple apology would resolve a dispute, you don't say "but I wasn't wrong". You just do it. You've failed an important test here in my mind, Adam. Equazcion /C12:50, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

    I would strongly dispute any suggestion that this user leaving Wikipedia is directly related to this incident. Just days ago, before I began discussions with this user, they stated that they were effectively retiring from the project.
    Whilst it is of course disappointing when editors leave the project, I'm not convinced that attempting to retain this user by apologising to them where I feel no need is the right way of going about things. It isn't a precedent that I want to be setting, that by threatening to leave the project people suddenly bow down to whatever demands you make. Adambro (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having reviewed the comments I made which prompted this discussion, I remain happy that my comments were appropriate and feel that Crimsone's reaction to me referring to her in the third person couldn't reasonably have been expected and her reaction and subsequent raising of the issue here was disproportionate and unnecessary. Adambro (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "...whatever demands you make" -- No, I'm not suggesting that. I am, however, suggesting that an apology is a reasonable thing to offer, even when you don't feel you did anything wrong. When you're an admin people will hold you to a slightly higher standard of willingness to both resolve issues, and to sacrifice argumentative luxuries such as the last word. And rightfully so. Regardless of the background or even of the outcome, it would've been great had you just swallowed your pride and offered your apology. I suspect everyone would only have respected you more for it. Equazcion /C21:32, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    I am, however, suggesting that an apology is a reasonable thing to offer, even when you don't feel you did anything wrong. (Wikipedia:Civility#Suggest apologising) Thank you--NewbyG (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think admins need some customer service experience before picking up the mop and bucket. The first step in CS to disarm a conflict is, "I'm sorry this hasn't been a good experience for you. What can I do to help?" It's not even a formal apology, but it acknowledges that the other party feels there is a problem and you're willing to extend a hand to help. Even if you honestly feel the real problem is with the user/customer/editor, it's a good thing to defuse and then take steps to resolve. Only when it becomes clear that the other side has no intention of defusing do you dig in.
    … as a side note, it looks like that article needs some work. Hrm. -- Kesh (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bstone vs IZAK

    On 23 Feb 08, User Bstone (talk · contribs) opened a RfC against me, User IZAK (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 based on his dislike of comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 20#Deletion of synagogue articles on Feb 15, after he (Bstone) had nominated a number of synagogue articles/stubs for deletion, but which were saved after User:IZAK improved them enough. Neither the improvement of the articles he had nominated for deletion nor waiting for the motions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2, where the vast majority of editors including a number of admins support me, that he had started and had not been brought to closure (it's still open), on 1 April Bstone proceeded to complain at ANI but was rejected there as well. Still not satisfied he then went on to launch a RfA on 2 April which was rejected by the ArbCom. Ignoring my request on 10 April [5] that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 be brought to closure first, on 14 April Bstone stone applied for a RfM which was also rejected and being unable to accept that either, he proceeds to question [6] the admin involved. As of April 15, he has stated he intends to head to the MedCab [7] not taking "no" or "stop" for an answer. At this time, seeing that Bstone (1) refuses to accept the decisions of the ArbCom and (2) the rejection of the Mediation Committee (3) has no regard for discussions and advice at ANI and (4) ignores the motions and function of RfA, (failed actions 1 to 4 all initiated by Bstone himself) and (5) he refuses to respond to my requests to talk to me directly in a meaningful way [8] [9] [10], one can only conclude that User:Bstone is violating WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER and WP:HARASS, aka WP:STALK and a number of other policies that he cites against others, such as WP:AGF and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and that he should be warned to stop his pattern of unrelenting calculated attacks against IZAK and/or blocked for his violations of these policies, for his unbecoming stubborn and rude conduct, and for his unwillingness to accept the decisions of the ArbCom, ANI, the rejection by the Mediation Committee of his trumped up cases against IZAK, and for his ignoring of the still open RfC. Thank you for your help in this regard. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit of a mis-description here. Bstone is not the only editor to have found your behaviour troubling at times - see the RfCs for details. Even your supporters have asked you to reflect on the criticism. Plus the person who instigates an RfC is not permitted to close it (even if they wanted to) - that happens when the discussion is deemed by the community to be exhausted. Probably it could now be closed, but I suspect attempts to close it in the initial days, when discussion was still ongoing, and concerns still being expressed, have probably backfired here in making any attempt to close it look inappropriate.--Docg 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Doc: Two wrongs do not make a right and I will gladly discuss anything about myslef with anyone, but that does not mean Bstone has a "right" to pursue a vendetta (what else is it?) against me or anyone if he sees that his calls are being rejected by the ArbCom, by the Mediation Committe and right here at ANI. I was not asking Bstone to close the RfC, but he just skipped over it even claiming he "forgot" about it. Let a neutral uninvolved admin decide, and let people take their time. Whatever was being discusssed and negotiated at the RfC should have remained there, and we were arriving at concrete agreements at the time, something that Bstone also overlooked in his failed quest to attack me at ArbCom, mediation Committe and here at ANI. My main point is that I was expecting movement and discussion at the RfC, or ideally direct discussions on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM, when instead Bstone went on to instigate other failed actions against me, and it is for that misbehavior of his that I call for sanctions against him. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking for mediation between parties is hardly against a party, indeed it shows a willingness to find a resolution. No?--Docg 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Doc: I agree, I was all for it, but I asked that he pause for the RfC to be brought to closure finally because that too was a major piece of mediation and negotiation involving quite a few interested parties, but he skipped over that, as he skipped over many things in his quest to attack me. I was not the one that closed the RfM, I was not even involved in setting it up, and if it had been accepted I would do my good share, but if an admin and member of the mediation committee rejects Bstone's request, then Bstone must accept that decision, rather than go fighting it. He evidently has trouble with rejection and unless he gets his own way he seems to feel that he must continue to attack me in yet another forum. So how long will that go on and how many times must Bstone be rejected before he stops disrupting the community with his frivolous actions? Even "civil" disruption is disruption! Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My criticism of you in the past is that you see everything as a battle and then accuse people of "attacking you". Looking at the RfM, the Medcom did not suggest that Bstone drop it, indeed they suggested he pursued other avenues of dispute resolution including arbitration. Isn't that what he did? I really can't see what you want admins to do now, block him?--Docg 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Doc: I didn't know you knew every detail of my "past" on Wikipedia, almost five and a half years of it, that you were so expert to judge my reactions. I admit to having an acerbic pen, but it is no more than that, not everyone can speak in one tone 24/7, sometimes we write more and sometimes less, my output is ten thousand times more than Bstone on Wikipedia. Anyhow, looking at one or two points in isolation seems perhaps like nothing, but Bstone has now tried to attack me DIRECTLY at least FOUR times: Via a RfC, at ANI, a RfA and now RfM and EACH time he loses his bid and is told that he has no case at the present time. Now taken together what would YOU call that if not a series of calculated and unrelenting attacks, all in reponse to discussions at articles Bstone nominates for deletion. The man cannot take even a minor disagreement and feels that everything I say in regard to "him" is a "violation" of "WP:CIVIL" or "WP:AGF" when people at ANI thought he was actually joking, take a look at what they said: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#IZAK not assuming good faith and the ArbCom told him "Bye Bye" see [11] and he still goes on and on, and then you turn around and say that I am wrong to feel "attacked" -- really now? I may be tough, but I have feelings too. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like the arbcom quite dismissed him as "bye bye", it looks like they hoped that arbitration and sanctions would prove unnecessary at this point - and that some other resolution might be found to the complaints Bstone brought. I think the hope was that further sanctions against you might prove unnecessary. I think that was the hope of the RfC too: that you'd listen to the critics, modify your tone accordingly, and that would hopefully be all that was necessary. I'm afraid I didn't follow events to see if that happened on not.--Docg 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is completely mindboggling. I was specifically told by ArbCom that the case was premature and we had not exhausted attempts at mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite told me if I filed a request with the Mediation Committee to assist IZAK and I with the issues we have been having it would be speedily accepted. Since when is asking for mediation in order to help two editors work out their differences grounds for a complaints on ANI? I was told by administrators and arbitors to ask for mediation and I did. My head is spinning and I am really wondering how I can continue being part of the project when IZAK continues his unending attacks. Bstone (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe Ryan offered to mediate informally rather than through the mediation comittee. Try contacting him directly. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan specifically stated that it would be speedily accepted by the Mediation Committee. Yet they have rejected it. It seems Ryan is on vacation right now so might not respond to this issue. So, what's next? Can this thread please be closed and archived? Bstone (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot speak for the MedCom or for Ryan, but the case that was rejected seems like a perfectly normal rejection. A bare list of user conduct issues is not an acceptable foundation for mediation of any sort. MedCab, MedCom and other forms of mediation are not a stick with which to beat an opponent. They are groups and individuals that offer outside assistance in reaching an agreement. "User X violated Y&Z policies and they need to be told they're wrong," is not going to be helpful in mediation, and cannot be the basis of a mediation. A user demanding to be proven right, even when content issues are involved, is often a point of note and concern for a mediator. When it's a simple list of accusations lacking context and missing any real description of the dispute, it's almost a textbook example of a case to be rejected. A mediation request with any hope of being fruitful must at the very least describe the dispute. Being a neutral as possible in the description and providing some context are also extremely helpful. Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand, I filed the Mediation case because Ryan told me to, said it would be speedily accepted, ArbCom was pointing me to Mediation Committee, etc. As such I had no idea it would be rejected. Furthermore, since when it asking for mediation between two parties grounds for a complaint? IZAK should instead be working with me in finding a mediator to assist in helping us work out our professional and personal conflicts. I seriously want to resolve this dispute. Does he? Bstone (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that Ryan encouraged you to file a case, but I doubt it was a blank check. If you truly wish to seek mediation and settle the dispute, simply asserting the other party is wrong with a list of policy violation accusations is most certainly not the way to go. You've been around and active long enough to know better. I don't condone that way IZAK has approached things, but your approach is not helpful or productive either. You both need to start addressing the issues in dispute and avoid making broad accusations towards each other. Vassyana (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel inclined to comment here, as the Committee member who rejected the RfM. There was virtually zero material in the way of prior attempts at constructive discussion and dispute resolution, short of some very heated discussion that wasn't heading anywhere fast. Most importantly, I felt, the filing party had not considered filing for informal mediation with the MedCab, which indicated to me that formal mediation was not warranted at such an early stage in the dispute's life-cycle. Whilst I will not make any comment with regards to the questions of incivility on the part of certain parties, I will say that this dispute's resolution seems to have been hampered by some bad blood between the parties in question, and that begs the question of whether or not administrator intervention is necessary, both to prevent further disruption as a direct result of this "bad blood"'s manifestation, and to aid the resolution of this dispute, by eliminating a major sticking point of it (the ill-feelings). Anthøny 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthony and Vassyana: Notice how unrelenting Bstone is in his attacks against me and how he totally does not register what you are saying and how he disregards what does not suit him and only wishes that things go his way, even after all the measures he has tried have failed and admin after admin and editor after editor do not agree with his opinions. He needs a much stronger wake up call to pay attention to the professional opinions of other serious editors and admins. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it would be best if these editors avoided each other, and avoided commenting about each other. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Jayjg: That is easier said than done because this entire trail of discussions goes back to early February when Bstone started to work towards deletion of synagogue and Jewish school articles articles/stubs, and even after I improved and saved them from deletion, he does not acknowledge that good work but only seeks ways, all in the name of "WP:CIVIL" and "WP:AGF" to launch new attacks and criticism of my efforts to counter his misguided nominations of Judaic articles for deletion. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on content, not on the editor. I couldn't agree more. Bstone (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, Bstone, if that were true, you would have long ago given up your quest to attack me with all you failed efforts against me at ANI, the ArbCom, Mediation Committee, and the unclosed RfC. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Jayjg's suggestion. Wikipedia is a big place and there's plenty of room for IZAK and Bstone to work without "bumping into" one another. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree as well. I think some admin should archive this thread as soon as possible. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Yahel Guhan: I understand your well-meaning words, but Bstone is now into his third month of a vendetta to undermine and derail me on Wikipedia, and in the process he has violated many policies such as WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND (and more) by ignoring rulings of the ArbCom, the Mediation Committee, advice at ANI and leaving a RfC that he started in limbo because it has not gone his way, and each time he has approached admins asking them to explain and justify their actions wasting everyone's time in the process, and he needs to be blocked or warned to stop his wasted and wasteful elongated WP:EDITWAR as he attempts to nominate articles about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] (with the last one cited here Bstone even went to Deletion Review to get an article re-deleted after it was kept but he was turned down, and naturally he cannot stand being rejected so he proceeds to the next battleground, and the next, and the next...) but I saved most of those articles. So that is what it is -- a huge drawn out edit war with Bstone resorting to all these outside appeals like RfCs, RfAs, RfMs and appeals at ANI and now he plans to waste the MedCab's time [19] when he disagrees with my opposing comments at AfDs, since in recent times he has nominated quite a few articles/stubs about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion, something that I opposed him on very strongly and which caused him to rage at me until now albeit in a "civil" way ("civil" rage is still rage) and he has also troubled many editors associated with WP:JUDAISM and not just me. Thanks for caring, but cutting the discussion short will not solve anything. I have called for Bstone to talk to me directly in a meaningful way on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM but he refuses to do so, and on the contrary he maintains his own "watchlist" of me listing my past "transgressions" at User:Bstone/rfcuizak (is that legal?) as he pays no attention to his own multiple violations of Wikipedia's policies as they pile up. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This issue has been accepted by the Mediation Committee[20] for formal mediation per my request. Waiting on IZAK to accept formal mediation, however hopefully that will happen shortly. I kindly request this thread by archived so the mediation can proceed. Bstone (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response to the "Note": I would be happy to start at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal but I cannot see the justice of an "on again, off again, on again" case at RfM at this time when the older, very thorough and comprehensive RfC was simply shut down, and it had a lot of work and views put into it and it was just trashed, without any consultation with the many editors and admins and those who had worked hard to come up with a working solution for both Bstone and myself, and the other editors who get left out in the cold by calculation it seems. At this point it has become something of a flying circus with Bstone running from pillar to post, opening a RfC case, "forgetting" about it, and then presto in one instant, after almost two months, it's shut, he went to the ArbCom and they refused to take on the case, they never gave anyone a "mandate to mediate" on their behalf least of all an excuse to somehow claim that the ArbCom case is pending, which it is not, they can speak for themselves if need be, then Bstone opened a RfM that was rejected and after he went to this admin and that it was re-opened again, which makes no sense, when in any case Bstone had already agreed to go to MedCab which is the basic thing he should have done from the get-go. Please see User talk:IZAK#Request for mediation not accepted for the full comments. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am at a loss as how to proceed. Right now the only thing preventing IZAK and I from formally working toward a resolution to our differences is his refusal to accept formal mediation. This is very disheartening. Suggestions? Please help. Bstone (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Bstone: Wrong again. I am not opposed to formal mediation at all, what I am opposed to is formal mediation out of sequence and you should not be granted the arbitrary rights to decide when to launch RfCs, RfAs, RfMs, filings at ANI at will, and when you are refused simply start another venue for your actions. You are violating Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:POINT, in your quest to fight me and you should be blocked, that is my view, see more below at "RfC proposed verdicts ignored." You too need to understand and follow process, especially due process and not jump hither and thither helter-skelter, in the process violating Wikipedia's basic functioning, and you must see to it that you first try to resolve matters with me directly, and not as you have done constantly seeking punitive actions against me (hardly an incentive to mediate with anyone) simply because I vehemently disagreed with you, and you have not done that in a meaningful way either on your or my talk page first or at the talk page of WP:JUDAISM where talks began, nor have you tried the MedCab either which would be the next LOGICAL stop but you have skipped that too, as you ran off to launch your barrage of the RfC, RfA, RfMx2, ANI, and your multiple appeals on the talk pages of admins who are only randomly involved with either you or me and who know little about the core issues relating to the original differences between us that arose when you launched a series of nominations to delete articles/stubs about synagogues and schools which even when I improved them, you never acknowledged, only waiting to seek the next place to lodge complaints (more like attacks couched in ever-so-civil parlance, but "civil" attacks are still attacks) against me because things did not go your way. So EVERYONE needs to get a sense that you are indeed interested in having a true meeting of the minds with me rather than lieing in wait for the next forum so that you can recount your retinue of complaints/attacks against me while you very conveniently overlook your own multiple violations along the way. IZAK (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC proposed verdicts ignored

    This is an official complaint against the premature closing of the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 by User:WJBscribe [21] (although he meant well) by simply "asking" User:Bstone if it's ok [22] claiming that "can close the RfC, stating that mediation is being pursued instead. Would that be acceptable?" [23] and Bstone gladly accepting. Why not, it's an easy way to get rid of lots of editors words against him) [24] and then "done" [25] with one quick click in the name of hoped for "mediation" -- not a bad thing if done fairly. HOWEVER this is done at the expense of the EARLIER and most THOROUGH hard work and efforts at true conflict resolution and mediation that had unfolded at the RfC involving almost FIFTY editors, including many admins and in effect trashing FOUR proposed intermediate verdicts at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#RfC Status update, one very THREATENING proposed intermediate verdict by Bstone against me and handily rejected by the majority and THREE remaining proposed intermediate verdicts, and mostly agreed to by me, that Bstone just ran away from and instead when he saw he was not going to get his way, simply "forgot" about the input of about FIFTY editors -- quite mind-boggling, and then he went off to raise the heat with his RfA which the ArbCom handily turned down. Sure, "disembodied OBJECTIVE and NPOV mediation" sounds like a great thing and no sane person goes against it, but to simply dump the efforts and serious attemtpts and working out a meeting of the minds between Bstone and myself is the greatest travesty and a violation of due process as well as an insult to and slap in the face of all those who gave of their time and input to resolve things somewhat. This is just a sign of how out of control Bstone's behavior has become, because by now he has involved so many committees and so many admins and not all of them even know what the others have said or suggested so that Bstone takes advantage of Wikipedia's labyrinthian governing structure and loosely connected communications system between admins and committees such as we see here that those involved at the orginal RfC are not informed by admins working at RfM and how a failed RfA by Stone leads to first a rejcted RfM and then re-accepted after he involves a group of disconncted admins that then becomes an invitation to proceed with more talks with other admins who know little about the first, middle or last part of the proceedings. This entire sordid escapade is starting to take on Dickensonian dimensions of Bleak House with admins and committees coming and going and relying upon Bstone for agreeing to this or that but not knowing the source and structure and present state of his campaign and my responses to it, since he started these motions in the first place, in the process crushing true efforts as seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 that was shut down on the say-so of only one admin at RfM who means well by wanting mediation when the whole picture is so messed up to start with. For the record, all the times I requested that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 be brought to CLOSURE was not a request that it just be shut down and ignored, my fervent hope and request was that whatever was discussed and put togther over TWO MONTHS of discussions be brought to some sort of conclusion through implementation but not just slamming the door on it as if it were a meaningless rubble. ANI is therefore requested to take a long hard look at the BROAD PICTURE and at what is really going here and seek out the input and views of all those who had originally participtaed there as well as take a long hard look at Bstone's acts of WP:REICHSTAG and violations of WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and more, deserving a warning and block and that he not hide behind out-of-order and misdirected suggestions of and for mediation (as a means to launch his already planned attacks outlined at User:Bstone/rfcuizak) when so many serious core issues and discussions are either being ignored and violated and should be addressed first in all justice. Thank you, and at this time, it is truly almost Passover. Happy Holidays. IZAK (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am starting to get a little tired of what part of this disagreement I have seen. Bstone started an RfC about IZAK. That RfC had not been edited for about a week when I closed it. Bstone wished to pursue mediation instead and, although the Mediation Committee does not normally handle conduct disputes, Ryan Postlethwaite offered to handle the case. Bstone filed a Request for Mediation which was rejected by AGK on the grounds that it was largely a content dispute. He then reversed this action on realising that Ryan was interested in offering to mediate the case. I contacted IZAK and he pointed out the ongoing RfC. Given that mediation cannot happen in parallel to other methods of dispute resolution, I agreed the RfC needed to be closed and pointed out this obstacle to Bstone. Bstone was happy for the RfC to be closed - he was the filing party and looking at it I'm not sure it was ever properly certified. It seemed appropriate to close the RfC on the basis that the complainant now sought to resolve their issues through mediation instead. The RfC had a pretty clear consensus of editors that it should be closed without action. A closed RfC remains archived and viewable to anybody, but such adversarial proceedings need to be brought to a stop if mediation is to have a chance.
    IZAK needs to decide whether he is willing to accept Ryan's offer to mediate this case. All he has to do is indicate "yes" or "no" on the Request for Mediation. If mediation is not accepted and people feel that the RfC should be reopened, that can be done. One of the reasons ArbCom declined to hear this matter was that other avenues of dispute resolution had not been explored. If the parties cannot agree to go down those routes, ArbCom may need to look at this one again. WjBscribe 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to religious holiday I will be away for the next 3 days, until Monday night after dark. As for IZAK's issues above, all I can say is I tremendously hope he agrees to mediation so we can work out our personal and professional issues. This is my greatest hope. Bstone (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ariesubg/UrbanBridgez.com

    Ariesubg (talk · contribs)—admittedly from the UrbanBridgez.com website (UBG for short)—added content (with UBG as a source) that was removed due to WP:RS concerns. User continually reverts and responded to discussion with incivility and personal attacks ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30]) Promotes website on user page and talk page ([31], [32]). I posted on the RS noticeboard regarding the reliability of the source with no response as yet. Looking for suggestions for additional action, if any. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him for 12 hours for edit warring and 3RR violations, but it does appear to be a single-purpose spam account - any other opinions? Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The attacks aren't helping his case either - see diff in Hello's post above, and original version of his user page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The block has expired and the user is back adding links to the same site ([33], [34]). Shortly before those, an IP located in the same city as UBG was adding similar content ([35], [36]). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user removing poll results

    On the talk page of Afghanistan a poll was opened for whether to include the term Afghani in the demonym list of the info-box or not. The poll is very straight forward and two users already voted. But user: Carl.bunderson keeps crossing out the poll and its results because he does not like the results and is opening a new poll which is very different from this one. His poll also asks for Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.

    The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.

    I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.
    You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the other way also includes a poll on Afghanistani demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.
    Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia, I disagree that the old poll was fair; its wording struck me as push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change [37] in favour of his own version. cab (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Revisiting Anon Issue

    Unfortunately, an issue presented in an earlier incident (and again here) (filed less than 48 hours ago) has re-presented itself. In the earlier complaint, a request for help was sent to address the removal of an IP banner and conversations/complaints from an anon user's UserTalk page by the anon himself. As the admns who responded supported the IP banner's continued placement in the anon's page, the matter seemed resolved efficiently. The last comment on the anon users talk page was the notification of a one-week block by JzG (talk · contribs) for being a "Disruptive and disputatious editor". At that point, the old IP address went silent.
    As per new comments in the Fitna, it would appear that the same anon has in fact shed the prior IP address where the IP banner and commentary (and week-long block) were located to continue editing in defiance of both the prior AN/I decision and the block as 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs).
    I have since updated the IP banner and discussions from the prior IP address to the current IP shell, but have brought the matter of the usage of the anon IP to duck the block here, while notifying the blocking admin. What should happen now? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arcayne makes a false accusation. Arcayne placed the text on my user page. The text contains a time stamp of 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    My current IP address has been with me since at least 14:07, 16 April 2008. I have never interacted with this editor, nor been informed of any pending actions against me involving him. I have never been afforded the opportunity to defend myself - nor are we aware of which posts containing the issue were assigned to that IP and if they belong to me. 75.58.39.201 (talk)
    With apology, I don't think any false accusation has been made. I think its pretty common practice to watchlist one's own user/usertalk page, even if you are an anon. This means the comment from the blocking admn would be in your watchlist. Additionally, the admin's block appears to be addressing your - and no one else's - edits using that IP address, noting the DIff/Time of the block and your edits. You were blocked, and continued to edit through another IP address that was unknown and unaffected by the admin's block. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anon logins have no "watchlist" capability. Also, those ip's resolve to different states, why do you assume it's the same user? Jpmonroe (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The anon's posting behavior and style is identical in both IPs in that they both defend the same statements. Both IPs edit in precisely the same articles (1,And they coss-post the same information ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fitna_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=206010498 1. 2) between these same articles. Lastly, where the older IP ends without further edit, the newer IP begins less than an hour later. If these are two different editors, then even other editors are assuming they are the same individual. As a prior RfCU was filed with the initial consideration that this was a sockfarm, the anon admitted that all of the IPs within the range of the request were his. As well, the prior AN/I complaint concerned the removal of an IP banner, as the anon moved from one IP address to another. In that instance, the anon never claimed that the IPs were not his.
    Lastly, I moved his IP banner and prior discussions to his new IP, which contained the notice that he had been blocked. However, the anon continued to edit, even after posting here (1, 2, 3). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arcayne - can you explain how your post was altered in this diff as you claim? As anyone can see from the diff, nothing from the beginning of the section to your signature is altered - though I can't tell if the unsigned comment that is removed (not altered) is yours. --Random832 (contribs) 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WHile that particular post and issue is immaterial to this complaint (it was in fact what prompted the prior complaint by the anon), by bracketing my text, his edit made it seem that my post had arrived after a consensus had been achieved, offering the position that my post was in aggreement with the resolution. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon me, but in the post that Arcayne is referring to that has been linked by Random832, everything in red type is my writing (including the unsigned text on the left of screen). It is at the end of a section and it is signed. I marked my question as resolved per the specific instructions of the board. This is the following post by Arcayne.[38] I am shocked by the boldness of claiming things so casually which are so demonstrably not so. You will notice he removes my entire post. Every Word and leaves me this Warning: do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy. Arcayne 75.58.44.23 (talk)

    Bad bot chases new good user off site

    Resolved
     – Malfunctioning bot has been blocked indefinitely to allow for repairs to be made.

    We have a trolling bot who just chased a new user off the site. The new user rightly reverted vandalism] and got revertd by this troll bot [39] who then reverted back to the vandal [40], the good user reverted again [41] only to be reverted by the troll bot a second time [42] and put a troll notice on t eh poor nebie users talk page [43] resulting in the suer declaring they are leaving the project [44]. I dont care how nmany good edits this bot does it should be indef blocked for blatant trolling of a newbie user actring in good faith while the bot continues the insultas towards a sovereign nation. Can some opne please do something cos if this crap continues we won't have any editors, just mad bnots whose owners appear reluctant to control them. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Contact Voice of All (talk · contribs) about it; this looks like a malfunction. Until then, I'm blocking it. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First thing I did was contact him and contact the user who was being attacked telling him it wasnt human maliciousness but I fear this user has left the project for good and would question how valuable a bot that chases off good faith new users is, especially as changing the text for Hionduras to a poor place is what is obvious vandalism. perhaps he should switch iot off until it stops malfunctioning but VoA is not online right now. If I were an admin and could I would switch the bot off until the problem is fixed and hope someone will consider doing so as chasing off new good faith users is catastrophic. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on, bots don't "blatantly troll", they malfunction from time to time. Corvus cornixtalk 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned about SqueakBox's failure to assume good faith towards VoABotII and its operator, Voice of All (talk · contribs). Read VoA's talkpage, and you'll see what I mean. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    VOABot doesn't specify why it thinks something is vandalism, so it's hard to know what happened. Something that has happened to me before: someone deletes the article. I restore it, but included in the text is a "bad word" or a blacklisted EL. The bot thinks I'm adding profanity or spamming, and reverts. Or, as Jéské says, it might just be having a HAL 9000 moment. In either case, it isn't a "troll bot". Mistakes happen, VOABot's notice admits as much, Squeakbox fixed it on the user's page, and he had stopped there I would have applauded his actions. --barneca (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened is a new good faith user got chased off the site, and Jéské is worried about the bot's feelings! Chasing a new and good faith user off the site is not how we work here, and changing the article on Honduras to "a poor country" is vandalsim23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
    Again with the failure to assume good faith. VoABotII has done exemplary work in the past; it simply malfunctioned this time. Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to accident. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And thanks for blocking the bot, reverting vandalism reverts on Honduras may be acceptable but chasing off new users is not and I hope VoA responds to this concerns himself. One chased off new good fauith user counteraxcctas all the good work the bot does, we simply are not a viable project if we do such things. perhaps Jéské Couriano you would care to rwrite tot he user and reassure them they were not being trolled. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other issues aside, you need to look up what 'trolling' means. John Reaves 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well VoA clearly is trolliong see here and here and in the meantime a new good faith user has beenn riun off the siter. if you think that isd okay, as VoA appears to, I suggest you review our policies yourself such as do not bite the newbies. This user was doing good and got trashed for it and now some people are supporting this trolling of new faith good faith users, well you appear to be, John, trolling is getting a reaction from someone by being nasty to them and this bot and its owner will not even apologise to a good faith newbie user whom they have run off the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you really need to stop the ad hominem attacks and hyperbole. A bot screwed up. It happens, it was blocked, its being fixed. Nothing is perfect. You are blowing this totally out of proportion and now are accusing people who disagree with you of "supporting trolling." You really need to stop. Mr.Z-man 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you chuck someone's talk page full of unambiguously rude, confrontational, and self-righteous rhetoric, do not be surprised if it gets removed. Jumping on a sword and crying about it is not going to help. Out of thousands of edits, mistakes still happen. I'm always trying to get the rate down. I encourage anyone to report problems, specific or general, and not to hesitate to block in the case of problems. I don't mind if people complain, but please tone down the rhetoric. Voice-of-All 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even as a patriotic Honduran I dont care about the mistake. My only concern is with the way the new user has been treated. Are you going to fix this so we don't see a repeat. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe your actions here Squeakbox are much worse than the error from the bot, and your continued ranting about a non-issue really speaks volumes regarding your behavior. Your ad-homiem attacks and other nonsense is really nothing more than you taking a situation and forcing it out of proportion. How do you suggest that the issue be resolved? The bot is disabled and is being repaired, and has been dually noted -- which you most likely passed over. Do you want the bot to be permanently disabled? Or do you want to do the grunt work yourself? seicer | talk | contribs 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Squeakbox, you claim this person was a "good newbie editor." On the basis of what? Four mainspace edits that were all reversions, four edits to the user's own talk, and nine edits to the user's own userpage, with an account that was a whopping five hours old as of its last edit? This is ridiculous, and for you to claim what you did implies that you have some sort of bias relating to this person, or you're simply exaggerating to cause a problem. Frankly, a newbie who has a problem shouldn't simply quit, especially when they know next to nothing about the system they're trying to work in. Somebody who's going to jump to conclusions and extreme measures like that after five hours and less than 20 edits on WP I would posit is not going to be a good editor at all. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy crap, it's AGF in Bizarro World! --barneca (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ksuwildcats10's user page

    I just blanked almost 15,500 bytes of information at Ksuwildcats10 (talk · contribs)'s user page. He had previously been warned that the amount and type of information he had there was a violation of WP:USER and WP:NOT standards. He was given several weeks to clean it up but never made any attempt to. Because of that, I have parsed it down to one line. The page was a totally unnecessary list of his personal achievements and news about his life (from the death of his cousin to the time he was interviewed as a student with concerns about security).

    I post this here for review and thoughts about what is and is not appropriate for this (and other) user pages. Metros (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Was it defamatory? Did it attack other users? Did it contain BLP violations or copyright infringements? Did it advocate violence or criminal activity? DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally unnecessary blanking of a benign user page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well per Wikipedia:NOT#BLOG, this appears to be a pretty blatant policy violation. It's a resume with an excessive amount of personal information and it offers, essentially, blog-like accounts of his life. When you're talking about 15,500 bytes of personal information, I'd call that excessive. Metros (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a highly detailed biographical user page written in the 3rd person with a bit of blogginess and CVishness, maybe overlong with more personal info than one might want to see but I don't see anything untowards about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the point is that Ksuwildcats was using the page as an ad hoc way to promote himself, and as his personal resume. I had contact with him when he first registered a profile, it seemed he was trying to create a wikipedia page for himself and his high school band director, in addition he went through numerous warnings about adding information about him self to El Paso, Texas, Great Bend, Kansas, and Great Bend High School. He has also used inappropriate markup on his user page such as Category:Judges, the Judge infobox, and sources his page like a real article from his own person website. I'm not totally supporting Metros actions, but ksuwildcats clearly does not understand WP:NOT and was clearly warned that his blog like page was in violation.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Resume-like"? Yes. "CV-like"? Yes. "Article-like"? Very much so. "Blog-like"? No way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's back:) Merkin's mum 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I only say blog-like because every-time something of questionable notability happened to him, he would update his page and create a new section on for instant how he was interviewed for a local television's spot about a new dormitory.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it's been deleted now. Next time, I'd suggest taking anything remotely controversial to MFD and it'll be gone soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's penultimate edit seems to have been to metros' talk page, asking to be left alone. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edito*Magica at It Again

    User:Edito*Magica was reported to AN/I back in February because of his continuing editing warring over various episode lists in which he was trying to force the episodes into a bad format that does not follow the consensus of format established by the television project and its many featured episode lists, including removing anything from the lead he feels is "redundant" to the main article (see also Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say.) or to the article itself and using a single color for the individual season headers. It was an ugly mess in which he insulted multiple editors and ignored multiple editors, including an admin, telling him to stop his edit warring and making such changes because they were wrong, and his filing a relitory ANI claimWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive368#User:Collectonian. He seemed to avoid a block by finally backing down and seeming to yield to consensus after the articles were both protected and more editors told him repeatedly that he was wrong.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive369#Edito*Magica

    However, yesterday I came across two more episode lists, less watched than the first, in which he was doing the same thing: List of 2point4 children episodes and List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. With the later, he gave lip service to discussing changing the colors at Talk:List of One Foot in the Grave episodes#Colours but changed them quickly after posting his message, allowing no discussion to occur at all. I tagged both article for having multiple issues, including not following established formatting standards, lacking references, needing a better leader, and tagging for expert help from the Television project as I didn't want to deal with him myself again. I posted so to the TV project page, as both have FL potential, and someone from the project has already volunteered to clean up the List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. However Edito*Magica quickly went and reverted the tagging (and the undoing of his changing the colors before discussion occurred, leaving a message on my talk page[45] declaring he will remove the tags because the lists don't need references, and that no one disagreed with him on the color scheme (of course not, he did the changes three MINUTES after posting the message! How could anyone have time to disagree or agree??? I gave him one warning for removing the tags on both articles, but after his last constant attacks and the disagreeable experience of dealing with him, I've decided its better to go ahead and bring this here now before yet another editor war begins.

    Edito*Magica has repeatedly shown himself to be unwilling to work in an environment of multiple editors, regularly arguing with anyone who disagrees with his ideas, even though those ideas go against established Wikipedia guidelines and project standards. He has also shown that he will not change his stripes and will continue such inappropriate behavior on any episode list he decides to mess up, and that he will edit war over them until he either gets his way or the page is protected and he moves on to others. I feel stronger action needs to be taken against him at this time to better drive home the message that his way of editing is not appropriate, and that he can not continue to try to push his wrong attempts to "correct" the appearance of episode lists just because HE alone doesn't like them, when consensus says it is the proper format as shown in featured episode lists. Collectonian (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As an update: once again an admin has warned Edito to stop, but he first reverted the list under an IP[46], then logged in an reverted his inappropriate changes again[47]. As the admin also asked me not to get into a revert war, I'm leaving it as is for now and will let someone else deal with him. However, this editors continous refusal to acknowledge, must less follow, consensus, and his blatant and repeated ignoring of warnings from administrators should not continued to be ignored. Collectonian (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From his messages on my talk page, he is just going to continue disallowing anyone to clean up episode lists for shows he likes. Is no one going to do anything, yet again? Collectonian (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy delete tags on my user page

    User:DHeyward the former Tom Harrison added speedy delete tags to my user page.

    He actually is one of the "deletionist bullies" which I have had edit wars with. Recently him and Mongo were calling me a troll and my contributions "crap" on his user page.

    Like the majority of self-anoted copyright enforcers on wikipedia, Tom probably doesn't know one bit of copyright law, and it is pretty clear he is attempting to harrass me.

    But to difuse this argument, I am going to move my quotes to another wiki.

    P.S. He will inevitably bring up my response, in which case I say:

    Many admins have said the same thing repeatedly (Mongo and JzG come to mind). Which DHeyward vigourously defended. DHeyward, please call a RfC, which I will ignore and refuse to particapate in just like JzG, and nothing will come of the RfC, as nothing came of JzG's RfC.

    I am so tired of the blatant hypcricy and bullying on wikipedia. I feel sick to my stomache that I have to often resort to the same low ball tactics as others here.

    Trav (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't put a speedy tag on your user page, I put a copyvio tag on your page after you cut and pasted material from a copyrighted source. You responded rather uncivilly for the second time today and after a warning. This warning for this edit (unrelated to me). And then your edit summary directed at me after you fixed your copy vios is here. I brought your civility to Wikiquette here where they can't block you but hopefully a third party might be able to discuss your obvious anger problems with you rationally. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I am not Tom harrison. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on, it shouldn't have been there but the tags specifically say they shouldn't be used unless there's no good version. Why didn't you just ask him to remove it, or something? --Haemo (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confused by your response dear Haemo, particularly the first sentence, based on our rich past history, you must obviously be critizing me, not DHeyward.
    DHeyward, as I explained on the Wikiquette, I apologize for reacting how I did. Two wrongs (or several dozen "wrongs" in this case) don't make a right. I strongly support wikipolicy on civility, I just wish it would be more evenly enforced.
    It maybe noted that the first warning was from another deletionist who wanted to delete the same article which DHeyward wants to delete.
    I could contact several supporters here, as DHeyward group has been convincingly accused of before (which I think may have lead to his name change in the first place), to comment on this WP:ANI, but I won't.
    The alledged copyvios are now offwiki. Inclusionist (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Apology" not accepted. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're confused because I was criticizing DHeyward's placement of the tags, not you. I'm disappointed by your reaction here, since it was an assumption of bad faith over a single disagreement on an ArbCom case. Apparently JzG and MONGO aren't the only people who perceive conspiracies against them around every corner. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The tags say to revert to the last version. I didn't want to remove material from his user page. I put the tags to bring it to his attention and then to an admins if he wasn't there to respond. This what the instructions said to do. Is there a different tag? It wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I suggested you ask him instead. The correct way to "bring it to his attention" is not slapping speedy deletion tags on it. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't slap a speedy tag, I put the copyvio tag. What is wrong with that tag for bringing it to his attention? that's the tag that the copyvio page says to use. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever4ything is wrong with "yagging it to bring it to his attention" that is not the way we operate. Next time either revert to a pre copyvio version, talk to him about it or preferably both. ViridaeTalk 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagging it is exactly the way we operate because it will bring it to the communities attention if he goes offline or whatever. I will not revert his User page so that's out of the question. This was a simple cleanup with a simple tag. If you don't like tags, bring it to the Village Pump for discussion about removing all the tags we use for everything from cleanup to AfD to Sockpuppets. But making up stuff about how we operate to justify someone saying "Fuck You" in an edit summary is not acceptable. As desired, he saw the violation, deleted the tag and deleted the material. Where exactly is "Fuck You" justified? --DHeyward (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Travb you've been oversighted before for outing. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly, your accusations of a cabal or group is ludicrous. Check the admin who gave you the warning and then check my block log and try to maintain the facade you are trying to project that we are in cahoots to thwart you. The problem is that you don't respect consensus or the process that is used to reach it. You are incivil and as your above strikeouts indicate, often incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dheyward, meet the talk page; it can be your friend. But seriously, that's what we use when issues like this come up with established contributors, not slapping a bunch of copyvio templates on a their user page. And you wonder why he's not taking it well? Shell babelfish 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, no I don't wonder why he's not taking it well, it's part of his overall pattern of contribution. He acted the same way when an admin asked him earlier in the day to be civil on his talk page. Which standard template would make you respond "Fuck You" in an edit summary? Hopefully the answer to that rhetorical question is "None". I didn't bring this here so I'm not sure exactly what he wants. He deleted the offending material which is all I wanted (without the on and off wiki attacks and stalking). It also appears that he's now in some sort of blocking wheel war for constant disruptive editing. --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time, use the talk page - its what its there for. ViridaeTalk 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time, I'll use whatever is appropriate whether it's tags or comments or ANI or whatever. This time it was tags. --DHeyward (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the combative responses? I understand reacting badly to Travb, but here you've got two outside opinions that you didn't handle that situation the best way possible. Please consider that it might be more appropriate in that situation to use the talk page as we've suggested. Shell babelfish 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't combative at all. I've considered it. I considered it prior to using the tags. I will consider it in the future. Why do you seem to ignore the "Fuck You" edit summary he used as a response? Travb is currently blocked for an unrelated incident which is his normal MO and enabling these editors as Viridae tried to do yesterday before more level headed admins intervened is counterproductive. I would much rather prefer to contribute to articles then spend my time answering ANI's started by editors the likes of Travb. --DHeyward (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Racial slurs by User:90.193.39.251/User:90.193.39.91

    This IP has been firing numerous racial slurs (in edit summaries) at User:Til Eulenspiegel and I (as well as vandalising a user page). Not only are the slurs highly offensive, but also, Til Eugenspiel and I have never claimed to be members of the groups he's attacking, groups which have no relevance to the articles it's occuring on (a Mexican-American singer and Ancient Sumer).--Yolgnu (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mangojuice has blocked both IPs mentioned (24 and 48 hours, respectively); as there seems to be a chance the user may return on other IP(s), I've semi-protected Sumer, Thalía, and Arab, all for three days. Feel free to report any further problems as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP[48]. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:[49]), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes):[50] - the "forum":[51] is a leading national newspaper in Hungary) What else evidence needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon, this report has been placed by you at AIV, AN, and now here. This is called forum-shopping, please stop. One report at ANI is sufficient. --Elonka 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This anonymous request is totally misleading and its previous version has already been removed from WP:AIV as trolling.[52] The IP has posted it at AIV again few minutes after the first removal and it was removed again by a different admin.[53] So, the IP posted it at WP:AN.[54] This is the fourth time the IP tries their luck. Is it a new kind of a lottery? Tankred (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Tankred Harassment, mass edit warring, using user page as an attack page, using WikiProject to promote harassment, organize edit wars, user is (three times blocked for edit warring see block log[55]) ,

    using WikiProject Slovakia to organize edit wars and promote harassment of Hungarian editors,

    "Moreover, there is a small, but very active group of Hungarian editors..." "Who wants to deal with them?" ([56])

    Asks others to edit war for him, or get involved in specific disputes

    “If you want to correct the name feel free” “I do not have energy left after all the recent troubles with some of our Hungarian friends.” ([57])

    Thanks others for getting involved in his disputes encourages blind reverts in relation to the same dispute

    “Ruziklan and The Dominator, thank you for being good citizens.” “…in the future, please just revert it. It is the matter of few seconds. You do not need to invest your valuable time and energy in communication with an author” “([58])

    Uses WikiProject to attack fellow editors, uncivility, “For me, that enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ([59])

    Uses his own user page to attack others both with named attacks and general attacks,

    “these fanatics trying to degrade non-Hungarian nations in the cyberspace.” “I wish I was more interested in writing about Iceland or any other country that is not part of the imaginary Greater Hungary.” “enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ([60] Includes outright falsehoods to bolster his attack “User:PANONIAN have left for the exact same reasons.” Regarding Kosovo’s declaration of independence this user wrote” ”Serbia finally gained its independence on February 17, there is hope for better future in Serbia now. Anyway, my work in Wikipedia is over, I have other thing to do in life” [61]

    Mass removal, crusade against Hungarian names, [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67] (just a few examples literally hundreds of examples can be found in his contribs)

    Mass edit warring against users on his “hit list”, named enemies on his user page ([68]) (refer to his contribs since 31 March almost every single edit is a revert of a “named” Hungarian editor).

    Ignoring administrator warnings/actions. After being warned not to use "misleading statements"[69] by an administrator, posts the same misleading statement to a different admin user DDima, [70] and two different noticeboards after that for a total of four tries. Tankred later removed the administrators warning ([71]) together with warning him about not to use false/deceptive edit summaries calling non-vandal edits vandalism([72]). When an administrator removed parts of his user page that made it “an attack page against specific editors”([ [73]) Tankred simply reposted the attacks with the comment “alll right, no names” [74] using diff links instead to identify his targets. Attacks placed on a user page deny the opportunity for comment and reaction or even pointing out outright falsehoods. Tankred also attacked editors not named on his user page but of Hungarian ethnicity saying for example “But why not to join your co-ethnics in their campaign” ([75]) to a Hungarian editor. Considering all of the above especially the efforts to influence others through using WikiProject Slovakia a collaborative effort to encourage to harass, revert or indeed “deal with” ([76]) Hungarian users and also using his user page in a similar hateful manner I ask the community to consider strong measures to ensure that this can not go on indefinetly. We do not need editors who not only see Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground but actively promote hatred, conflict and encourage others to join in. The negative impact on the project is enormous and is already badly felt. At the very least open encouragement should be dealt with and the situation closely monitored for further campaigning activity. Hobartimus (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest you start a WP:RFC/USER, provide the above evidence there and allow others to provide feedback as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This report is misquoting my different statements (some of them withdrawn by myself from my user page) from different periods outside their context and replacing significant parts of my words by "...". Hobartimus has been editwarring against User:MarkBA, User:Tulkolahten, User:Svetovid, User:Markussep, User:Ruziklan, and me for several months. I guess this is his latest move against us. Tankred (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "move against us"? So you list a few users and suddenly you become "us"? I don't see any diffs above from any of these users, this complaint is solely about you and your ehtnic campaigning containing statements about "dealing with" "Hungarian editors". Hobartimus (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above complaints appear to be an overflow of a larger dispute involving multiple Hungarian and Slovakian editors, on a variety of pages. In order to try and centralize discussions (and try a new dispute resolution technique per WP:WORKGROUP), I have started a page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If there are no objections, I will move the above complaints to that page, and this particular complicated thread can be taken off ANI. --Elonka 07:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tankred says A, and does (and thinks) B. The perfect example is on his userpage:[77]. He writes (states) "all right no names" - and posts multiple personal and general attacks against Hungarian users, with names :). Perfect example. He posted tons of misleading edit summaries wich I reported on WP:ANI, but all he got was a warning. I reported many times his edit warring and his misuse of wikipedia policies, using them as a weapon in disputes. WP:NCGN nowhere states what he tries to make you believe. It even has an example of the very same thing at Gdansk/Danzig how to deal with such things. Tankred as described above, is a notorius edit warrer, blocked multiple times for edit warring, he recruits users for edit warring, and when he runs out of reverts he goes IP. Same summaries, same pages, same reverts, everything is sooooo the same that eventually it quacks so loud that I hardly hear my own thoughts :) If its MarkBA, than they should be investigated, if they are the same person, or could be close friends. I found another IP since:[78], from the very same place, internet provider, etc. "removing chauvinistic vandalism". Tankred's standards of "hate speech" perfectly mets with what he himself wrote on his userpage and was removed by Elonka and multiple other editors in multiple times for some obvious reason. Tankred broke the 3RR there btw, and...see the link for stating A, doing B again:[79].

    Tankred also misinterprets edits, and actions of other users[80] (last comments)

    Tankred's claims, statements and whatever he writes should and must MUST be treated with high suspicion and distrust. Says A, or he even acts like A, then immediately switches back to B. Also doing WP:DRAMA by "retiring" (for 2 days:) and such. Do not believe him, he is a great manipulator. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The dispute resolution process between us is ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Why are you posting the same stuff here? Tankred (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be mostly dealing with content but yes, a large discussion is taking place there. Hobartimus (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat

    Resolved
     – Police called

    Can someone review this threat to see if any action should be taken? Dreadstar 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Call the local police immediately, and notify the WMF. Give the local police clear instructions on how to find the article on wikipedia, and how to find the edit in the history. Do not call their emergency line. Specific hit lists are probably the second highest level of trouble of this sort we can see... (per BEANS, i say no more.) ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's disturbing. Hopefully this will turn out to be an empty threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. --clpo13(talk) 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've located a phone number for the closest police station. Has anybody called yet? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on the phone. John Reaves 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just getting ready to call the LA County Sheriff's department. You got it John? Dreadstar 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fully protected the page, because for some reason the user wasn't blocked on sight. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) edited at 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC), apologies for last comment[reply]
    Would it be worth locking the original poster's talk page? (Per WP:VIOLENCE, so that nothing gets posted?) --Bfigura (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been (not by me) Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    John beat me to it. Any details, John? Taking this seriously and reporting it to the police is in accordance with WP:TOV. John, if they give you a case number, a name of the officer you spoke with or something you may want to post it here just so there is a record of it. I did this when I called the police in the Plano HS case. Thanks, John, for making the call. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm currently in contact with a detective and we're attempting to work with the ISP. John Reaves 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good for you, John. You have made me proud. You may want to give a brain dump of who you spoke to and such just for history and transparency sake. I did this with Plano HS, just so it could be entered into the log and anyone (including the detective I was working with) would see a visual history. Good work. Bstone (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone must have gotten through to them: [81] Nice work John...RxS (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope plenty of people have bookmarked this entry to point to later when others ask what WP does when this happens. Also, it'd be nice to hear if the police & ISP get anywhere with tracking the threatmaker down. BBC story about UK school boy threatening the president Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TOV, which is the latest effort to detail how to respond to these sort of things, it only an essay. In my opinion is should at least be a guideline. I invite you to come over and chime in on the talk page. Bstone (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is making a mess of the Sviatoslav Richter page. In spite of the recent attempts of several users to engage him in discussion on the talk page, he merely deletes cited material and inserts his own opinions. He was previously blocked for two days, then was up to his old tricks after the block was liftedTHD3 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm one of the users mentioned by THD3 and I entirely second his opinion. Steiner Redlich's attitude has been consistently disruptive and disrespectful of Wikipedia rules. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved

    (IP incivility removed) otherwise the rest of the thread doesn't make sense Black Kite 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well...I have to say..he is threatening users. Before I forget [82] The East ender comment [83] The Admin Comment. Summery. Rgoodermote  12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, if he's retired bit pointless to issue blocks really. Just ignore it, any actions taken now would be just adding drama where none was needed. If he comes back or has a cool off period the all the better. Khukri 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I don't see any of those as threats, per se. The one about EastEnders fans is definitely rude, but not block-worthy unless directed at a particular editor and he's been warned to lay off previously. In any case, if something has pushed him to retire, I would imagine a bit of strong language is not surprising. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you think is not threatening so be it. But that checkuser comment makes me not want to give him checkuser privileges any time soon or ever and I can't give it to him anyways. Rgoodermote  13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is...is this the first time he has retired? Rgoodermote  13:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    (ec)Again it doesn't really matter, if he hasn't retired and it's a case of throwing the toys out of the cot then by adding unnecessary blocks or paying it attention we are fueling the wiki-drama. If there are no personal attacks, no disruption to the project then he can have one every Friday at 4:15 pm for all it matters. If he has genuinly retired he's not going to see anything anyway, so again irrelevant. Khukri 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, isn't that just marvellous - an IP that comes to hysterically demand blocks and complain about a prolific editor making incivil comments, whilst also being incredibly incivil themselves. I wonder which editor hiding behind an IP this is? I can make some fairly good guesses, though. Black Kite 13:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Just in case... I am User:Rgoodermote 72.224.127.117 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am going to walk away from this entire thing. Rgoodermote  13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is this all about? An editor is blowing off steam, maybe he was rude to the poor fans of eastenders but you cant really blame him for that, and so what if he retires every second day. The IP must be worried about Hackney claiming he will start another checkuser case. Created today with 4 edits two of them here and he knows all about User:Vintagekits. BigDunc (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we be looking here for identity of ip just curious. BigDunc (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked as yet another sock of banned User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Black Kite 13:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All I see here is a very angry Hackney saying he might track down sockpuppets and I agree, if he wants to retire once a day, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't blame him, to be honest. There is too long a record of excellent contributors being driven away by tendentious editing and sockwittery at the moment. Edit: and how ironic that the sock names me as a "fellow traveller", given that I have blocked numerous Irish editors in the past, including bringing the first SSP case against Vintagekits - some people eh. Black Kite 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ONIH has been an excellent editor of very polished articles, most of them related to Irish Republicanism (where others have preferred to edit war), and as a result he has been on th edge of many disputes. Sometimes his conduct has not been ideal, but those times have been rare, and he can set those moments against a records of solid contributions which most editors would envy.

    ONIH has been talking of retiring for months, so his final departure, while sad, isn't a great surprise. I was disappointed that my good luck note on his departure was promptly removed from his talk page, but that's his privelige.

    However, in the last few days, his temper has been very frayed, and he has been repeatedly uncivil and profane. His latest contribs to his own talk page show a list of completely unacceptable edit summaries, and a very agressive and uncivil style on talk pages:

    I agree that since he has retired, there is no point adding to the drama, and his talk page has now been protected. I do think it's a great pity when a good editor throws a tantrum on the way out the door, but best just to leave it at that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm hoping it's just temporary (his retirement). PS- The profane 'edit summaries' (which I've also been a victim of) are disappointing, however. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RTV

    An IP has just requested that the Talk page of an account be blanked and fully protected in an apparent RTV request. I'd just deleted the user page of the user in question and declined {{db-g7}} on their Talk page; he claims to have already "made his account inaccessible". As the user page is already gone and the Talk page blanked, I'm not entirely comfortable indefinitely protecting it, though I respect the user's apparent wish to "disappear". Thoughts? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From looking at the times of his edits, I doubt (s)he'll be here tomorrow. No protection needed. Rudget 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry, I just courtesy blanked and protected the talk page (didn't know this discussion was here) in response to a new {{db}} tag. My rationale is, protection is harmless if they are really gone, and easily noticed and reversed if they come back. Plus, it seems like it will make them happy. The page history is still there for those who want to see it. Open to opposing reasons. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I was looking at the IPs edits who had made the request, in that case, I'd agree to a protection–though, isn't protection upon user request frowned upon? Rudget 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be frowned upon? Now deleting a talk page on user request, that is generally frowned on. In any case, I don't know if protection is frowned upon or not, just trying to do the right thing. :) --barneca (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dutch Wikipedians importing disputes

    Could people review what is happening with Dutch Wikipedians trying to add and remove content from the English Wikipedia? Those removing content seem to think that consensus at the Dutch Wikipedia can be imported here. What should be done in cases like this. See the following:

    This dispute seems to be spreading:

    Guido den Broeder may have a conflict of interest here, but I am concerned about the activities of the Dutch Wikipedians who are following him here. They are reverting him and trying to impose an external consensus here (formed at the Dutch Wikipedia apparently, though I can't confirm that). What should be done about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What should be done is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. There's no policy that allows external consensus to be imported from anywhere-- as far as the English wikipedia is concerned, it's the same thing as posting on an external forum to gain support for something here. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think User:Fram hit the nail on the head, there's no problems with the Dutch guys wishing to chase the COI and spam aspect down. But just because it has been through the channels on nl.wikipedia, doesn't mean it doesn't have to go through it again here. The prods have been contested so they should go through AfD and the case argued there. Khukri 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (thanks). In general, my (not unbiased) view on this is that we have two problems: the first is a group of Dutch editors who are bringing their conflict with Guido den Broeder to the English Wikipedia. By doing it in such a way (as a group effort), it comes close to harassment. The second is Guido den Broeder, who, despite his denials, has serious COI problems in much of his editing, and doesn't seem to be able to take criticism from anyone. He is under severe ArbCom restrictions on the Dutch Wikipedia for exactly this problem, he has had a mentor for six months, and that mentorship has just been extended, and he is currently blocked for two weeks there. This should have no influence on what he can and can't do here, but it gives an idea of the background. I think that both sides of the conflict need some serious warnings from uninvolved admins, one for importing their conflicts and for harassing anyone, and the other to stop all possible COI edits. Fram (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by Gerriet42

    Resolved

    As per [[84]], User:Gerriet42 was blocked recently for 5 days for sockpuppetry on the Sunscreen article. He has unwisely chosen to register an alt account to evade the block in order to castigate me on my talk page: [[85]]. This account has also been used to continue editing the Sunscreen page: [[86]]

    I leave it to you folks to determine what to do about it, of course. Jtrainor (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock blocked indefinitely and master's block reset. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This talk page needs to be reviewed, and may need to be semi-protected indefinitely. The BLP subject in question, Giovanni di Stefano, is apparently banned as a user. The son of the BLP subject is a banned user. However, for some reason it appears a variety of users have tolerated his IP-based posts, as seen here. This includes such gems such as

    My questions are: why is this tolerated when this page is clearly watched by multiple admins? BLP subject or no, they live by the same rules as every other user. This guy needs to go to OTRS, or leave the public website. WP:NLT exists for a reason. My other question is, as the entire anonymous history on the talk page appears to be just this person posting from Italy, why have we not simply semi-protected the talk page? This user appears to have lost, or discarded, his usefulness and right even as a BLP subject to this talk page, and I would wager his services are no longer needed or allowed there. I see an ex-arbiter has worked on this before, as has Jimbo Wales, but there are no exemptions to NLT I am aware of. Will someone be willing to semi-protect the page? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First are you sure that di stefano is banned, thta is news to me. He had an account, can you confirm that account is indef blocked. Second as far as I am aware di Stefano has not posted tot he article or talk page for months, it is his son who has been doing os recentlky and got blocked by Fred Bauder today. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, MSDS is banned then (altered the original post), the individual who claims to be di Stefano's son. However, since this user only posts from random IP addresses in Italy, and no other anonymous users post to the talk page, for the protect of our users from legal threats and disruption we ought to semi-protect the talk page. MSDS, whomever that is, has lost the priviledge of using that page in the way he has. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support semi-protection of the talk page and ideally full protection of the article page but if not semi-protection for that page too. Clearly issuing legal threats on wikipedia is nott he way to resolve anything. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been protected long enough.Geni 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be against semi-protecting both the talkpage and the article. Even before the threat against me, it was pretty clear to me that the activities of the subject and his son were not terribly helpful to the article or Wikipedia in general. They still have recourse to OTRS. Full protection of the article seems unnecessary at this point. Avruch T 14:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about semi-protection of both for 2-4 weeks and a helpful reminder about OTRS? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont believe that would be controversial at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A month semi-prot wouldn't be bad, but 6 months might make more sense. Avruch T 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs often do make very helpful edits. I wouldn't want to see them shut out for so long, when this could calm down within a few weeks. The page can always be semi-protected for another month if the IP threats start up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a 6 month semi on the article but re the talk I think we should not semi lock for more than a month on the basis that we can review in 4 weeks time as to whether the lock should be extended. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way I'd support semi-protection now, of both. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we split the difference and semi the entire mess for 2-3 months? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and do it. If all goes quiet and somebody asks, it can always be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't myself, I'm not an admin. :) Anyone willing to do this? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this item is now posted at WP:RPP but, for whatever reason (hot potato?) no-one has touched it. I'd support one month semi-protection for both article and Talk. There were personal attacks, though but we don't see all the time. The April 17 legal threat is more troubling, and that's why I believe semi-protection is justified. The IPs used by di Stefano's son do occasionally seem to provide relevant information, and the rate of bad editing is low. The article edits he has made are not defamatory, so BLP doesn't obviously apply. But if there are any more legal threats (after 1 month) I'd support indef semi for the Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this discussion, and the request at WP:RPP, I semi'd the article for 2 months and the talk page for 1 month. Anyone is free to adjust the durations or remove protection entirely, without contacting me. For those who are active on this article, I would suggest creating a subpage (such as Talk:Giovanni di Stefano/comments) that can be transcluded somewhere on the main talk page so that anons and new users who wish to make constructive comments can do so. I suppose another alternative would be to place a note at the top of the talk page directing them here. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arcayne

    Hi, I've copied back this thread after I received the following message:

    You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by JzG for the following reason(s): Block evasion

    This block has been set to expire: 13:18, 17 April 2008.

    Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email. Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

    Original Thread:

    nowiki {resolved|75.57.196.81 is disruptive and disputatious, blocked.} nowiki

    Hi, I'm just trying to get along and do my best here, civilly and with reason.

    I posted a question at the Reliable Source Notice Board, "Are a Films credits a reliable source for a Movies InfoBox?"

    I received an answer, 'A films credits are a reliable source and are the preferred use for an InfoBox.' I marked the thread as Resolved. Arcayne changed my edit marked it as Unresolved. After a couple of additional comments by Arcayne and no change in the answer to my question, I marked it as Resolved. This is in accordance with the instructions on the Reliable Source Notice Board which state: If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with

    Resolved

    .

    Arcayne then removed my entire comments and marked it as Unresolved while stating the following:

    "do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy" Arcayne

    • Suffice it to say, I am not comfortable with his obsession with me, and do not feel particularly welcome here, is this just Wikipedia and do I need to toughen up? I'm really not sure what has made me his latest target, I honestly just think he saw me as a soft target of opportunity as I'm just a lowly public editor. Irregardless, he has brought me before more forums, reverted me, followed me and discussed me on more pages than I can possibly count at this point without any evidence that I have done any of the numerous specific

    things he has tried to pin on me. Can someone respectfully request that he try to abide by the bare minimum of Wiki standards?75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I have now been reverted and a second, nearly identical threat has been left for me by Arcayne: "Do not ever alter (1, 2) the content of my posts in a discussion page again. I take significant exception. If it ever occurs again, I will have request to have you blocked so fast that your kids will get whiplash. This is your only warning in regards to this topic, so I would urge you not to test my resolve on this particular subject. Arcayne"

    Sorry to use your time on this. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    I have informed User:Arcayne of this conversation, as we usually try to do here. - Philippe 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you, I missed this one that came with the second one - " if you are looking to get blocked, you are going about it in the right way."75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


    With respect, manipulating my posts to alter my intent is refactoring. We don't do that here. Yet you seem to feel (1, 2) that you are exempt from this behavioral guideline. You don't refactor another user's comments to alter intent or content, though you can fix indenting and the like (and even that is open to debate). However, after wrning you that this is an unacceptable practice, and my offense to it, you did it again. I subsequently warned you that you were well on the path to being blocked for it, as it is a part of a history of harassment on your part.
    Additionally, you have a rather long-standing habit of marking as resolved those conversations where discussion is still occurring. If you feel that the moment you get the answer you are looking for marks the end of a multi-user discussion, you are mistaken. This is why you have been counseled (and, unfortunately, warned as well) to await the conclusions of discussions before taking action.
    Perhaps if you are not comfortable with having your actions paid attention to, you should consider altering how you interact with your fellow editors within the encyclopedia. As for my so-called "obsession," with you, I think you are forgetting that you have filed (now) three separate AN/I complaints against me, two of which were dismissed with the advice that you seek DR. When approached by myself to pursue DR, you simply ignored it. Subsequent AN/I complaints have indicated that your editing behavior needs somewhat noticeable improvement. If you are concerned with y attention to your personal attacks on me, consider not making htem in the first place. Try leaving my edits be, without altering them. That seems to be an awfully good start improving how your actions are perceived.
    And while we are on the subject of your actions, it has been discussed that you might be a former user. Have you ever edited under a formal ID in Wikipedia before (before the dozen anons, I mean). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry Arcayne, but I will no longer respond to your empty baseless accusations. I'm here to improve the content of the articles that I edit. That is all. I will not waste my time responding to every McCarthy like thumping of your fist upon the "facts". As was once said so eloquently, "At long last sir ..." 75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Might I suggest that, in keeping with that brand new outlook, that you perhaps stop filing AN/I reports every time your edits get reverted? Or when you are caught trying to conceal your edit history? Or when someone warns you to stop attacking others? Granted, I responded a bit harshly with having my edits altered, but you were the one who altered them. Twice. After I asked you specifically not to. You want to be left alone. Leave others alone. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    I will continue to defend my honest actions and will, as always, abide by the customs and practices here, and I will not stop shining a harsh light upon your actions here when I am your target. I do it not for me, but for the good of the community and in the defense of your future prey.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sigh. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    That's hardly a civil behavior for a thread where civility's the key. Youv'e been on AN/I before for this sort of combative response to newer editors than you, and the cavalier way you dismiss some aspects of opposition while berating opponents in those backhanded manners grates on others. Those who see the good work you do have spoken to you about this sort of problem before, both on the previous AN/I threads, on the relevant talk pages, and on your talk page. As such, I can't say much more than that if not this time, the very next incidence of such persistent behaviors ought to result in a block, so it doesn't escalate into another drama. ThuranX (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


    It looks like the block came from here, but no one seems to have been aware of this or the reason for it. This action here appeared to conclude with the edit above by ThuranX at 01:57, 16 April. My IP changed and I had confirmed edits from a new IP at 14:07, 16 April. I was apparently blocked at 21:35, 16 April. I am now charged with Block Evasion by Arcayne and he is now engaged in a private effort to have me banned. Arcayne has also informed me that I have been Blocked for 1 Week (this differs from my screen shot: 13:18, 17 April) As I have stated I do abide by the rules here and will continue to do so, I will refrain from edits until this is sorted out and my status is resolved. I am not comfortable with Arcaynes continued relentless obsession with me - especially following ThuranX's comments. I had hoped that this combative and personal assault was over.75.58.44.23 (talk)

    • While I always think Arcayne can be more reserved in his responses (I have that critique about myself), from what I read on Talk:Fitna (film), this IP address has been pretty contentious with most editors, declaring consensus when consensus was not obtained, telling Arcayne he is making "false statements" and other behavior that is not optimal. Granted, Arcayne has been around and should respond to a contentious IP editor in less sardonic language; but this IP's behavior is also objectionable, and based upon the Talk:Fitna (film) discussions, was trying most people's patience on that page...that was my reading of it. --David Shankbone 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    As a point of fact, Arcayne failed to enlist a single voice in support of his effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[87][88][89][90] [91]different sections on WP:RS, taken before WP:OR, efforts to enlist support were made on numerous user talk pages; it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous distinct editors and then immediately Reverted by Arcayne on Ten Separate Occasions and now he's opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style!WP:MOS[92]

    The issue was nothing more than listing a name in the credits without an editorial addition, that was the sole issue. The current discussion is an effort to compromise with Arcayne on how to do it. Please do not equate my defense of Encyclopedic standards with Arcaynes personal efforts to "Win." 75.58.44.23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just because on one proposal does Arcayne have a minority view does not make him disruptive. In fact, most editors on the Talk article seem to be taking issue with you. Arcayne seems to be trying to work out a compromise. Many of your diffs are just his disagreeing with you. You are raising a content dispute at this point. Yes, Arcayne can better phrase himself; the rest of your issue...whether it be consensus changing or Arcayne raising policy and guideline arguments...this is not the place. Continued discussion on the Talk page is the place. --David Shankbone 15:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    My apologies, I have only sought to support my response to your assertions. I have not posted there since yesterday. The last line in the section is this: "Arcayne, as the sole holdout to Proposal 2, can you live with this approach? If not, why not? Blueboar 15:02, 17 April". 75.58.44.23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand your frustration, but if Arcayne is the sole holdout, then it sounds like consensus is against him and the Proposal 2 will be adopted regardless. If he raises another argument against it that had not been considered before, then it merits more discussion. Arcayne is not known for WP:GAME, so I would imagine he is at least giving reasoned and thoughtful arguments. You had a point with the WP:CIVIL argument, but this board is for violations of guideline and policy...please keep the content discussions on the article's talk page. Good luck to you. It *can* be frustrating to argue over minutia; everyone here understands (and does it!) --David Shankbone 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notifybot

    Resolved

    has run amuck and is tagging images as orphaned when they are clearly not. For example Image:ChanduTheMagician.jpg is clearly still reciprocally linked to Chandu the Magician (radio). can someone please shut it off and fix it? Thank you. Now how do we untag the images? EraserGirl (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the image isn't being used, as evident from the empty "File links" section on the Image description page. There is a problem with the infobox at Chandu the Magician (radio) though, and I can't get the image displayed properly. Once that is fixed, the image will be no longer orphaned, and the deletion tag can be removed. Somebody else will have to look at it though, I can't figure it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just missing an imagesize (fixed). Might want to look into the template to avoid such mishaps in the future though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the deletion tag from the image. All done here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive had the same issue, but someone had changed a template which is what caused BCBot to tag some images as orphaned. (just a heads up). βcommand 2 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Murder threat

    Andy o'rourke specifically: [problematic text commented out, see page sourse]

    do we just ignore this stuff or what? ninety:one 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the user who posted it. Someone in Ireland may want to contact the authorities. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:TOV for more instructions and suggestions. Bstone (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP threat

    User:172.192.57.37 has left a somewhat threatening message on my talk page, [93] and is engaged in a continous edit war on Mary Baker Eddy using as he/she says an unlimited number of ip addresses, User:172.191.81.28, User:172.191.126.225 etc. All similar numbers beginning with 172 and on a singular track having to do with religion. I'd appreciate some help, thanks Modernist (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address blocked 31 hours for WP:3RR breach; article semi-pp for three days. We'll take it from there. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, appreciated. Modernist (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple established users have seemingly left Wikipedia this week

    Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have noticed an unfortunate trend this week of many established editors (Giano II, Kwsn, MONGO, Pixelface, etc.) having left Wikipedia. Anyway, I thought I might share this news here so that if anyone wants to leave these users a nice message or thank them for their contributions, they might do so. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yea, User:Maxim has left us too. :( Tiptoety talk 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also User talk:One Night In Hackney (who has previous doing this, but appears quite serious about it this time) Black Kite 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this week just off or something? I take Wikipedia seriously and all, but I have way more personal matters to actually get stressed out about than a volunteer project regardless of how interested I am in it. Is it really so difficult for people to cooperate and when they cannot agree to disagree without getting so frustrated? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that IRC i see mentioned in several threads there, maybe the unaccountable nature of that medium has something to do with it. (Hypnosadist) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a severe problem, and it partly has to do with some cultural issues that we need to address on Wikipedia. We need to be a more supportive community with each other, even those we disagree with. What tends to happen is people who give a lot of time, effort and consideration to how they work on Wikipedia are disparaged when they don't handle attacks, stalking (in my case) or perceived underappreciation. Then we have people who give very little content (but a lot of Talk page argumentation) and disparage those editors even further (Case in point: Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas). Often, those who have done or given little, and may even be considered a net negative to the project, resent those whose work has enhanced it (technical, content, artistic, graphic, research, Wikignomes, vandal fighters) and whose voices are listened to more than those who...do very little. It creates a bad environment. There's an attitude that, "We can always find another one of you." That simply isn't the case with many contributors. That doesn't mean they should be given carte blanche, but in some cases, people who are attacked or feeling overwhelmed sometimes need the community to take a look at their situation and provide some help or support. We really need to focus on community more, and less on deriding each other. --David Shankbone 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)So Giano leaves, and the admin who blocked him left. Mongo leaves, and the admin who blocked him might well leave if ArbCom takes a case "scrutinising" his block. ONIH has left - and he can take a lot! - and Pixelface left after being "vandal templated" by Will, who's been nominating random things for deletion as well. Can we all take a step back and recognise that we need to do something to reduce the amount of pile-on frakking drama in this place? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, because I am surely an evil deletionist who doesn't want to improve the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was merely pointing out that that sort of thing encourages too much drama. Look, we're too big and have too many people with entrenched interests now to do crazy bold things like nominate State Terrorism and the US and Mark Foley Scandal or whatever for deletion without a reasonable discussion about whether its a good idea first. Ditto, templating a regular with whom you've just had an ArbCom case. What I was trying to say is that reducing this sort of stressful drama is a priority, and, yes, I was singling you out - I apologise for that - as someone whose recent actions have definitely not helped. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on whether to make discussion is the stupidest thing ever. Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that was polite, and worded so as to reduce any atmosphere of tension. However, may I humbly submit that since you have recently done several things that haven't worked out too well, you might want to actually get a bit of a reality-check before doing anything drama-inducing. I hasten to add that this thread isn't about you. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Succinct and pretty much what I was thinking. I swear, this place has more drama than the furry fandom, and believe me, that ain't a compliment. A look at the issues above, though, are rather concerning: the Giano situation is unpleasant - from both sides of the coin - and the MONGO deal is certainly upsetting in how it came about and how it was handled. I've no idea what the other situations really are, but all in all this does indicate that we need some sanity to return to the place in a big hurry. My concern is that right now our best routes for handling incidents are discussions here or at RfC that can turn into long, drawn-out bitchfests with more noise than signal, ArbCom, which some folks have declared as ineffectual and bureaucratic (or, in some cases, as corrupt - which is kind of sad in itself), and ... well, that's about it. How do we best deal with drama? Do we enact some other kind of message board for community discussion that's aimed at a positive approach? Will that even work in a collaborative editing environment? Lots of questions, but until we find some answers to them we're probably going to keep seeing this kind of thing happen. Sad, but true. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that is well-said. I've often thought we should have a counterpart to WP:BITE which held that established contributors are no more worthy of being "bitten" than newbies. On the one hand, they should know a bit better... on the other, they're known quantities, and there really is a process of burnout that happens in dealing with a seemingly endless string of petty incidents of the sort that are so common on Wikipedia. In any case, though, messages of support for users who have left are best delivered by email or off-wiki. At least one of these users, Giano, has apparently asked specifically that people not post to his talk page for now. In general, a long line of "please come back" posts on a departed user's talk page probably plays into the same sort of drama that led them leave in the first place. Give them some space, and send a message of support by email. I'm sure it will still be appreciated. MastCell Talk 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have an issue with "Please come back" on Talk pages, especially since it alerts people that the person has left. But regardless of your method (on or off Wiki) letting people know they have support when they are under fire is an important aspect of our collaboration here. --David Shankbone 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I sent a message to Mongo a few days ago and he responded fairly quickly, indicating in the message that he was fairly serious about leaving. I do note that WP:MILHIST has a stress hotline. Maybe we could try to institute something similar for wikipedia in general, although it'd probably be a bear trying to make it known or useful. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a volunteer project, we will have people leaving on a regular basis. Those who know them well may want to contact these people by private means, but as a general community we should just wish them well and let them go in peace. See also meatball:GoodBye. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a very good view. Rudget 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it's not, it's a poor view. It says, "If you want to go, go." There are people who work on this project who neither seek nor expect gratitude or thanks. But when they feel under attack, they feel unappreciated. Like it or not, leaving Wikipedia is typically the only way people realize that others, in fact, like them and what they did. Many people leave exactly because of that attitude. --David Shankbone 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that, independent of individual situations, we should look for overall patterns and try to remedy the bad ones. A more functional dispute resolution system would be a great improvement in this regard. But, once someone has taken the step to walk away, rather than trying to get into their head, I think it's more respectful to just say "Your contributions are appreciated, and you're welcome back any time. Thanks for lending a hand." This will reassure those who have left in good faith, without validating any who may have stormed out in a passive aggressive display. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree. People who tell someone to not leave aren't doing it to people they don't know. They say it people who they do know, typically see they are going through a rough time, etc. We aren't detached robots, and Wikipedia is a stressful place to work for just about all of us. So, I disagree wholeheartedly with your approach, but we each deal with people departing from the project differently. But if enough people get fed up and leave, and you suddenly find yourself without people who create bots, take hard-to-get photos, create challenging maps from scratch, research and write interesting articles, etc. you may have found yourself saying, "Wow, I wish I had told those people how much I wish they would stay instead of letting them passively letting them go..." What you articulate, this idea we are all replaceable, is the cultural problem I have talked about. There simply are some people who I see as key to the functioning and pricelessness of this project. There are others who I don't think anyone would miss. It's important differentiate the two, and recognize that sometimes all it takes to retain one is to give them a little heartfelt appreciation. That really isn't a lot to ask of any of us. --David Shankbone 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Add User:Crimsone to that list, as a result of this discussion, above. Equazcion /C20:04, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)

    Toss in User:The Evil Spartan and User:Ed Poor. MBisanz talk 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to seem cold or anything, but how is this an incident for the Admin noticeboard? People exercising their right to leave is not something that "requires the intervention of administrators." They all left for different reasons, and no admin action is required. This seems like something that belongs over at the Village Pump or something.Collectonian (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't mind moving this over to AN, but there are some admin issues I think insofar as some of these users did "special" tasks like handling mass-tagged image deletions or creating unique templates. Like I've said, we really need to work on our redundancy issues re: this sorta thing. MBisanz talk 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AN, AN/I...does it really matter? The fact is a discussion is taking place, and here looks like just as fine a place as any. Tiptoety talk 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post something in this thread, but then saw that Carl/CBM said pretty much exactly the same thing, word for word, and link.  :) So, ditto. --Elonka 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That many people have left? sheesh.. I didn' tknow about half of those. Wizardman 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In well-run organizations, you do your best to hold on to your most productive workers. You give them the support they need and shield them from stuff that gets in the way of their work. New people are supported too, but if it becomes clear that things aren't working out you make the split as quickly and cleanly as possible. At Wikipedia we do the opposite: we worship the unproven newcomer and bend over backward to accommodate those whose impact is net-negative, ignoring the damage that this does to our best editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd agree there. We seem to take quantity-over-quality approach when it comes to keeping people here. We also reason that seasoned editors should be more difficult to offend, so we aren't quite as careful in dealing with them, and when they do take offense we blame them for not knowing better. "He's been here a while, he should know this by now", so there's no need to handle the situation delicately.
    Or if you want to be completely honest, the people who are as experienced as us are seen as equals, so "bowing" to them hurts our pride. Conversely there's no shame in accommodating a newbie. All that does is make us feel like helpful mentors. There's a lot of ego at play. Equazcion /C08:24, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

    sockpupeteer creates yet another sock, please block

    short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

    This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [94][95] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [96]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    His contributions are here. 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Levine2112 (talk · contribs)

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

    Per WP:UP#NOT, I would appreciate if Levine2112 would delete User:Levine2112/notes and apologize to me publicly. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If he's using this to gather evidence for an arbitration case against you, I suppose he's within his rights to do so. I wouldn't complain too loudly, either. Forewarned is forearmed.
    If, however, he's just using this as a "laundry list" moaning page, it should be deleted/moved off-wiki. Unless the arbitration case materialises within a week, I'll delete the page. Moreschi2 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's not allowed, as I stated above, and it represents an attack page, I hope another admin will choose to delete it.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is allowed if it's evidence-gathering for ArbCom. Please read the policy you linked to again. Otherwise, yes, it is not. Moreschi2 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See this recent MfD debate - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The undertow/Notebook. Black Kite 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Time to cool down folks. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Levine2112[97][98] should explain his reasons for creating the note page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted by an admin. We're done here. And note to Pop-psychologist-over-the-internet editor. Who's not cool? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're not, after that pointless snide comment. Was there significant value to attacking him? ThuranX (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't bother to expect an answer; anyone who doesn't see things OrangeMarlin's way is one of 'the bad guys'. He probably already considers you a troll. HalfShadow (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    vandalism only account, sock of blocked user

    Resolved
     – Indef blocked as vandal-only account --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user User:Markymark120 is a vandalism-only account (see contributions [99]), and is a sock of the blocked user User:Aimar120, see his sock case. Please block him too. (I didn't log until today, so my user page has been vandalized for 3 days because of him) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody's userpage should go three days with that kind of nonsens on it. Sorry you had to be the first to find it after being there for three days. You're on my watchlist now Enric, for what it's worth, to try and catch it sooner if he (or anyone else) returns. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Killah666 should be indefblocked

    Resolved
     – Good times had by all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Killah666 (talk · contribs) is nothing but trouble. Edit history shows little else but petty vandalism [100], creating and then repeatedly recreating inappropriate articles [101], edit warring, spamming [102], blanking pages [103], leaving inappropriate edit summaries containing attacks on fellow editors [104], and then continuing to vandalize his own talk page after being bocked for 31 hours [105]. Should be indef blocked as a persistent troll. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This could go to WP:AIV as he is vandalizing after a block was placed. Also this looks like nothing but a vandal account anyway. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see here that the user's been blocked indefinitely. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Annotated bibliographies

    There's been a number of "Annotated bibliographies" created in the last two days:

    U.S. Defense Budget Trends over the past 50 Years: An Annotated Bibliography (talk) {afd}

    High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography (talk) {afd}

    Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography (talk) {afd}

    Taxation of Carried Interest: An Annotated Bibliography (talk) {afd}

    Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography (talk) {afd}

    They have all been created by different authors but follow a similar pattern. These seem an unusual article format and my interest was piqued when I noticed there were at least these five. They are problematic because they fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, and each one has been at least PRODded by various other editors. There's no evidence of anything untoward going on here; it could be a coincidence, or if there is a link it could be a school project. But I thought I might flag it up for people to keep an eye on. Ros0709 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Each of the five is currently on AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Ros0709 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree these are problematic. I once considered making such a list for mathematical logic texts, but decided against it because the criteria for inclusion are so broad as to violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Any annotation is likely to be original research, unless we have published reviews of the articles to refer to. But I think the WP:NOT issue is more central. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is another created in the same time-frame and following the same pattern:

    1. The effectiveness of neurofeedback as a treatment for Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder : An annotated bibliography

    I have also taken this one to AFD. Ros0709 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Those really look like something created for a school project devised by a person who doesn't really understand what Wikipedia is. Just delete and leave a note to the authors that if they need the content they can request to get it userfied. - Bobet 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All six were created within a few days, and for all six, this was the first and only creation. One placed a link in an existing article, and none responded on their talk pages. I agree that this looks like a school project. I also don't see any of the usual POV pushing or promotional overtones here, rather it was probably devised by, as Bobet suggested, someone not familiar with WP. I think that once the AfDs close and the articles are deleted (almost for sure), we should leave something more than the usual note on their talk pages, per WP:BITE. Even better, userfy with a note. — Becksguy (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another two are appearing in search results now:

    1. Middle Eastern Governments: An Annotated Bibliography
    2. The Convergence of IAS with GAAP: An Annotated Bibliography

    Already PRODded; I'll also take them to AfD. Ros0709 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also:

    1. Annotated Bibliography: The Future of International Accounting Standards

    User:RHaworth has explicitly asked the authors of three of the articles if this is a school project here and a question about whether two of the articles were linked was asked [here]. No responses were given. Ros0709 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review (William M. Connolley of Travb)

    I have read here previously that there is a rule about an admin blocking a user they are in an edit conflict with. As such I am asking for someone to review a block on the grounds the admin was in fact in an edit war with the user he blocked. The user in question is Travb, the article is Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, yes that article, the admin in question is user:William M. Connolley.

    • user:William M. Connolley some time ago arrived on the article in question and fully protected it from edits: [106]
    • He then proceeds to remove much of the content while the article is edit protected: [107] much of the content was under discussion on the article talk page. In either case the admin should not protect a page then go forth editing it against consensus.
    • Additional content removal can be seen here [108] I am not arguing for or against the content, this edit is to simply show William was involved in the article.
    • Numerous people have reverted Williams edits that were made under the full protection state: Including RedPenOfDoom who makes a "protest 1RR" BernardL who also makes a 1RR in protest of the editing of the article while it was protected.

    Not only does this show William was involved in editing the article, making him and Travb at opposite ends of a content dispute, but he edited the article while it was fully protected which is another no, no since the content was not being removed due to BLP or an act of WP:OFFICE. The block in question can be seen here: [109] clearly by an admin who should not have made it, and specifically for Travb's edit here: [110] which was not a particularly nice edit summary, however as I recall in the recent case of another admin, this was grounds as some put it for the removal of admin rights, and at least for review as the other side argued. I therefore am asking for some admins to chime in if it is ok to block users you are clearly in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Such fun, but thanks for IWS for letting me know. This article has a long and controversial history, recently exacerbated by abusive socks. Fortunately, the worst of these are now blocked [111]. Travb was restoring the edits of this blocked sock [112] and this lead to the article being protected (well, Travb ran off to req-for-prot to get it protected. Sadly for Travb, it got reverted yet again before protection). But the article doesn't (now) need protection, it needs disruptive editors kept away. So I've blocked Travb and unprotected the article (note that the article was protected on what is nominally my preferred version) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for participating in the discussion as I was not fully sure of the rules, however you did not address the concern presented which is blocking users you are in a content dispute with. Is this permitted? If not do you regret breaking the rule? Just so other are aware, I am not asking for Travb to be unblocked, I am asking for a clarification to the rule. I was under the impression that BLP violations were the only cases except for "oversight" that allowed for an admin to block someone he was edit warring with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't always so, IWS; trolls and impersonation accounts can be blocked by the user they're trolling or imping (at least from my experience). -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In this particular case the user is neither, they are a long time editor of the article, they made a revert to a version which William did not agree with, which William honestly admits, and were blocked afterwards. The article as far as I know had a sock issue, however I do not believe any of them have been linked to Travb. If William knows otherwise please let me know, if its true that he has not been linked to any such accounts, I would ask William clarifies what others are misinterpreting as an allegation against Travb. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you comment on the issue of your involvement in the article, editing it while its protected, and blocking an editor on that article whose content opinion opposes yours? Avruch T 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (cur) (last) 20:24, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "State terrorism and the United States": experiment [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 20:19, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (150,213 bytes) (→Hypocrisy about state terrorism: restore ref; rm the) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 07:34, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (150,047 bytes) (→Hypocrisy about state terrorism: trim W; rm creds. See talk) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 22:09, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (152,684 bytes) (→Europe (1945-1989): what is this to do with state terrorism?) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 22:06, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (158,288 bytes) (→Background: fix ref?) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 22:01, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (158,287 bytes) (rm defn section - there is an entire article about it, we should not do the details here) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 22:13, 9 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (164,875 bytes) (protected) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 22:12, 9 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "State terrorism and the United States": the usual [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (undo)
    • The above is generally discouraged, and for good reason. Based on your activity in this article, are you sure you should be protecting it and blocking people without asking for an outside admin? Avruch T 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ON the basis of that evidence I have unblocked Trab. WMC was in no way in hell an uninvolved admin. ViridaeTalk 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh thanks. I look forward to your help keeping the article sane. Perhaps you'd like to restore the banned socks edits yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Find some way to do it that doesn't involve using your admin tools to bolster your side of the dispute. ViridaeTalk 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what happened and your characterization is somewhat presumptive. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd invite any uninvolved admin to block Travb (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) on the merits of his contributions in the last 24 hours. Nothing but disruptions and personal attacks. Even if you think WMC might have been the wrong one to do it, but it was a righteous block. I'd invite the unblocking admin to review the merits of the reasons and reblock or explain why he shouldn't be blcoked. Then you can be uninvolved and still help the project instead of just being a bureaucratic enabler. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong person, good block. I've reblocked for 23h (the original 24 minus the one hour already blocked). — Coren (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is actually another user that was blocked that William was in an edit war with, again a violation of the blocking policy. This was overturned without it coming to AN/I with user:Supergreenred also around the same article in question. The user was later blocked however for being a sockpuppet. I am starting to think perhaps this article is causing a conflict in Williams ability to act as an admin objectively. I notice above there is an Arbcom hearing for removing admin ability, while I do not think this is needed as the problem is revolving around one article, can an Arbcom hearing be called simply to ask William not be permitted to edit this article further? I think perhaps it will help all, the editors who are having these tools used against them as a heavy hand, and William who seems to put himself in a bad situation by continuing to remove and add protection at his sole discretion and block users who he is in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The block was clearly legit-- Travb was edit warring and reverting to the preferred versions of sockpuppets. Perhaps this specific admin shouldn't have done it, but the block certainly was well-deserved. Jtrainor (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the issue is whether the admin used admin powers in unacceptable ways.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, I noted specifically I was not asking for the block to be removed. It seems it is the second instance of blocking someone he was in an edit war with on this particular article, as well as now two instances of misusing tools to either protect, or remove protection from an article he was engaged in content disputes over. What I am not wondering if there is a way to institute an article block to prevent further actions. Much of the damage could possibly have already been done, I personally stepped away from the article prior to these incidents, however how is anyone to oppose William's opinions knowing the articles content is subject to his approval or receives, or has an editing block removed, and editors reverting him face a block. Especially considering the reverting was done by a large swath of users and only those opposing Williams views have faced any penalty. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been a horrendous battleground for a long time; a locus point for extensive socking, incivility, terribly POV editing, and whatnot. Like others of its class, including Views of Lyndon LaRouche and List of events named massacres, it needed extraordinary admin attention, and WMC stepped up. His actions seem commensurate with the level of TLC this wonderful article needed. - Merzbow (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. It is a very narrow set of users. I'd also add that User:William M. Connolley is hardly a right wing ideologue or an apologist for American foreign policy. The fact that the core set of people are complaining about his edits and deletions speak to how far gone the article is. It, and its spinoffs, are perhaps the WORST articles in Wikipedia. Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The massive deletions occurred prior to any discussion and editors protested through reverts and other means--and these were long term established editors, most of whom are protesting these actions. The mass deletions were done by force, using admin tools, and without consensus. The Japan section was removed simply because the editor personally doens't think its "state terrorism." Its as if WP rules and policies are being ignored here, consensus is being ignored, and now you are reinventing reality. As far as what someone's politics are, that is irrelevant. What the admins Political Party affiliations are irrelevant. What is relevant is using your political views as a basis to POV push here, evidence by the desire to blank sourced information because one doesn't personally agree with the views.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disturbed by the POV use of administrator tools in this content dispute. Clearly this is the issue, and no one disputes that this is a factual occurrence. An involved admin in a content dispute jumps in to help out one side only, and punishing the other. He does this through very heavy handed means: editing through protection to suite his views, and blocking only one side of those edit warring. And doing this multiple times. These are the facts--no matter who is right on the POV question. This kind of abuse of the tools sets a terrible standard. Correction for abuse of the tools in such a repeated and blatant fashion is simple: remove of the tools. This will stop this problem. Again the facts: the admin protects the article, makes massive changes--through protection--without allowing for consensus or discussion first, and then blocks a number of editors who opposed him, and reverts again. So who is being the disruptive one? Who is violating core policies? Who is abusing their admin tools? And what do we do about it when it happens? I think this may be a case for de-sysoping.
    I will also point out that large amounts of legitimate content that was added through consensus among many established editors, and through compromise, was simply blanked without discussion, to to mention without consensus. When we have consensus for massive changes like that, then it would be fine. Until then it was correct to restore the material, as Trav tried to do. Yes, he edit warred by reverting 3 times, but guess what? An editor on the other side of the fence of the content dispute did the same thing, reverting 3 times. And only ONE party was blocked--the one the admin disagrees with in the content dispute. That is wrong on a number of levels, but it clear only one side of the POV dispute that is being punished, and not a single one of the editors deleting the material is blocked despite their edit warring, and despite them doing so against consensus. This is sending a chilling effect to all other editors, and this bullying though use of admin powers to effect content disputes is not only against policy, but sets a terrible example that should not go unchecked.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The block was 100% good. This thread is a waste of everyone's time. Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, as a note, Travb is NOT a long time editor of the article. He showed up out of the blue and began reverting to the same version as several sockpuppets that were subsequently blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are wrong as his edits go as far back as December of 2007, [114], I would say that satisfies long time. I can check for ones further back but I think your mischaracterization has been proven wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Travb might be the single most longtime editor of the article, though he absented himself from it for quite some time. His edits seem to go back to August of 2006. He has 148 edits to the article itself and 856 to the talk page per wannabe kate. That's a fairly easy thing to check out, and it's better to do that first before accusing someone of showing up "out of the blue" and acting like sockpuppets. Part of what makes the article inhospitable is the constant accusations and bad faith from both sides.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) has not been used recent times and probably there are not enough editors to answer the questions there. This may not be incident, but important. Can anyone please explain what is the criteria for WP:WEB. I read WP:WEB several times, and found the following:

    The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

    This guideline says "non-trivial coverage" and then WP:WEB explains what "trivial" means:

    Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

    Some questions can arise from the above quoted statements.

    1. "multiple non-trivial published works" -- what is meant by "multiple"? One, two, three, four, five or more?
    2. Trivial implies "brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site". What is this "brief"? When it would be considered that an article published in third party reliable source is more than brief? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "Multiple" in this case, at least from my experience, implies more than one.
    2. "Brief" in this case means that articles mentioning them must not do so in passing; i.e. they mustn't simply give the site as a case example or name-drop. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it remarkable for a page responsible for so much brouhaha over the years that its edit history has been so quiet in recent times. Interesting to muse to oneself on the reasons for and implications of this. Splash - tk 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor on Alexander the Great

    For almost a week now, User:PelasgicMoon has been trying to go against consensus and change the intro to that article. Numerous users have weighed in, all against him, but he persists. He uses fringe sources and deliberately skews and misquotes those that are not. He asked admins for help, and they told him off. Then he posted a request for comment, and uninvolved editors disagreed with him, but still nothing. I tried to talk him on is talk page, but still nothing. He just ignores everyone and posts the same material over and over like broken record. The final straw came when he re-posted some misquoted sources that had been posted by banned User:Dodona and which i removed. He has so far escaped sanction because he is careful not to breach civility and keeps to the talk page, but his behavior is quite disruptive. He has filled pages and pages with his rants, infuriating other users and ignoring a rock-solid consensus. I have a feeling he will NEVER stop, because just as soon as some users tire of him and ignore him, new users join in and the cycle starts anew. He has even been warned per WP:ARBMAC and still nothing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    just a precisation, before banning me i suggest to read my posts. (and it's not true all editors disagreed with me, see PhoenixWiki). Thanks. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh?? I find this pretty far from this one from your IP in your talkpage. If anything, it can be interpreted as a consideration that WP's content has to be manipulated because of the fear of trolls constantly coming and disrupting. Note that Phoenix is saying that they were "practically one race". NikoSilver 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right, Phoenix did not agree at all with PM. Rather he disagreed later on, but here again PM is twisting what someone is saying, just like he did with those sources. In fact, the only one who agrees with PM is his banned friend Dodona (the anonymous IP mentioned above). --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And ethnic trash-talk now by the same person [[115]] --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    it's jsut what i think, a greek pushing team, it's my opinion, i hope i am free to say what i think. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a "team". just people who disagree with you. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oompapa

    Just a quick heads up, Mr oompapa (talk · contribs) is back creating socks. I see that oompapa has been tagged as a sock of molag bal? I never saw that happen. Prob close to a year ago, i was involved with oompapa who at times would create 100's of accounts a day. IF you see something with it, just block and and deny him. His names often have buddah in them. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Added the "oompapa" catchphrase that was being spammed on user talk pages and articles to Lupin's badword list.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shooting/Death Threat

    This edit really concerns me. What is the proper course of action?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TOV covers it in this case. Tiptoety talk 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I believe WP:DNFTT is a better answer. It's been reverted, the IP has been blocked. Friday (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When does a threat need to be taken seriously then? The IP (ran through GeoBytes) originates only a few miles from the location of the school which the threat has been made against. Tiptoety talk 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could just look a tad higher on this page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a relevant news report that already indicates this high school has been made aware of this death threat. However, this seems like a serious threat regardless of authorities "combing the lockers of the school" (according to the article). Should the Hacienda Heights police be notified?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (oh didn't know this threat has been made throughout the day and is being handled)[reply]
    I think this is a clear cut example of when threats need to be reported to the police, that is their job is it not, and by the news story they obviously took it seriously. I dont like the whole "their blocked, lets move on" thing. Sure they can do no more damage to Wikipedia, but what about in real life? Tiptoety talk 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The news story Persian Poet Gal posted says that the school will be closed Friday, 4/18 (when the threat said something would happen). Hopefully this is all resolved. --clpo13(talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs are still readding this threat. I cannot watch this article that closely at the moment and may not be able to catch readditions, so if RC patrollers could watchlist this I greatly appreciate it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I put in RPP request for the article. Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I just went ahead and protected it for the rest of the day. The authorities have already been contacted now it is just time to deny the threat makers the satisfaction of seeing their edits placed on wikipedia. Tiptoety talk 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if those threats should be removed from the edit history. It purportedly has the names of real minors. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say yes in any other case, but I think the police need this to stay available to them for evidence purposes. I know that I have reported some threats to the police before and they wanted the diffs to stay available to them for later use if needed. Tiptoety talk 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The police to find it very helpful to be able to reference the history. When I reporting a threat to a high school in Texas I sent the diffs to the detective while on the phone with him. He was very concerned about it and thankful that he was able to have the threat right in front of him. Bstone (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick Question

    Sorry to bring this here, but the username board specifically encourages not to bring a name there if it doesn't require immediate blocking. Is User:Steve4:20 an appropriate name for somebody who mainly edits on Nazi-influenced bands? I would suggest it may be inflammatory and divisive, but am unsure, and do not wish to get into a fight about it. Brilliantine (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While I may know nothing of "Nazi related bands", just by looking at the username, I don't see anything blatant enough to warrant reporting. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to "4:20"? Tiptoety talk 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was what i noticed, as in a certain person's birth date. May be nothing, just wondering. Brilliantine (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well the first step would be to discuss it with the user in question, they may have no idea that is his birthday. Tiptoety talk 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I hate to make assumptions, but based on that user's contributions... To be honest, I have no real desire to stray into that kind of territory, especially not when I'm tired and a bit snappy. Brilliantine (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing offensive about the name. If the person's edits are offensive, that may be a reason to block, but the name isn't. --Carnildo (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree. I think the correct place to take this if you wanted to have further investigated would be WP:RFC/NAME. Tiptoety talk 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was apot thing at first, esp. since the other would be 20:4... day month year, euuropean style... ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I thought that too, and that makes my point. We really are not sure what the users intentions where when he created the account. We just have to WP:AGF. Tiptoety talk 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I know what 4:20 means :) Time for a quick puff. Check the user's Dec 11 contributions. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Username "violations" are a quick and easy way to block people, especially newbies, if you don't like their edits. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but is there even a violation in this case? Tiptoety talk 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, and it doesn't seem to matter to the people dishing out username blocks. That's why I used scare quotes. Many people are blocked for vios that aren't really vios. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly why I came here to ask what people thought rather than listing it on one of those pages. Brilliantine (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Although, I should have brought this up sooner, could someone more knowledgeable on the foundations' policies take a look at this [116]. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like trolling to me. I am not sure what they want us to do. Tiptoety talk 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting how that diff is supposedly deleted, yet I can see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.129.57 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You just needed to purge your cache, it is most defiantly deleted now though. Tiptoety talk 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This was here a few days ago, but I'm wondering if any outside admins are willing to check out the situation at this article. I'm no fan of the movie or its viewpoint, but the article has some very blatant WP:NPOV and WP:SYN problems, immediately in advance of its first public showing tomorrow. A steady stream of editors has arrived to complain, but with all the noise it's become quite difficult to deal with. I think people would like to avoid protecting the article, but if a few admins or others might look in with focused and specific ways to help, it might do a good deal for the article over the next few days. Mackan79 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mackan79 seems unable to accept the requirements of NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and has made accusations of WP:SYN on content sourced from the National Center for Science Education used as a secondary source from a mainstream viewpoint. Additional eyes will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackan79 has also brought some very good points to the table. A formal peer review of the article would be most helpful. Angry Christian (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not many in comparison to those that ignore WP:NPOV Undue Weight. Odd nature (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Indeed, my concern is particularly with the first overview section here, discussed here, which has significant WP:SYN problems as well as strongly opinionated language ("The film openly sets out," "The film ignores," "Stein tries to dismiss," etc.) The WP:SYN issue relates to sections that are sourced only to articles about intelligent design, but predating or not discussing this film. Some editors say this is necessary to present the predominant view on a type of pseudoscience (a characterization I don't dispute), while I and various others are trying to clarify that this is an article about the film, not about ID, which means so satisfy WP:SYN we need sources that discuss the movie. I think it can be appreciated if people read the section at issue, linked above and again here. Mackan79 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the sort of disingenuousnesses in Mackan's comment more than a little hard to leave unrebutted. He's been been trying for days to remove the majority viewpoint from the article, ignoring the consensus of established regular editors from Wikiproject Intelligent Design like Dave Souza and FM. The "steady stream of editors" he mentions have been ID promoters by-and-large, and are the only ones there who've supported Mackan's proposed changes; so what does that tell you? Odd nature (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It tells me that the vast majority of editors who think ID is a pseudoscience and should be thoroughly debunked - but are nevertheless interested in applying Wikipedia policy - are scared off the page by persistent incivility and accusations of bias and whitewashing. This needs to be cleaned up, with civility parole if necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of bias cooking in that article, and it probably needs a top down overhaul. It currently reads like an attack piece on ID, instead of simply presenting the unbiased facts about the film, and the film's reception. Based on the FOX News review, just an unbiased reporting will show what a load of steaming dookie the movie is, so remove all the attacking and smears that can't be readily supported and shown to be relevant. ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give us one example of such a "smear" then? Odd nature (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already been given them. ThuranX (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should clarify that Odd nature appears to be one of the more problematic editors on the page. His first comment to me was here, where he told me to "stop trying to whitewash the page" (based on no other interaction that I'm aware of). He repeated a similar comment here. He's the one who most recently replaced the current version here, also removing the NPOV tag placed by another editor here, but doesn't seem interested in discussing the problems on the talk page. I'd attempt to reinstate an improved version,[117] but my concern is that Odd nature will continue to revert without discussion and that this will lead to page protection (just as the movie is about to be released) Mackan79 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made a cursory pass at some of the most obvious problems, like some of the phrases cited above, some poor grammatical constructs, and the spreading of review material throughout the article to further knock it down. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the look and the revisions. I wonder if having reviewed the section you'd have an opinion on the version here by comparison (any other eyes would still be welcome). Mackan79 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As the primary author of the page, I have watched with some dismay but sense of inevitability as the page language has become more and more twisted and distorted. The English is tortured. There are all kinds of textural infelicities. This is what happens when you have the "encyclopedia everyone can edit" and it is on a topic that many are excited about (a controversial film opening tomorrow). We have had a large number of editors who have never been at the page before, and some who ostensibly have never been at Wikipedia before, on all sides of the issue, showing up to edit. And redit. And edit and edit again. Under these circumstances, it should be no surprise that the article is a load of stilted awkward prose. Of course it should be rewritten; I have said this repeatedly. I have done it twice already, top to bottom. And under this kind of editorial assault, doing it again at the moment is somewhat pointless; no edit has much chance of "sticking". All we can do is manage it a bit so it does not descend too rapidly into nonsense, but it is inevitable that it descend under this type of pressure. No one can guard it 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and even if we could, it would be highly inadvisable and contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. --Filll (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What can we do to get a formal peer review? Angry Christian (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The smartest thing to do is to wait until the movie closes, probably in a week or so. And then everyone loses interest. And we split off a couple of sections into side articles. And then when it is quiet, and much smaller, it can be rewritten.--Filll (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why we would give up on the article while so many people are coming to visit it. These are the important days currently, when by far the most readers are looking to Wikipedia as a resource for this film. Right now we are blatantly failing our core policies, with a number of editors on the page actively preventing compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; if those are non-negotiable, then we need some admins or others to step in and take a look. Mackan79 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:NOR. Too many editors, new to the article, want to give credence to the views of the film makers presented in primary sources without third party evaluation, and to push the majority scientific view off into other paragraphs or a separate section, blatantly contravening our core policies. . . dave souza, talk 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one am giving up on it. All my edits were reverted as POV pushing, even the ones where I clarified what 'it' and 'he' means, where they were unclear. When grammar is POV, it's not worth fighting it. OrangeMarlin can run that page however he wants. Don't cross the admins. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Filll (talk · contribs) has given the best advise. The film is at its most controversial today. Sort of like Snakes on a plane: remember that? Two weeks after release, no one did. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We can see what happens, but it isn't actually just today, and I'm fairly doubtful things will change. Like various things, it's something experienced editors would pretty much have to check out the article to see. Of course, most of these would probably know better than to get involved, but I guess that's a different story... Mackan79 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Well most experienced editors actually know what NPOV is and so on.--Filll (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hah. Not the ones who perpetually revert all edits not made by their coterie, even to the level of grammatical fixes. ThuranX (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if additional eyes will come, but it should be clarified that the issue here is not driveby editors, but a question of whether a film that promotes intelligent design should itself (the film, in an article about it) be treated as a fringe view, thus specifically removing the NPOV requirement that it be treated "fairly." For example, we currently have an overview that, instead of stating what is in the film, immediately jumps in the second and third sentences to what the film ignores, and stating that the film is confusing and inconsistent. This is being defended by long term editors of the page. I understand we could have a long mediation on the issue, but I think it is a clear enough misunderstanding of NPOV that a few more eyes could be helpful in resolving the issue while so many people are reading the page (the stream of reader complaints here is well more than I have seen on any other page). Mackan79 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a standard argument from proponents of WP:FRINGE views: "I do not like what the mainstream sources say, especially the criticisms, so we should ignore those and just go with the positive sources". Riiiiiight. But sorry, that is not WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a large part of what turned What the Bleep Do We Know into such a battleground. Once we all agreed to live by the painful restriction that only sources that actually mentioned the film were admissible, it got better. Still, that article seems to be under permanent protection, so I can't hold out much hope for this one stabilizing.Kww (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I'm saying needs to happen in terms of the sourcing here, Kww, but is being denied by Filll, Dave, and some others, apparently on the theory that anyone who suggests this is pushing a fringe view. Mackan79 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackan79, as well as the many readers called in support, evidently want a POV balance that is not reflected in the reliable secondary sources I've looked at. The film first and foremost promotes pseudoscience, demanding that it be given a pass from actually having to produce a testable theory or any research work on the grounds that it's a matter of religious faith. Mainstream science and education organisations have provided detailed background on the disingenuous claims made in the film and in its promotion, and NPOV requires that we should not give undue weight or credence to the fringe view. All statements should be verifiable from reliable sources, and not based on the presuppositions of the editors or their political or religious views. .. dave souza, talk 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked another possible Soccermeko sock

    Asking for a block review on one of my own blocks. Someone double check me on this one. I think its pretty clear this was yet another Soccermeko sock, but someone go ahead and back me up on this one. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside, they have just asked for an unblock. DO with it what you will. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined it as incivil and suggested that (s)he work on it to be a bit more temperate. Expect another one. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone who says they are not a sockpuppet of Soccermeko on their userpage, as their FIRST EDIT, is a sockpuppet of Soccermeko. I remember that this person is not good about hiding themselves. Grandmasterka 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, not only to mention that their grammar (compare the unblock requests for Soccermeko with that of Update27) is SUBSTANTIALLY identical to each other. Either they are the same person, or they come from the same village where they don't know how to conjugate verbs correctly... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am writing at the recommendation made by User:Kirill Lokshin. I would like to attract the attention of ANI to WP:HARASS/WP:STALK and WP:PRIVACY violations by User:Babakexorramdin, attempting to publicize an identity and falsely associate me with a different physical person. On April 16th, after my addition of reference, User:Ali doostzadeh left the following edit comment:

    Following his edit, and referring to the same source, User:Babakexorramdin leaves this edit comment:

    Similar attempt at falsely associating me with that same identity, used by User:Babakexorramdin, was also made earlier by now banned User:Artaxiad - [118], for which he was banned by User:Kirill Lokshin - [119].

    Kirill Lokshin subsequently deleted from archives all of references to the full name of person falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Yet now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim after this [120] by User:VartanM and another one by User:Fedayee here - [121] harassment/privacy violations against me. My requests to ArbCom to stop this harassment were overlooked.

    This gives only two conclusions, either Babakexorramdin, VartanM, and Fedayee are in communication off-wiki with User:Artaxiad to make the same false claim now deleted from Wikipedia, or ArbCom is somehow sharing information with these individual users, again on false assumptions of identity. In any case, I request the page reciting the name of person again and linking it to me be deleted from archives, this is plainly a violation of WP:PRIVACY. A person or persons responsible for these must be properly addressed according to WP:HARASS.

    Meanwhile, I will also find and contact persons whose identities are being recited in these stalking attempts by above contributors to find out if they have been subject to harassment by Wikipedia contributors in real life. If additional information is required to substantiate the claims, please, contact me by email. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This report borders harassment itself (the continuous accusations by Atabek), this report, which drags me and Fedayee into this, appears to be the result of a content dispute Atabek had with us as well as a recent report of his disruptive behavior at Arbcom Noticeboard. Atabek seems to retaliate for the report about him and is trying to divert the attention. He is not following Kirill's recommendations, since Kirill suggested to be submitted to the Arbitration enforcement page and not directly involve the community, as you can see he did the complete opposite. He posted it here, the consequences of which could be that several admins who are not aware of Atabek's bogus reports could be misled by taking this as a genuine report.
    What Atabek provides about me and Fedayee is months old, secondly it involved an arbitration case; thirdly there was no name or personal information provided. But as usual Atabek is making bogus claims. As for the allegation that the Arbcom members may have exchanged information with us or that Fedayee and I took the information from Artaxiad. Atabek should answer as to how he knows that what we wrote months ago about him has to do with anything Artaxiad may have provided here or privately or that it involves the same alleged identity. Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings. It’s not that those claims should have necessarily come from someone else or that the arbitration may have given those informations to us. It borders paranoia as neither I nor Fedayee or the dozen of editors including admins disclosed anything about Atabek's identity publicly. The two diffs that Atabek is using are taken out of context and are months old. It's clear that he's using those to have his foes blocked.
    Every time his behavior is questioned, bogus accusations of harassment surface, someone has to put a stop to it. I will not be surprised if the accusations against Babakexorramdin are baseless as well. The user explained the rational of the edit summary here and requested explanations this didn’t change anything and this bogus report was filled soon afterwards. VartanM (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this what Wikipedia is for?:

    • VartanM says: " Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings.
      • WP:HARASSMENT says: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself."

    Now is VartanM's objective in Wikipedia to contribute to articles, or link identities to use it for further harassment? And note that VartanM is not an administrator with checkuser access and is not an arbitrator, who is supposed to access or analyze private information. He is simply disrupting the very purpose of Wikipedia. The identity connection is false, as I am not the named person. But both VartanM's confirmation of Babakexorramdin's recital above, as well as VartanM and Fedayee's intimidation with attempts to link me to a real-life identity, are blatant violations of WP:HARASSMENT. Now is ANI going to act on this, or this should be taken to Arbitration, is a subject of another discussion. I reported this on WP:ANI because Babakexorramdin was not a party to ArbCom hence his conduct, which is reported here, is not relevant to WP:AE. Atabek (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    probably trying to get someone in trouble? revert userpage and block? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked for now, based on the way he keeps mentioning someone named "Adam" while vandalizing (as well as this edit) its pretty safe to assume that he is either trying to get someone in trouble, or harrassing an unidentified user (he does mention looking for "Adam" in other Wikis), in any case I see no intention to contribute constructively. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion refactoring on Talk:Philip K. Dick

    Hi. I think this is the right place to go, but if not, please let me know. As usual, this problem grows out of a content dispute. User:Viriditas and I had a night of strong argumentation on Talk:Philip K. Dick over whether the category "Christian writer" should be restored to the article. Once it was clear the argument had run out of anything substantive to talk about that night, I backed out of it, because my comments were clearly getting Viriditas upset. [122]

    During the discussion, Viriditas added some section labels to it,[123],[124],[125],[126],this one with the edit summary "Fixing derailment of discussion" which I did not object to because they helped to navigate around what was a long colloquy. I did change the names of the sections to more accurately reflect the contents (for instance he put in "Response from Ed Fitzgerald" which I changed to "Dialogue: Ed Fitzgerald & Viriditas"),[127],[128], and later put in a marker to show where the conversation had originally been.[129] Since then, the conversation between us has pretty much stopped, with only a few comments added, but Viriditas keeps refactoring it, taking my remarks from the places where they occured and putting them into a separate section - in effect, attempting to "ghettoize" them as being disruptive, irrelevant and not pertinent to the "real" conversation that he prefers to keep separate form my remarks. [130],[131].

    This afternoon, I undid his latest refactoring, restored what was there, and put his latest comment in the place it would have been otherwise in the conversation.[132] I then started a new section on the page asking him to stop refactoring.[133] His response was to refactor again,[134], change the section labels,[135] and leave me a message accusing me of trolling.[136],[137],[138] This is not the case, my comments were all either pertiment to the subject(s) under discussion (whether Dick is a Christian writer or not, and whether the Carrere biography of Dick is a reliable source), or directly in response to his comments to me.

    Ironically, while Viriditas has accused me of having ownership issues with the Philip K. Dick article and of trying to control the conversation, at least four times during our discussion he has said directly to me "If I want your opinion I'll ask for it"[139],[140],[141],[142],[143],[144] and has attempted to bully me off the page, as if it was his talk page to control. Along the way he's been constantly condescending, asking me if I need some books in order to understand what he's saying,[145][146] if I understand Wikipedia policy, referred to my relevant comments as "empty huffing and puffing" [147], called me a "little man" [148], accused me of inciviity and misbehavior[149], and of trying to force my views on others [150], and in general, has just been pretty unpleasant.

    I fully understand that it "takes two to tango", that both Viriditas and I bear responsibility for the tenor of the argument, and I would not have brought it to anyone's attention if it weren't for the refactoring, and the blatant attempt to remove and downgrade my comments by "ghettoizing" them in a section away from the rest of the discussion. If an admin could look at the situation and, if appropriate, speak to Viriditas to ask him to stop refactoring the talk page that would be great, as would restoring his latest refactoring, which I have not touched.

    As soon as I post this, I will put a notice on his talk page about this complaint. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I did post a notice to Viriditas' talk page [151]. It was removed with the edit summary "Get a life" [152]. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so about twelve hours have gone by since I posted this, without comment here. Two people have been by Philip K. Dick and removed categories, and one person removed a personal comment by Viriditas about me on the talk page. I can't tell, of course, if those actions were provoked by this complaint or not, and I'm a little confused about how to interpret the lack of response here. Does it mean I should take the complaint elsewhere? Does it mean I'm totally in the wrong and that I'm a real dick (pun intended) for bringing it up in the first place? Does it mean I should simply attend to undoing Viriditas' refactoring and restoring the comment thread myself, at the risk of starting an edit war? As it is now, the discussion seems very disjointed to me, because of his manipulation of it, and I'd prefer that it be put back into a more coherent order, but I'm reluctant to do so myself without some guidance from above. Anybody? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wholly inappropiate?

    Resolved

    I realise I'm no angel myself sometimes, but isn't this [153] completely uncalled for? Exxolon (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Religion, magnets and hot tubs don't do it for him, I guess. Here, he chides another editor for similar language, citing this post. Earlier he showed a sense of humour about himself, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't have come up with a better response no matter how long I thought about it. Kudos to him. --Elliskev 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Exxonlon is correct. That response was not at all appropriate, even for someone who was likely trolling. Aleta Sing 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barringa. If his contribs aren't reverted, then "fuck off" is the only appropriate response.—eric 05:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was an inappropriate comment but the user was warned about it. I think ANI is a bit premature, considering that there's not a history of bad-faith edits. I suggest this be dropped for now. PeterSymonds | talk 10:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Marking as resolved...if that is ok. The user has been warned and it doesn't seem like an administrator is needed at the moment. Rgoodermote  14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked a user, but wanted to get additional opinion into my action as I was the original creator of the article that he was vandalizing. The user is User:ShaolinDoTruth. Shaolin-Do is one of the larger martial arts chains in the US and has a questionable history. Not only is his user handle a violation of policy, but User:ShaolinDoTruth is a SPA account whose only edits have been to attack the organization with unsourced biased original research. Prior to creating an account, he had a static IP where he has been making the same unsourced/poorly sourced edits. He repeatedly puts his original research on the talk page of Shaolin-do. In addition to being a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V his posts are a violation of WP:BLP as they are essentially claiming the style's grandmaster to be a fraud and a liar. I've warned the user on several occassions. His last endeavor was to post his diatribe on Shaolin-Do on his User Page believing that the user page was immune to any requirements of neutrality/original research/verifiability/BLP. I reverted that edit and indef blocked said user as a disruptive SPA.Balloonman (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange warning on user talk

    Resolved

    RyRy5 might have bumped into you in the last week or 3. He is essentially a lively wikipedian, true at heart and learning day by day. I was a little concerned to come across this. As far as I know Ryan hasn't reported it to anyone but it is not the kind of thing we should ignore if we are trying to mentor and what he should not ignore. (or is it just cruft talk?) -- BpEps - t@lk 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [154]? I'm a bit confused by your comment / question... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused when I got the message. I thought that his explaination was convicing to me so I striked the vandal warning. Maybe the Administrators' noticeboard is a good place to discuss this, so please continue. Comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If that post is what this thread is about I do not see how it requires the attention of administrators. I deleted the page which that user had blanked and told Ryan about because it was clearly a hoax. So is this in regards to a different post?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I'll wait for others to decide.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what is wrong here. Tiptoety talk 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We're mainly disscussing this, I think. I will ask User:Bpeps to clarify what is wrong.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But what specifically about that? I am not seeing anything wrong. Tiptoety talk 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither. Me and User:Persian Poet Gal have asked User:Bpeps to clarify. But I don't think he is online. We will just have to wait until further notice.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry User_talk:RyRy5#Your_recent_.22revision.22. Struck me as strange/bullying? Despite checking Ryan's edits, I just couldn't make sense. It just appeared like an editor "having a go". BpEps - t@lk 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I do not see anything that requires admin intervention here, why not just discuss it with RyRy5 on his talk page? Tiptoety talk 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindenting) Here's my guess at what happened: FargothRocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created Fargoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and made a few edits to it. CorinthMaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blanked the article without explaining why or without stating a reason. RyRy5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) then undid the edit and warned CorinthMaxwell not to blank pages. CorinthMaxwell then explained that the article was a hoax and that the author was creating it to prove a point on GameFAQs.com. So, as I understand it, FargothRocks created a nonsense page that deserved to be deleted in the first place, and CorinthMaxwell blanked it because he didn't know Wikipedia policy for speedy deletion. RyRy5 didn't do anything wrong. And now... you know... the rest of the story. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No admin action needed. Resolved. Tiptoety talk 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wonderfool socks

    After his latest return, I have blocked Tokeen (talk · contribs), Sophiebristow (talk · contribs), and Montchav (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of Wonderfool based on strong CheckUser evidence and some corroborating behavior. The last of these, at least actually got quite a few edits. It might be worth it to review the contributions, as WF has been known to create hoaxes and articles that test the boundaries before. Dmcdevit·t 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unable to edit

    Resolved
     – page restored to its protected version --B (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&curid=7738&diff=206394353&oldid=206322956

    I revert popped up on my watchlist. I tried editing the article. The protection tag has been removed but I am still unable to edit the article. There is a glitch in the system or a Wikipedian edited the article while the page is protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is protected. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is an admin allowed to revert an article while the page is protected? If not, the edit should be reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Swatjester was only restoring a big swath of sourced content, which would likely be taken as uncontroversial and helpful to the encyclopedia. In doing so, he mistakenly rm'd the small-prot icon. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Swatjester reverted the text that was the very reason the article was protected in the first place. The article is protected because of the reverts. Is Swatjester allowed to continue the edit war while the article is protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that, but whatever the PoV, it looks to me like he was restoring damage to sourced content. It's very rarely helpful to bulk-delete that much sourced text and wholly unhelpful to edit war over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment did not address the issue. The edit was a revert while the article was protected. I think it should be reverted unless there is a specific policy that an admin can edit war after the article has been protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not an involved editor. I think calling this edit warring is too much of a stretch. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While I appreciate Gwen Gale's point and believe QuackGuru is grossly overstating the issue, I reverted Swatjester's good-faith change.[155] It's not difficult to miss the protection warning occasionally, particularly when using the undo function (people often just scroll down to change the edit summary and submit). Vassyana (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is pretty much being used exclusively to post AfD notices. I'm wondering if this is proper, what with WP:CANVAS and all. It doesn't seem like the project is being used to collaborate on improving articles at all, but rather just to save them from getting deleted. Any thoughts? Equazcion /C05:43, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

    For easy reference, the AfD discussions referenced there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Vassyana (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mostly just Cirt doing something recommended—I don't see a problem with that. If the project isn't doing anything, you can tag it as {{historical}}. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other users have in the past complained that adequate notice is not given for WP:AfDs relating to Scientology, so ample notice is given at WP:SCN/AFD and on the WikiProject's talk page. It does seem lately that the talkpage has only been used for Afd notices (not just by myself but others as well) - but if you look at the archives you will see that the project talk page has been quite active in the past, on numerous other topics of discussion. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, this isn't canvassing - it is just a notice that an AfD is happening, posted in one central location only with no other text about the article itself, and in a spot that individuals from various backgrounds/inclinations probably monitor - so as to make sure due notice is given about the AfD, and to gain input from individuals from all sides interested in the subject matter. It should also be noted that it is sometimes the AfD nominator doing the notifying, and sometimes not, so it isn't really a matter of trying to save an article from getting deleted/not deleted. Cirt (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I noticed that after posting this, that the notices were actually sometimes by the nominator (usually you). My concern was that the Scientology project might be an inherently biased place to post such notices, but I'm quickly seeing that that isn't really the case. Although I'll continue watching, because it seems not too many people have paid attention to that project in a while, so it's hard to tell right now who these notices are targeting. Equazcion /C10:44, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks. The notices aren't meant for anyone in particular, that's why they are posted to a public WikiProject talk page and not a user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COIN had a thread regarding alleged COI editing on the Paul Iorio article; the article ended up on AfD, and User:209.244.43.12 demanded removal of one of the comments in the AfD under threat of a "possible libel suit" [156]. The IP was blocked for 72 hours by MaxSem for legal threats. After that block expired, User:209.244.43.12 then posted to the already-marked-resolved COIN discussion, reiterating the threat [157]. I blocked the IP for 2 weeks, and made sure that the the block message mentioned the info-en mailing list (the standard uw-blockn template doesn't, and you can't use uw-lblock with an IP since it presumes an indef block, and the time parser does not seem to work with it).

    Someone with greater familiarity with the history of that AfD, the COIN discussion, and the previous mention here on ANI should probably review this. Thanks, MCB (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I've sorted out the {{uw-lblock}} template now, default is indefinite with time parser now included. Will update doc this afternoon accordingly.Khukri 09:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by an administrator, redux from above

    At this earlier thread on this board, here, I raised a query as to why an administrator User:William M. Connolley, had protected an article and then edited through the protection in a manner that (a) did not appear to be completely NPOV, and (b) did not appear to have talkpage consensus.

    Thus, I dropped a note ([158]) onto his talkpage to ask why this had occurred. As noted above, his reply was that he "thought I was trouble making" ([159]). This did not particularly assume good faith, but nevertheless I thus made the request clearer ([160]).

    Now, another administrator User:BozMo has popped up to reply to me on the same talk page, to disagree (which is fair enough) ... but look at that edit summary ([161]). Since I am certainly not going to start using admin tools in retaliation for violations of WP:NPA, I would be interested to hear any thoughts on the issue. Please note that the shenanigans at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (with which I am uninvolved) are now unrelated to this issue. Black Kite 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I am not sure this is the right place for this but I had in parallel made this reply on your talk page to your request for immediate comment.:
    Immediate is a bit strong but you did say "please". The edit summary was a reference to the inherent challenge of assuming good faith versus not feeding people when they troll. I never feed trolls and the intended implication was that I was agf giving you the benefit of the doubt about trolling and accepting the risk I might be feeding trolling. Perhaps this was unclear but I did include the word maybe. I hope you don't find the suggestion you might be trolling offensive but I suppose that since so many people use it differently I have to accept there was a risk you might. I was not wishing to offend or attack you but I would ask you to examine your behaviour. What is the point of your comment to WMC and why did you word it aggressively? These were a few days ago now. You could have raised the general issue of principle (which was an open question) but chose to go for the specifics. The "appear to be skewed" seemed rather polemic for the sake of it (I did review the deletions before I commented on AN/I) and WMC had not AFAICT been previously involved in the debate. This was discussed and JzG, John Smith and I all seemed to share a view on it. So, what is the positive outcome you are looking for? His edits were open to misinterpretation sure, but abuse of admin powers, no. --BozMo talk 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether WMC had abused his admin powers per WP:PROTECT (which subject I was trying to clear up, and I certainly don't believe it was in an aggressive manner, and the phrase "appear to be" made that clear, I think) is a completely different question now, as is whether WMC had not been previously involved. Yes, a few editors agreed with his edits, but a large number did not, and I see that the deletion and restoration of that section is still being edit-warred over now, which definitely suggests there was no consensus for it. It shouldn't be rocket science that you don't perform major surgery to an article through your own protection unless there's complete consensus, and being called a "troll" for calling attention to this (which I firmly believe is what your edit summary insinuated) is only likely to make the issue worse. I was astounded that another admin would believe that this was a reasonable edit summary, frankly, although nothing to do with that article surprises me any more. Black Kite 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of good form I am repeating an apology to Black Kite for an edit summary which was not intended to imply he was a troll. --BozMo talk 10:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Black Kite 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Subject requests deletion

    Does anyone know what to do about the Francis Wasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article?

    I AFDed PRODded it a few days ago, flagging it as a non-notable possible autobiography created by Wasserf (talk · contribs). However, Rmutt2008 (talk · contribs) claims to be the real Francis Wasser, seeks privacy, and has replaced the page's content with a complaint.

    I don't see anything in WP:CSD to cover this. Do we just wait for the PROD to expire, or should I WP:IAR and delete it anyway? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    His edit was reverted as vandalism. Allow the normal deletion processes to run their course, do not treat it differently due to this. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that any claim to be the subject of an article needs to go through the proper process of verifying identity and such. Otherwise, it is open to abuse. I'm confused by the AfD comment at the beginning though. I think you meant to say you'd PROD'd it (or I'm jsut reading stuff wrong). Let the deletion run it's course as it only has a few days left and no one has contested the deletion that I can see. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for the confusion, I did mean PRODded. I'll let the PROD run its course as you and ST47 suggest. --17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    Edit history etc

    Does anyone know how I can check how many edits I have made to wikipedia so I can decide which service badge I can display?--Energizer07 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You can find out here. But to be honest you might want to focus on the thread below, and your poor use of rollback, rather than asking question like this, which should be done at the help desk. Pedro :  Chat  11:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – indef blocked Khukri 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ZionistLionist (talk · contribs) needs to be dealt with immediately. [162] [163] [164] --NeilN talkcontribs 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No edits in 30 minutes, but I can't see anything but POV pushing at best and vandalism / hatred at worst. I'm not sure wether this account is likely to be constructive, and would consider an indef block. However given the subject matter this is very likelt to inflame and not help. Pedro :  Chat  11:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the explicit racism in the second diff I say immediate indef block. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be confident that this editor doesn't "get" what Wikipedia is about [165]. I think we probably need to consider press reponses to this, and that Wikipedia does not tolerate this kind of attitude. I'm in support of indef. blocking, on balance. Pedro :  Chat  11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This [166] is beyond the pale. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been no action for 12 days now, though almost certainly the same editor there is nothing to be gained from a block in hindsight. But as soon as this person/IP edits in bad faith again then there is in this case no need for good faith warnings etc, straight to AIV with it. I will monitor the IP as well. Khukri 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback removal

    Today I was granted rollback power and have spent around one – two hours reverting numerous cases of obvious vandalism BUT TODAY AT 11:03AM the User:Bongwarrior removed my roll back power claiming that ‘at least half’ of my roll backs were not vandalism. I checked this and it is obviously false as you can check.

    I challenged him about this but as of yet have not got a response. I am asking that I be granted my roll back privileges again so that I can begin to revert vandalism again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energizer07 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I only got back two diffs. [167] nope, and [168] nope. Both of these were not vandalism - they were other editors reverting poor edits which you then reverted back again i.e. you are rollbacking to vandalised entries. Not to hot. I suggest you stick with undo for a while and study up on what vandlism is. Pedro :  Chat  11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see my name comes up in the diff. I generally don't make mistakes but they could just be mistakes. There is also a talk going on about this sort of stuff Energizer07 on Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism under the heading Overly Aggressive Vandal Patrolling Culture This may help you understand what to rollback and what not to. Also which warns to use for what e.t.c ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to mention that warnings like this one are completely over the top. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That template does nothing to aid a situation, and if it's in template space should be TfD'd or even speedied immediately. Energizer it's clear you are wishing to help the project, but may I suggest you pull on the hand brake just a little bit. There's a fine line between helping the project and possibly driving away editors through well intentioned actions. If you have any questions regarding vandal patrolling, issuing of warnings when to look for a block etc, just leave me a message and I will work through it all with you. Khukri 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And such warnings in unusual places. Maybe we should edit the talk of the IP and mention that the warning was far too aggressive ? CenariumTalk 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rollback granted with approx 200 mainspace edits, less than half with edit summaries, or so it appears. Any comments on this approval Tiptoety? Franamax (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I wouldn't grant rollback to a user before checking that he has enough good RC patrolling. That would make this kind of situation less frequent. CenariumTalk 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, my comments are what have been being said at WT:RFR for weeks, rollback is no big deal, and we should extend good faith when granting it with no prejudice/drama about removing it. Each admin has there own set of criteria, some lower than others. It has been suggested we set a standard but everyone agrees the current process works. It has been removed, no damage really done. Tiptoety talk 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's no big deal. But sometimes, giving some advises and waiting 2-3 days, or a dozen of reverts, to see the evolution in the contributions of a user, is better than giving rollback then having to remove it. Maybe it's easy to remove, but it may have a negative impact on the user as shown above. (I suppose that further discussion on this should go elsewhere.) CenariumTalk 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And thats where opinions differ, maybe we need to move to WT:RFR and discuss the topic of guidelines when granting rollback further. Tiptoety talk 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I occasionally do RC patrol but I find my time far better spent actually adding useful content or doing minor janitorial stuff like fixing typos and reformatting links that RC Patrol. Why? Precisely because recent changes ARE patrolled. I haven't asked for rollback but about the only use I would have for it is when a drive-by IP vandalizes multiple pages while making zero non-vandalism edits. Even that wouldn't save me much time, since I still have to check every single edit before rolling it back, just in case he made even one edit that wasn't clear vandalism.
    When rollback was first introduced, I suggested that after a few months of shakedown testing, it be an option on preference pages so administrators don't have to waste time granting the option. Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps it should be an option on preference pages for anyone who has X number of edits and at least Y months of service, but the option should be revocable by administrators when necessary.
    By the way, for the past few days I've been following Energizer's edits. If he is given the right guidance and not scared away from Wikipedia, he will be a very valuable editor someday and people will go to him for advice. In the meantime, he needs the community to walk behind him, fix up and point out mistakes, and recommend ways he can become a more valuable contributor. Except when he gets frustrated like at the start of this thread, he's got a good attitude, which more than makes up for his run-away enthusiasm and the resulting mistakes. I predict that in 2-3 years, after a few thousand edits, a few Barnstars, a few dozen B-class articles, and a few Good Articles, he will be well-respected and will easily pass a vote to give him administrative tools. In the meantime, the next few months will be filled with the mistakes of someone learning. If you have time please spend the next few months patrolling his edits and help shape him into the good editor I think he wants to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack edit summaries

    Can the edit summaries in [[Special:Contributions/<removed>]] be deleted? DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made a request for oversight. They should disappear shortly. --B (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the name of the user, not needed any more here. CenariumTalk 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is now blocked indef. Rightly so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indef blocked the user as vandal only after reviewing the whole account. I am just looking up how to entirely get rid of them: bit beyond my normal actions. --BozMo talk 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page needs deleting, salting and oversighting. Should also do this to the original account. MER-C 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added to oversight request. --B (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little bit narked with this ladies n gents. I'd already issued a temporary block to the original editor to stop any further disruption to the project, and with a couple of others had already started reverting all the edits, and it was also to give me time to look through the whole issue. There was no pressing urgency to change the block without discussing it with me first and to find the reasoning behind, whether anyone agreed with the length or not. There was already a discussion on my talk page that would have immediately made the situation clear. So in brief if there is no immediate potential disruption to the project please discuss it, and think to ask other administrators without overriding their decisions and causing bad feeling please. Khukri 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if you are referring to me but I am pretty sure there was no temporary block in place when I indef blocked this user (unless they were concurrent). Certainly no block notice either or any note to say it was with you. --BozMo talk 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:B unblocked ot re-block, and it appears User:BozMo Blocked at the same time ; [169] and [170] Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here also via some attack talk pages that I deleted, and after a further note that i dropped at the user. Personally, I suspect that it relates to Iamdoctortran (talk · contribs) being warned and blocked yesterday, but it is just a guess.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look through User:Thingg's past to see if I can see anything but SOBS's started editing on the 9th one edit then started his anti-Thingg rant today. Thingg is a pretty prolific VP'er so it could be anyone looking though it. I've watchlisted his talk page for now just incase we get a sock or two. Khukri 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Extending your block to indefinite, blocking email to prevent further harassment, and annotate the block log to note that the offending revisions may be oversighted should anyone ever review this block in the future was all non-controversial and obviously correct. Permission or prior discussion is not necessary. Your complaint was left on my talk page four minutes after I reblocked him, before I had a chance to leave you a courtesy note. Bringing it here when there is nothing to resolve, an unambiguously correct decision, and you have already expressed your concern to me is pointless. --B (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection of WP:RFA

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Several administrators have commented on the discussion and nobody mentions any "abuse". John Reaves didn't "abuse" anything. Further discussion about the protection itself should be continued at WT:RFA#Protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an ongoing discussion about whether WP:RFA should be semi-protected here. During that discussion, the page was semi-protected by User:John Reaves. I asked him here repeatedly to revert the protection and join the discussion, but he declined.

    I think the discussion seems to move into the direction of non-protection. Anyway, consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process, and I think John should respect that by waiting for the discussion to end either way. He was not entrusted with admin privileges to be a judge.

    How do you see the situation? --Yooden ☮ 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this is not the right place to discuss whether WP:RFA should be protected. Use Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship for that.

    There is no reason whatsoever for a new user or IP to edit the RFA page. I'm with John Reaves here. Sean William @ 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is not the right place to discuss whether WP:RFA should be protected. Use Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship for that. --Yooden ☮
    So you think admins should avoid community discussions about a particular subject and just do what they think is right? --Yooden ☮
    I don't see this as a very big problem. It could take ages (or never) to get a very strong consensus on anything on the RfA talk page. There didn't seem to be a huge opposition to semi-protecting the page. Rather, there is no consensus either way. If neccesary, at any time his protection can be undone and he can be directed to the talk page for further discussion. I highly doubt John would get in an edit war to keep his semi-protect up, and as I said, will the discussion really ever end? If the semi-protect proves to be bad for the project, then remove it. Or if policy appears to trump a good application of IAR in this case, then remove it. The one caveat to this is I think editors should discuss changes as much as they can when applying IAR. I do suggest John add his input to the RfA talk page, but I don't find it neccesary for him to revert himself before doing that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So let's see: We have an ongoing discussion about topic A; an editor avoids the discussion by ignoring the talk page and just implements a change; he is notified of this; he still refuses to enter the discussion; currently, he demands that his change should be considered to be the new precendent. This is where you don't see "a very big problem", right? Could you please explain how, using this policy, you intend to avoid edit wars?
    I didn't ignore anything, I already told you I wasn't aware of the discussion. Are you suffering memory loss or are you just a liar? John Reaves 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you are an admin, so you are allowed to use personal attacks. Reverse psychology be damned, I'm sure they will let you get away with it. Anyway, here is your proof. --Yooden ☮
    It's a legitimate question. So far you have spurious claims of attacks and abuse. What are you going to fabricate next? Also, it's ~~~~, not that hard. John Reaves 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yooden, forgive me, I don't believe my first response was well worded. I did not come here to commend John's editing or use of talk page. Ultimately I was suggesting this is not an issue for AN/I at this moment. If at some point John engages in an edit war over this and continues to ignore discussion, then it would be a problem. That's not where we are at. He made a change and is defending it in his own way (probably not a great way). As I said, 1,500 other admins can change it back and advise him to "wait" for the end of the discussion. If he then edit wars and reverts, then we have a problem, but certainly not yet. He is not a "judge" by any means, but he has every right to make a judgement call that can easily be changed back if perceived to be wrong by other admins. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion here is really not necessary, nor helpful. You should continue discussion on WT:RFA#Protection. Obviously other administrators, including myself, agree with the protection so we aren't talking about any admin "abuse" here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me get this straight: If an admin implements a change which is currently under discussion, willfully avoids that discussion and then demands that his change should be considered the new consensus, that's not abuse?
    Also, I'm not using Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Protection because I don't particularly care weither way. Protection of WP:RFA is not the issue here, abuse of administrator privileges is. --Yooden ☮
    Why won't you sign normally? Not having a date stamp can make conversations very confusing. John Reaves 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your summary of the events is skewed. John made one change to the RfA page, semi-protecting it. No admin has removed the semi-protection, which any one of them can do. John is not edit-warring and has every right to make a judgement call and semi-protect a page, regardless of a talk page discussion. He is not going against any consensus, there is no consensus yet. He is nowhere demanding that his change be considered the new consensus, he is just suggesting it is the right choice. There is healthy discussion going on now regarding the issue elsewhere, I'd reccommend not pressing it here any further. It's just a massive stretch to call this admin abuse. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not admin abuse. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Abuse? This was hardly abuse. More like a bold move. People always have issues with bold edits but it does not mean such edits are viewed as abusive.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Improper page moves by Husond

    User:Husond has once again started engaging in improper, undiscussed page moves, moving Mihai Suba to Mihai Şuba in this edit. He tries to justify it by attacking me and my motives in moving it to align page name with the cited sources,[171] rather than addressing the issues involved.

    The Mihai Suba spelling is not only the one in the cited reference here; is is also the spelling in both external links in the article and in the book he wrote with the ISBN 0-08-037141-8 citation in the article. It is quite reasonable to think that these spellings are accurate and correct spellings, the way this British resident for the past 20 years or so (since before he wrote his book, the main reason why he is notable) in generally known in English.

    Husond's move is an improper, unreferenced move of this article to a name not supported by the cited sources. Furthermore, it is contrary to the spelling of his name as the author of his book mentioned in the text.

    That the move Husond made was undiscussed is especially improper and inappropriate given that there already was a talk page discussion before his move. His move was clearly much more inappropriate than the original creation of the page under an unreferenced spelling contrary to that of the sources by User:Krakatoa, who—unlike Husond—hadn't then had it specifically pointed out to him/her that the spelling was contrary to that in all the sources.

    Note further that even if he can and does find some sources supporting the spelling in the move he made, that would be sufficient to list the alternative spelling in the article. It is not by any means determinative of the spelling of this English resident's name in the article's name under Wikipedia:naming conventions. But so far, we have absolutely no evidence from any reliable source, nor even from any unreliable source, that the "Mihai Şuba" spelling has ever been correct at any time in any language whatsoever.

    Note in particular that Husond did not change my correction of my spelling of the name of the author of Dynamic Chess Strategy from "Şuba" to "Suba", the name of the author as it appears in that English-language book he wrote. He knows better than to deliberately change that to a spelling different from that used in the book itself (LCCC listing, which is reachable by following the ISBN link already cited in article and clicking on the appropriate "find this book" link), yet he thinks it is okay to improperly move the article containing it contrary to Wikipedia's naming conventions, without even discussing the points which had already been made on the talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute and you are discussing many issues of the content dispute here. Please spend more time looking for resolution on the article talk page or the user's talk page. You are far away from needing to bring this issue to A/NI. Husond should engage in a talk page discussion over the correct name of the page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an outside view, I noticed Gene that you made no attempt (at least that I can see) to resolve this name dispute with Husond. This feels like tattling. Do you have some sort of history with this particular editor to bring you to AN/I so quickly. This seems like a simple dispute that could be fixed on article talk, user talk, even WP:RM. Why the AN/I drama? This isn't traditionally a first stop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The valid core of this complaint is that Husond should have brought the move to WP:RM. He knows, better than most, that all diacritical moves are likely to be controversial. Instead, he argued in the edit summaries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Husond has been notified of this thread. Rudget 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Husond revert a prior move that wasn't brought to WP:RM? He has the page named the same way the original author had it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And contrary to the spelling of the sources (see the links in the article). Husond disagrees with WP:UE, and has every right to campaign for his minority view; but the way to do so is to discuss and poll to see whether he has gathered support, not by move warring. Gene at least discussed his move on the talk page; Husond did nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this isn't the place. (Read the header). It's a dispute. We have Dispute resolution. We have third opinions. But before those even get going, we have talk pages. Nobody even went to Husond's talkpage. Calling the article talk page a "discussion" is rather laughable. It's a one liner by Gene Nygaard "telling it like it is". That's not a discussion, that's an order. I wouldn't have replied to that either. This thread should be closed. Husond and Gene are disagreeing on something, outsight eyes need to be on it, I agree, before it gets ridiculous over something rather ridiculous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Premature Archiving of ANI Discussion

    User:Rjd0060 just archived a discussion on ANI while the discussion was ongoing (less than two minutes after the last contribution); in fact I had an edit conflict on this change.

    Please reopen. If there is a better place to appeal the decision to archive it, please point me to it. --Yooden ☮ 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This response is awful. I'd suggest you retract it immediately, even if there is a disagreement. That is by no means the start of a resolution. Rudget 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only assume that you took what was clearly a sarcastic remark seriously. For the record: I don't want to ignore the community. --Yooden ☮
    (EC) I archived it because there is clearly no "admin abuse" as you claim. I, as well as several others have agreed. Also, continuing that discussion will only cause things to become heated, which really isn't necessary. Please continue the discussion at WT:RFA#Protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yooden, admin abuse is a matter much more serious than what John Reeves had done. It is unacceptable to apply such labels to situations in which you simply had differing opinions on the matter.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That label was not brought up by me, and I'm perfectly willing to drop it. --Yooden ☮
    You archived the discussion after three hours and after less than two minutes of inactivity.
    I was already attacked, but nobody cares. Now imagine I would have taken a break, as suggested elsewhere on Wikipedia when things get hot.
    Now seriously, please reopen or tell me where to appeal your decision. --Yooden ☮
    As has been suggested, please take this to Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care whether WP:RFA is protected or not. --Yooden ☮
    Yooden, your account goes back practically to the Wikipedia beginning of time. Surely you understand the difference between an admin making a decision to semi-protect a page (regardless of ongoing discussion, which may or may not result in a change that any admin could make) and admin abuse or some actionable policy violation? If you want to debate the issue of protection, raise on WT:RFA. If you want an admin to unprotect the page absent that debate, go to WP:RPP (although, good luck). What else are you trying to achieve here? Avruch T 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I want a discussion that was closed after three hours to be reopened. --Yooden ☮
    I want you to timestamp your posts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanna make a deal? --Yooden ☮
    And ultimately all of those requests are bit pushy wouldn't you say? Lets just step back and agree to disagree on all the above.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A nice thought. Why don't we just let it rest for a day, reopen the discussion then and continue? --Yooden ☮

    I hope more is forthcoming, but I want to have a short interim status message in case anything happens to this discussion:

    I asked to reopen a discussion about admin behaviour that I myself started. Within this thread a several objections of mine which are not addressed yet. The thread was closed after about three hours (2008-04-18T13:08:00 to 2008-04-18T16:23:44) and after less than two minutes of inactivity.

    Currently, the reason given for closing the thread is that "{User:Rjd0060}, as well as several others have agreed." and because "continuing that discussion will only cause things to become heated". I was also pointed to another discussion with a different topic.

    Now I wonder, is simple agreement of what few admin could reach the page within three hours enough to absolve one of their own of any wrongdoing? Is the possibilty of a heated discussion reason enough to strike it? --Yooden ☮

    There was no "admin abuse" as you claim. Several people have agreed with that, and more importantly, nobody has agreed with you (that I know of) in the sense that John Reaves has abused his administrator status. I don't know why you are still at this, but do as you please. I won't be leaving any further comment here, as I've said what I feel needed to be said. You raised an issue here, people commented on it, and you're unhappy with the outcome. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did't claim it; I admit I picked it up after others used the expression though. All I want is clarity about Wikipedia's rules.
    What if someone would describe John's action as "poor behaviour" and would continue that "John has behaved badly over this entire incident"? What if someone else would have told him that "another administrator will eventually have to end up unprotecting it if you don't"? With your early closure you not only give me reason not to WP:COOL down the next time, you also send the message that WP:CANVASSing is necessary. You closed the thing after three hours for fuck's sake, what am I supposed to think is the reason for that if other threads remain open for weeks?
    I'm still at this because several of the objections I raised are unanswered. Do you want them to remain so? --Yooden ☮ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that the threads stay along long enough for the bot to archive them. It's also probably difficult to follow when you'd commented last, with no timestamp in your signature. SQLQuery me! 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, like that's the reason the thread was closed. Let's see. --Yooden ☮ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please point me to a place to appeal the decision to close the thread. --Yooden ☮ 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor seems to be presenting themselves as a parent of Jenna Syken and recently made this edit. In the corresponding edit summary they spoke of contacting an attorney due to libel. This is the whole edit summary:

    We have been in touch with an attorney pertaining to libel and slander written by wikipedia about our minor child. There is a record of everyone who redoes Jenna Syken page by wikipedia people

    Is that considered a legal threat, should something be done?
    Thanks. 15:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, it's a legal threat but before any block I think this IP should be approached very gently with some help. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside, their page does contain 5 warnings about non-constructive edits on the above mentioned article. SWik78 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all standard warning templates, not very informative. Blanking is a common response by non-users to what we call BLP worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've placed a gentle notice at User_talk:69.253.242.57. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The who is check goes to Mt. Laurel, NJ. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an FYI: her mother has contacted the Foundation before so this is likely her again. John Reaves 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The negative, possibly OR spin on her career has been rm'd. Meanwhile if the IP doesn't answer and carries on with threats, a block would likely be fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPs appear to be evading an indef-block on NaomiSyken (talk · contribs) from behavioural evidence... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed what was unsourced, and sourced the rest. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone else check out whether this is a sock? Bearian (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, looks like it to me, RCU? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there really a point to this, it seems totally obvious. In any event, we should probably not pursue a real aggressive RBI policy toward relatives of BLPs. Polite conversation and gentle education would seem more appropriate here. Thatcher 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for answering so quickly, it is obvious and I agree, which is why I suggested a gentle approach to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The named account has a page full of warnings, suggestions and finally instructions from the blocking admin on how to deal with the situation; the IPs (see 167.112.160.33 (talk · contribs) as well) both have flurries of warnings... at what point do we step out of "gentle education," especially considering the rather blunt legal threats? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your question is worth talking about. I'd say with this article, when thoroughly sourced information is being removed with legal threats not to put it back. We're not there yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-harm

    An individual made this [172] now-deleted statement, presumably from Sydney. Hard to tell if it's serious, or where any contacts should be made, but I didn't want to let it pass. Acroterion (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm clueless. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suicide threat from a kid in Sydney. No real way to find them, but someone in Australia may have a better idea. Acroterion (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I left this short comment on their talk page informing them that threats like that are not taken lightly and can result in serious measures being taken. Lets pray it was just a joke.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. His other edit doesn't imply any problem. Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]