Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Gavin.collins

There has been a long, ongoing dispute regarding Dungeons & Dragons articles between User:Gavin.collins and the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject (prominent members who have been involved in the dispute recently include User:BOZ, User:Drilnoth, User:Shadzar, and User:Webwarlock) for approximately the past 14 months.

Problems: The issue started because of Gavin.collins's tagging. He often tags articles with templates such as {{notability}}, {{context}}, {{in-universe}}, {{plot}}, {{nofootnotes}}, {{Primarysources}}, {{Original research}}, and {{unreferenced}}, typically adding multiple tags at once. Examples include (although there are many more, as seen in his contributions): [1], [2]. Some members of the project have come to believe that he also does not read the articles he tags. For example, he made the following edits within a 1 minute period: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] Gavin has stated that he reads articles and then tags them all at once[13]. Some users have found this difficult to believe because he often applies almost identical tags to all articles (in the ten samples above, he added four tags to each, three of which were identical on all the articles) and because a quick look through his contributions shows that the tags are typically added at a fairly constant rate of one every few minutes any time that he is actively tagged, with only some larger clumps of successive edits like those listd).

Disagreements have revolved around which tags are appropriate, whether sources are reliable secondary sources, and whether uncited content is original research or simply unsourced. The primary focus of his edits over the span of the dispute seems to revolve around placing tags on D&D articles rather than attempting to help resolve the issues (with a secondary focus on discussion on Wikipedia policy and guideline talk pages relating to the same concerns he has on the articles he tags); as there are only a few active members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, the sheer volume of this tagging places an excessive burden on these few editors.

At this point, unfortunately, the high volume of tagging for a small group of editors to handle is only part of the problem. Gavin seems to be quick to accuse others of vandalism[14], Conflict of Interest[15], and of "hiding something"[16], with little or no evidence. There have been large amounts of edit warring (visible on most D&D articles, including [17], [18]) and unproductive discussion, which oftentimes gets rather heated on both sides (evident by the following: [19], [20], and most of the archives at WT:D&D, most notably [21], [22], [23], and [24]). Attempts at reasonable discussion between Gavin and WikiProject members often result in no conclusion, compromise, or consensus, as Gavin seems to be resistant to any view but his own (example: [25]). He has also admitted that he knows little of RPGs, but that is probably due to the "poor quality" of the articles he's been looking at.[26] An attempt at mediation seemed to pause the conflict rather than end it.

He also rarely, if ever, answers direct questions that he can't answer by citing a Wikipedia policy or guideline.[27], [28].

Gavin's arguments have also spread beyond Dungeons & Dragons articles and to areas related to what he is arguing for, such as at WT:FICT (for examples, see the entire discussions that took place around the following edits: [29], [30], [31]) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Drilnoth, if two people have tried (and failed) to resolve this with him (which I suspect may be the case), then WP:RFC is the place to log a request for comment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the only problem being that one has already been done. Granted, however, that discussion was before the RfM and his slight change of tactics. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is the wrong place for this sort of thing, then we can basically copy the complaint into a new RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there have been many attempts at dispute resolution; most recently my own attempt at discussion here. But the members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject have exhausted nearly every step of dispute resolution, starting with talk page discussions,[32][33][34]. A third opinion was sought twice and giventwice. A request for comment was also opened, resulting in a 36-8 endorsement favoring the basis of the dispute. Lastly, a request for mediation was opened. We can open another RFC, but it has had little effect on his behavior, historically. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

About the only thing that seems to have changed as a result of the RFC/U was its main focus: deletion. He hasn't nominated an article in several months that I'm aware of; when at one point we were talking about a high volume of AFDs and PRODs, he hasn't seen fit to approach that avenue recently. However, as far as I can see, all of the other issues (presented as secondary) from the prior RFC/U remain. If we were to do another RFC/U, these issues would have to be presented as primary concerns, rather than secondary. I'd like to see what, if anything, can be resolved through this current avenue before bringing about another RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that another RFC, even with a different focus, would be the right course of action? With everything that's been tried (per COS), I personally don't think that an RFC would help very much at all. Based on the sheer amount of discussion done attempting to reach a consensus after the previous RFC that did practically nothing, I think that an ArbCom has to be the next step. Now believe me, I don't want to get involved in an ArbCom anymore than anyone else, but I think that this dispute needs to be resolved soon, and more discussion, RFCs, RFMs, 3rd opinions, etc., won't really help us get there.

Why do I think that it needs to be resolved soon? Well, Gavin hasn't really changed since he returned after the RFM, and things are getting worse. The discussion surrounding his edits have caused one user (User:Shadzar) to leave the WikiProject. The debates on particular articles has gotten longer and more heated by the day. Since he returned from the RFM, my experience on Wikipedia has gotten much worse, to the point where I'm not working on D&D articles as much due to the unpleasantness of working around him. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If this AN/I resolves nothing, then an RFC/U is probably the right thing to do... but I have to share your pessimism about what it will achieve. If Gavin weren't so aggressive, I honestly couldn't be bothered with any of this. I agree that an ArbCom might be the only way to bring some sort of resolution, becuase you are right that no amount of discussion has dissuaded Gavin from his current course of action. I don't know what else to do and would appreciate some guidance. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section at WT:D&D regarding a possible RFC/U because, although I don't really think that it will change much, it really is the correct next step, going to ArbCom only if and when the RFC fails. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• If any of you wish to discuss a particular article with me, I am open to discussion, which I feel is the most constructive process for both sides. However, using the Administrators' noticeboard to voice your dissatisfaction with me is I think a waste of admin time. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• We have, over and over again for 14+ months now. You have shown over and over again you have no interest in working with us unless we seek outside intervention. Frankly I am ready to leave en:Wikipedia all together unless something is done. Web Warlock (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Web Warlock, Role playing games and Dungeons & Dragons Wikiprojects are not "editorial walled gardens", so your threats to leave because you disagree with the views of another contributor is misplaced. As regards working in collaboration with other editors, I think I have contributed to the substantial improvement of the article Kender, so I think your criticism is actually groundless. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• No one but you has ever said that. And unless you were dragged into it you have yet to contribute anything other than cutting and pasting tags on a subject you know nothing about. Web Warlock (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I do not consider the projects to be in an "editorial walled garden". If you read my original post here, you can see that the problem now more is the simple unpleasantness of working around you because of your accusals of COI, bad faith, vandalism, etc., than your position on the notability of topics. The articles need work to establish notability; but you are going about it the wrong way. Looking for sources to articles before just tagging them would be a good start. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, prior to today I have never heard ANY WikiProject referred to as a "walled garden", editorial or otherwise. Now unless you can give proof to your accusations, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is not an accusation, just a note. When I first started becoming aware of the situation, it came across to me (at first just a third party) that Mr. Collins was wikicrusading. After more looking into it, it seems more 50/50. Some of the articles he tags are legit, but when you're tagging at such a high volume then of course some have to be right. I think Dan Willis is an example of bad tagging. How many other articles on wikipedia are barely 3 paragraphs and require 12 sources? Mr. Collins has repeatedly denied the consensus, and even went as far as to describe the photograph as promotional. I just want an outcome where A)the articles are being improved (which is the whole purpose of the wikiproject), B)no one on either side is wikicrusading, and C)That all users, Mr. Collins included, don't come across to future newcomers (such as I was) as being acting in bad faith. Not saying he is, I don't now think he is, but as a newcomer it appeared so. Hooper (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your position completely. I just started edit a little over a month ago, before Gavin.collins returned after the RFM ended, and when he started his tagging again and I found out about all of the older RFCs, RFMs, and extensive arguements over articles for no apparent reason, I assumed bad faith. Now, though, I think he's really trying to help -really trying- but just doesn't really know a better way to help out. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe he's acting in bad faith. However, his good-faith contributions are starting to cross the line into disruptive, and his general unresponsiveness to criticism isn't helping to defuse the situation. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Jeske. I couldn't have said that better myself. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe that he believes that he is acting in good faith, and that those who disagree with him are acting in bad faith, which explains most of his reactions towards us. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look to be going anywhere fast, probably because (despite advice to the contrary) the complaint goes beyond "things which require administrative intervention" and into "laundry lists of complaints about an editor" territory. I'd recommend another RfC. I would also strongly recommend dropping all the general complaints about said editor's attitude towards our notability guidelines (which really, really aren't going to be resolved with an RfC) and the canvassing of fiction-friendly members of WP:DND to that effect. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I want to give this another day or two, and see what Gavin does during that time, before starting an RFC. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you had a serious complaint about me, I would have thought you would have started an RFC long ago; wanting to "give this another day or two" seems to me that your complaints may be trivial, and that you do fishing for reasons to find fault with me rather than discuss the issues about individual or groups of articles. I have a different opinion from yours about how D&D articles need to be cleaned up, it does not follow that I don't "really know a better way to help out" at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• We do have a serious complaint, not about your tagging now as much as your other disruptive edits and argumentative tone. We haven't jumped into an RFC or ArbCom because that isn't a step to be taken lightly; we'd rather try to resolve the dispute outside of such a situation. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, posting sarcastic "quotes of the week" on public policy talk pages about people disagreeing with you isn't going to endear you to anyone, and it doesn't speak to wanting to work better with others. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'm going to start drafting the RFC/U soon, and that'll certainly be on it. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the extending by Gavin Collinsof this thread to [Talk:WP:AGF#Quote of the Week] inappropriate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd completely agree even if I wasn't one of the people he was quoting. We plan to use that info for the RFC/U. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland page moves

1. More than a week ago, several different polls were opened on Ireland (disambiguation), Ireland and Republic of Ireland, and another at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force. A veritable mess. The issue is a recurring one. Proponents wanted Republic of Ireland to be at Ireland (state) or a variation . Some of the proponents exhibit an Irish republican POV, which holds that Ireland being qualified by "Republic of" undermines its credibility as the only legitimate government in Ireland. Though support for the move was broader than this, it could therefore be taken into the orbit of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles.
2. Today, these polls were closed by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [congratulations for his bravery!] .
3. Later today, Srnec (talk · contribs) reverted the move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) (Ireland (island), which was salted by the new dab page Ireland )
4. Even later today, Matt Lewis (talk · contribs) copy-pasted Republic of Ireland into Ireland (state) (a redirect at that occasion), and vice-versa [35][36]
5. Polaron (talk · contribs) reverted the copy and paste move[37]

This could well be a big drama fest, but no heads have to roll just yet and no passions need be inflamed. To put it mildly, it is probably unlikely that review of this move close will lead to agreement that the moves had consensus, but in fairness the poll at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force is more strongly in favour of the move than the article pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is currently working on this. Please lets wait for him to comment before adding yet more voices to the cacophony. Rockpocket 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that there's a separate thread open at AN. This needs exactly one cook to prevent broth spoilage. Oh, and "could well be a big drama fest" passed a long time ago. Essentially anything related to the word "Ireland" needs to be handled with care. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to be the brave person to decide whether AN or ANI is the right place for this and so unify discussion? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done it already. AN/I is really the appropriate place anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My response is User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response. No further comment at this point. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unable to comment at User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response as the page is locked for IP's, but it strikes me that Tariqabjotu decision to keep his move is based on his opinion on the matter rather than consensus or the mountains of discussion that has taken place on the matter (much of which cited alternative reasons based on policy for keeping things as they were). --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I will also add that it has a ring of making a faulty decision in good faith then justifying it retrospectively. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's based on the consensus that you all clearly can't decide. Hence, disambiguation. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move Ireland -> Ireland (island), so you moved Ireland -> Ireland (island)? You are clearly operating on a wholly different level, Tariqabjotu. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm very impressed with admin revert warring each other over a page move and then using protection powers to make their version stick. Whatever happened to Bold Revert Discuss? The admin closed and was bold in applying local consensus elsewhere onto a page, and was reverted. Shouldn't he then have engaged in discussion at the local where the dispute was? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Administrator Tariqabjotu's conduct is in good faith. He's done no wrong. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and when I say "then justifying it retrospectively" - I mean only that that kind of decision-making is fault prone. I don't meant any implication of bad faith on the part of Tariqabjotu, just one mistaken decision followed by a fault-prone one. Wheel warring is not pretty though. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And in good faith I criticise the process he decided to use. I think applying local consensus to other locals is most definatly wrong GD. Even RM points you towards the talk page of an article for moves rather than gaining the consensus on the RM page. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (ec)

My move wasn't part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. It was based on an analysis of a move request discussion. Even with the evidence I missed initially, I am staying with my position, for reasons I explained in my response. The editor reverted the result of a move discussion – that's out of process. If (s)he disagrees with the discussion, this type of forum is the appropriate place to go. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for that move discussion at Talk:Ireland (state)... Srnec (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed as recently as September. The decision was to NOT MOVE the page. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no move discussion as I would view it, there was a small clique discussing this in a remote location. Can WP:F1 now conduct move requests on its talk page? Certainly consensus can be developed on those pages, but it must always go back to the talk page of the article in question to achieve consensus among all editors. By taking this behind doors, so to speak, we disenfranchise casual editors and IP editors who are unlikely to delve that many layers beyond the article talk page. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a clique like a cabal, but with disparate people in it? I would be happy with that. It has taken a stern will to battle at times. I set up the WP:IDTF taskforce on Ireland (being WP:bold), and boy the diffs I could show of the same-face aggressive opposition to it! But sense survived the AfD, and sense will service this. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and you simply cannot stop progress forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to stop progress, Matt. However, I do not view the method you used to be progress. I know it was an attempt to avoid the fight that have dogged the pages for years, but I don't think that small groups deciding consensus away from the pages is the answer. Especially when such a well thought out solution had been reached. You skipped a step that validates the decision you reached. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, would you be willing to expand a little on what you meant when you wrote, "Now, I'm done... you are welcome to open a WP:AN or WP:ANI post, but I'm sticking with this position regardless." Do you think that such a statement could be interpreted as meaning that you are unwilling to discuss mistakes you may have made in haste? Do you think that this is a constructive statement to make on an issue that you know to be contentious? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Do you think that such a statement could be interpreted as meaning that you are unwilling to discuss mistakes you may have made in haste?" Yes, it might be interpreted as that. Either way, in my response, I addressed the mistake many people pointed out. I explained why I think, despite that, this is still the best solution. You all are trying to drag me into this debate; I'm not falling for it. This is your debate; I am just here to look at the evidence and decide whether a move is warranted. I did that, so my job is done. You are free to launch an appeal. You are free to continue to bicker about this -- but without me. I have stated my position -- and that's it. Me repeating my reasoning interminably is unproductive. You repeating yours interminably is unproductive.

"Do you think that this is a constructive statement to make on an issue that you know to be contentious?" Yes. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You say this is "our debate" and that we are trying to "drag you into it" but that you won't "fall for it" - yet your final decision was based on your opinion, not ours. Can you reconcile this contradiction?

(Incidentally, while not asking you for your opinion on it or on the issue itself, here was my contribution to this round of polling on the requested move, simply as an FYI. I think that there is more to policy on articles moves to consider than you give credit for in your response. Many of these were discussed in the pages and archives that you ignored.) --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to acknowledge there are differing cases for each of the moves on your talk page. I'd suggest the solution is, at the very least, reverting Ireland (State) to Republic of Ireland and engaging for a local discussion on that page. Though as some people suggest this likely needs mediation or arbitration, I do think out of process move procedures do need to be reversed before such things can occur so as not to present a fait accompli. Though, I do hope that if a move procedure is begun on the talk page that a convincing consensus is reached. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As a noninvolved party, I applaud Tariqabjotu for taking on an contentious issue and making a decision. No matter the decision, someone was going to be unhappy. Moving to a disambiguation, given the confusion that clearly exists, was only proper (if in doubt, disambiguate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That was only half the move though. As Tariq himself says, there was no need to disambiguate RoI. There are also the issues to do with the process which wa pretty obviously a bit unorthodox. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Appeal it and let it go to Arbcom, its bound to end up there anyway and the two factions will never reach agreement. It needs some objectivity. --Snowded TALK 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Or someone could file a RM on the RoI page and present a good argument, as been done elsewhere, and so acctually try to build consensus? It may end up at ArbCom if people continue to believe this assbackwards method of remote page moves is acctually valid, but lets give it a chance to acctually do it properly. Revert the move, put up a RM. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the state is Ireland, and I wanted primary use for the Ireland article to go to the sovereign state of Ireland, but unfortunately that did not happen. I strongly disagree with Narson. PurpleA (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Over what? You think this was a totally proper way to perform a move? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland#RfC: controversial multi-page move. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Compliments to Tariq for trying to sort this out. His solution must be the right one, becuase neither side is happy about it. IT looks like the best solution to me, removing either 'right' answer with one that gives access to the new reader to choose which 'Ireland' they are asking about. For the record, the 89.101 IP which is so abusive to Tariq (Above asking if he's stopped beating his wife yet) is from Ireland, and thus an obvious and plain POV pusher. ThuranX (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot help replying to your remarks above. Many of the editors involved in this dispute are actually British, some like yourself are from Scotland. It would not be very civil of me to say that because you're from Scotland you are a POV-pusher. I think you should withdraw your last remarks. PurpleA (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "For the record, the 89.101 IP ... is from Ireland, and thus an obvious and plain POV pusher." Thus? Gosh. Racism. Nice. At least you're good enough to put it on the record. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let's try this: The IP who refuses to register is from Ireland, which explains why he's such a loud POV Pusher. How's that? I haven't associated you with one view or another, and your own agitation makes it plain you're pushing a POV. As for the Brits and Scots involved, they're all POV pushers as well, here for nationalistic, jingoistic reasons, and not arguing on logical principles, but for political and emotional ones, as are the Irish POV pushers. I further note that neither of you addressed the substance of my post, which is that since no one's happy, he did the right thing. I'll assume that's because you know I'm right. I'm also interested in why the IP wont' register. Sock? Banned User? Someone with a Real Life conflict of interests here? ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically we're all POV pushers. Looks like AGF went out the window. --Cameron* 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say I am very disappointed by these moves, especially as it was retrospectively justified. I saw quite a discussion going on on the what is now Ireland (island) article that was well and truly ignored. In my eyes, this was not a case of being bold, but rather an abuse of administrative powers, in an attempt to get this thing over with. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles have been moved and protected despite consensus tending toward keeping the status quo. Bearing this in mind, we now need neutral admins to help us move forward. We are at your mercy! :) Please help! --Cameron* 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

With every respect to the admin involved, and remaining concious that I do not want to stray from "comment on actions, not editor", I am also more than a little dismayed by the manner in which this change occurred. Per Cameron and TheChrisD, it looks to me like the admin (in good faith) only wandered in to one part of a complex discussion, failed to notice that the issue was WAY more complex than the simple "straw poll" he happened to read, and took premature action as a result. Per TheChrisD, these actions were then retro-actively justified. It seems to me that, in the course of making these changes:

• Due consideration was not given to the points raised in other areas of the discussion page (namely that the task force remit was to confirm a set of guidelines around "how to refer to the 2 Irelands within articles". And was NOT just about article names. As such, a move in the absence of a guideline change was premature)
• Not enough time was taken to familiarise himself/herself with the issues involved before acting (Admin appears to have arrived on the taskforce project page - after several weeks of absence from the project - took a look at just ONE discussion (in a page with 5 or more open discussions), and acting based on inferred "consensus". Where no consensus existed.)
• Not enough notice was given to the parties involved in the task force before making the changes. (In fact, I can see no notice of intent of any kind. The least I would have expected was a one liner that said: "OK, looks like CON to me, here's what I'm going to do...")

Beyond the issues involved in the manner in which the move itself occured, I have serious reservations about the result. The new naming scheme addresses one of the issues raised by the taskforce, but does not represent a complete solution in terms of COMMONNAME (parens suffix have no standing in common use), DAB (Ireland (state) is not a clear label), ease of use (every single derived link will need a pipe), etc. At the VERY least, the "Ireland (state)" article should be moved back to "Republic of Ireland". Until a more complete set of guidelines can be agreed around when/where/how to use and link. Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Cannot agree to that alone. All articles must be moved back to what was the status quo only two days ago. My contention is that "Ireland" was a primary article. Only an article in that format could give the 9,000 years of history in Ireland, and it was universally accepted, contrary to what some editors have said, by almost all. Please return all the articles to what they were two days ago. Thank you. PurpleA (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We cannot return all the articles because per WP:COMMONNAME "Ireland" must be a dab page, as for example "America" is. The closing Admin made what is a vital first step in making Ireland-related articles adhere to normal Wiki policies and conventions. The most damning example of the mess current and past editors have made in this area is that they have achieved a situation where the province of Northern Ireland is defined as a country on Wiki while the most common meaning of the word "Ireland" in modern usage, the country with the capital city Dublin, cannot be described as a country in its title article. This was an excellent, courageous and long-overdue application of WP:NPOV in this area. Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

btw, by my count this is now the tenth forum actively discussing this issue. It seems that the first thing anyone who thinks that there is forum-shopping going on does is to start the argument in a new place. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This 'multiple conversations in multiple locations' behavior is a serious problem. Centralized discussions help, fractured ones do not. By maintaining multiple conversations, the combatants in this, and other disagreements, effectively insulate themselves from outside adjudications. These conversations often start as Forks or forum shopping by a side which is currently losing. Because each side in turn loses ground, each side starts up the argument anew in new places, seeking more consensus for their side. They then justify their decision and consensus in whatever way they can - 'More people weighed in here, thus a bigger consensus', 'This group is specialized in this area and know it better than you', 'This was actually the right place to do this', 'this editor/admin has more authority to decide this', and so on. Each justification 'trumps' the other side in the combatants' minds. When an admin steps in they can point to the other discussions and say, you need to read this one, or that one, or many others, intimidating admins into not messing with it, or into reversing decisions. Each side can suddenly point to the other side for this effect as well: "You ignored these arguments we used on their fork to counter this idea or that one of yours..." and so it goes.

We had an admin come in on a large one of these fractured parts, evaluate it, and BOLDly solve it. He sliced the Gordian knot, halved the baby, and so on. Now the sword he swung is being hoist high over his head. The simple fact is that years of dancing and dodging on this are over, and both sides are angry they didn't get their way, and that the fight is over. These are two separate issues, and both need to be mentioned here. One, Neither side got its way. The article Ireland is now a disambig, not about the Island nor the Political entity, and both sides are incensed that their article didn't get the coveted place. Second,both sides see this argument as an extension of their political leanings, and to have this forum for their grievances removed feels like a personal insult to them. This, they need to man up, hold their sack, and get over (Women too). Tariqabjuto did something truly impressive here, and the community and admins should be backing him. Again I appluad his work here ,and hope for more of the same. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. My original position here was that Ireland meant, first and foremost, my country (aka RoI). After years of futile polls and argument I came to appreciate that there must be a compromise position. While I would still maintain the the average reader means the the sovereign country of Ireland when they search or use the term "Ireland" I have nonetheless come to realise that there will never be consensus around that solution:

• (1) Because Unionists in NI and people in Britain feel that calling the State simply "Ireland" implies that NI isn't on the island of Ireland in some sense or that it represents a nationalist claim on NI
• (2) Because nationalist Irish editors feel that applying the term to the 26 county sovereign state excludes nationalists from six counties from being as "Irish" as someone from Kerry and/or that it surrenders the idea of a politically United Ireland.

The victim in all of this is (a) WP:COMMONNAME, because "Ireland" is the near universally used and recognised term for the Southern state and (b) WP:NPOV because this fact is ignored or set aside for purely political reasons. (And also, some editors who have fought this move for 8 years have a vast amount of personal emotion wrapped up in maintaining the POV versions of the articles).

In the light of all this Ireland as a dab is, frankly, the only solution, though it is painful to both sides as the various arguments show. After this, much follow-up work is required, with doubtless much more debate. But, for now, the boil has finally been lanced; a prerequisite for healing to start. Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when did we get invaded by stereotypes? Could it not be that you oppose use of RoI because...you are Sarah and you, as an individual, chose to oppose it having made a decision based on your view of policy and guidelines? There are plenty of Brits on what is supposed to be the 'nationalist' side and Irish on the 'Unionist' side that perhaps we might have to accept we arn't dealing with stereotypes but fellow editors who are perfectly capable of coming to a rationale opinion based on policy and that we don't need admin to cut the 'Gordian knot' of consensus. I admire the taskforce for what they were doing, I just regret they let their patience fail at the last moment in welcoming this fait accompli --Narson ~ Talk • 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish you were part of the taskforce Narson- I've never seen you comment so much since over the last day! I do thing you are making too big a drama out of this, when so seldom dipping into it before. the admin merely made a per-policy decision anyone could have done - and nobody was 'robbed' of an ROI poll. Many 'opposers' to change were admitting that keeping the name 'Republic of Ireland' wasn't really the central issue - and we were all focusing on Ireland, where the real problem was. I know you've had half an eye on things - but I wonder if you know how much has been covered? I'm happy with what I see as a natural progression here, even if it wasn't the route I expected. The "Mixed Ireland" status-quo bunch have had their chance to progress their own often-hidden preferences (and some of them did have them), and believe me, they stonewalled and they block-voted to breaking point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I retort that you arn't making a big enough drama out of it? :) TBH last I saw of the taskforce it had stagnated. The RoI/Ireland (State) page remained on my watchlist from...god knows when I last contributed there. I am amazed at what you guys managed to achieve and hell, as I've said, the /result/ is likely what I would want. However the process? Meh. This was a cock up. and I realise it is no-one fault really. A mistake was made. However, the actions after that mistake are just trying to perpetuate the cock up. There needs to be a solution that is /just/. For something to be just, process must be followed. Then the issue can be buried. Until then, you just leave an open wound, for lack of a better term. I truly admire what you have achieved in forging a compromise with Sarah and how much she has worked to compromise with you. It is just in the haste to act a lot of the good in that process was negated. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd

Two big points:

1. There was no need to change the status quo. The Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland/Ireland compromise matched our other treatments of geographic areas with multiple governments (i.e., People's Republic of China/Republic of China/China/Taiwan). You're never going to make everybody happy with stuff like this, but it was a stable and accepted solution by the vast majority of the community.
2. The debate took place in a small corner of the projectspace, with little input from the community at large. This may perhaps be the most obscure corner of the encyclopedia to hold a discussion on a move as major as this. Re-arranging our Ireland article names forces the renaming of the entire categorization structure (a long and tedious process in and of itself) and the renaming of hundreds of subsidiary articles, as well as dozens of templates related to European and European Union topics. This is a huge huge debate. Rather than being held in the article talkpage (where it had been shot down back in September), it was shuffled off to a distant hidden corner of the WikiProject Ireland project space. When the discussion took place there, it became a hivemind scenario. While I have no doubt as to the good faith of many of the editors, Tariqabjotu included, this is unreasonable and unfair to the community. While I certainly sympathize with the need to provide for an orderly debate, this was a bit overboard and ultimately (and unintentionally) disenfranchising.

Therefore I urge the reversal of the moves and the opening of a new straw poll, advertised throughout the community noticeboards, in which this debate can be carried out fairly and equitably.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

On point two sir, I doff my cap. You put my point eloquently. It is the process that appears to have gone awry here, despite I am sure good intentions. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For an American administrator to write all that, clearly without researching anything!! I don't like the emotive language, and talk of "hivemind" either. I have not been part on an 'obscure corner' of anything thank you very much. Read WP:IDTF and do not risk offending decent people who have given their spare time to work for a better encyclopedia. I've spoken to several admin now who have voiced regret with the status who (from top dogs to lesser known ones), but who have said it is too difficult/dramatic/unapealling/etc/etc for them to try themselves to change so is best kept/worked on if possible. The 2-state forking issue simply grew out of hand in the end. I'm not having all the hard work, the article locks, endless debate and dramas etc 'glossed over' by an ingnorant bold-text intrusion like this. Really - I mean it. People have done nothing but work - and people on all sides accepted there should be some kind of change in the end. Thousands of messed-up meanings of Ireland in articles have now been put right. Ireland was never my own argument originally, but it stopped me from editing Wikpedia, and I am kind enough to do as much of the tidying-up work as I can. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That is starting to get a bit own-ish Matt. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so pedantic - I'm simply speaking my mind. We all share Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We do all share one which is why the impression you are giving of ownership seems so bizzare. And certainly edits like this don't make it very easy to work with you. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it neither as an American nor as an administrator. I have nothing but good faith that you've been working hard towards solving this dispute, I merely take issue with the manner in which you carried it out. This discussion has widespread effects and implications and should not be left to a workgroup to hammer out in isolation. If you are confident that your conclusions as to what should happen with the Ireland articles are valid, then they should be subjected to the community as a whole for approval. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a bit better after reading that, but I think the community thing can be a bit of an ideal, or even a myth. The RM at Ireland advertised on the main Countries wikiproject, and all the country articles and wikiprojects involved, including the UK article and project. The admin who polled it went to an admin page requesting neutral help before-hand - none came (people run a mile, we've tried before). What do you suggest? I personally suggested Arbcom to look over it, but it didn't happen - as people were just tired of the debates and the stonewalling, and it could have meant a labourious and tedious re-start - so the taksforce broke its 'bond' under the stress, and a 'half approach' RM was placed at Ireland instead. This (island/state) approach Tariqabjatu has moved on was recently straw-polled at the well-advertised WP:IDTF taskforce to a broadly 50/50 result (it possibly had the edge, and at least one who would have gone for it held their vote). Yes it would have been great to get an even wider audience than the few new people that poll pulled in - but this is Wikipedia, and sometimes it's a smaller room than people admit.--Matt Lewis (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to point one by Hemlock Martinis: Clearly there was a need, as evidenced by the ridiculous amount of discussion on this matter. If that's not call for a serious action on this matter, then there will never be, and we are condemned to a permanent war here about which Ireland we can call Ireland. Irony. Instead, we can all accept that no side won this war, and move on. Irony again. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Every step is a step towards stability.. I really believe that, and it;s kept me sane too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So, to rephrase that, a small group of editors who are willing to keep complaining and never shut up will always get their way? Even when it results in the absurdities I point out below? I don't think that's how we do things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a small number. It's an ongoing problem. Consensus can be revisited. Edit warring is bad. And on and on and on. There are plenty of good reasons to change to what we have now, and plenty of problems, fights, arguments and attacks on what we had. I don't understand why peace is so hard for Ireland. In all forms. ThuranX (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You should get your facts right Hemlock. It was not shuffled off to an obscure place, the discussion was notified. The discussion has gone on from a long time and the subject had been new, then on several occasions Ireland (state) would have replaced Republic of Ireland. Consensus was used to prevent change not to reach agreement. Republic of Ireland is incorrect for reasons previously outlined. If you don't know the politics then you need to research it a bit more. To suggest that a small number of editors are complaining (angus) and this is the only reason for the change is a nonsense. There are several small groups of complaining editors on both sides, including several who are throwing their rattles out of their prams here. There have also been a large number of editors who work on other sites than Ireland with some knowledge of history who are disturbed by the perpetuation of language which is now longer used and was specifically excluded by the Good Friday Agreement. What this needs is not the sort of "we find this inconvenient" and inaccurate position you adopted above, but a few serious admins to actually look at the facts and reach a conclusion which can be enforced. That means researching the facts before commenting by the way. --Snowded TALK 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to change the status quo. I very much concur with Hemlock Martinis on this one. Much of the argument of those favouring Tariqabjotu's moves is based on the assumption that the presence of talk page discussion, controversy, a taskforce, and continuous polling pointed to the necessity of a move. It didn't not. It merely showed, as Angus pointed out already, that a minority of editors did not like the status quo. That's fine, and they have every right to challenge it through the appropriate channels. The problem with making moves based on the taskforce was that some of us (i.e. me) did not participate there because we believed (apparently falsely) that it would not have any direct effect on page locations: that, we thought, would be decided, per usual, by move proposals launched at the articles' talk pages and announced at WP:RM. Srnec (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words you avoided all discussion, and simply kept your block vote in a drawer. This cynicism is exactly what has been avoided. You had a chance to help forge the change, but you wouldn't play. And your use of "we" speaks volumes in my eyes - I've got very close to this, and I've known well the score.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If the taskforce had come forward with a consensus proposal... who knows? Maybe I'd have supported it. You have no idea what cynicism is. By using "we" I include other editors who feel as I do. We both know who they are. Srnec (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The notifaction was pretty weak too, at least on the former RoI page. There was a move proposal in...August? September?....and then a message two days before the move. 2 days? Really? THat is an appropiate tme for such a controversial move? --Narson ~ Talk • 07:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that Jim ...

Regardless of whether the move was correctly closed or not, and I say not, the current situation is entirely unacceptable. There are now > 25000 links (mainspace only) to a disambiguation page. The status quo is positively harmful. Perhaps some uninvolved administrator could remove the need for these 25000+ pointless edits and just put Ireland (island) back to Ireland? Thanks Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If proof were needed that this is not even wrong, here are the page view stats from October:

• Ireland (disambiguation) 1455 views, unranked
• Republic of Ireland 131156 views, ranked 1877
• Ireland 302792 views, ranked 467.

So, instead of having the primary name for the most viewed article, and one of the 500 most viewed in October, we have a disambiguation page there that nobody ever read. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more proof as to why the decision above was ill-conceived. We should revert it back to before the moves and continue the discussion from there. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Read bold below: --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe they should probably be moved back now. Angus' arguments are strong, plus it's quite obvious that such a drastic change needs more legitimacy and credibility to stick. If the community actually does want these changes - and various users have to do lots of work to reorganize everything if this is the case - then there is nothing wrong with "confirming" this, and if it doesn't, then we should see that too. This should probably happen quite soon now, as time has already cleared the issues up. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Angus has a huge stake in this - please don't fall for what he is trying to do (ie make Ireland (island) a second country page again - it would be a disaster). --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied from tariqabjotu's Talk re Angus' bot suggestion:

In no way have a bot change all the Ireland links into Ireland (island) - the majority of Ireland links refer to the country, NOT the island (and this can be proven). This fact is one of the main arguments for changing the status quo: Ireland (per common-name usage) has been habitually used instead of Republic of Ireland to mean the contemporary or the historical Irish state. A bot sending them all to the new island article is an absolute nightmare scenario! The idea with the approach Tariqabjotu moved on is that they all now sensibly go to the new Ireland disam page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously - we have a workable situation now, and you all could ruin it by doing this crazy 'bot' move. I don't even want to think about the consequences of it, but it will all start all over again (probably trying to make Ireland the main country article). We CANNOT have two state articles, and this move will instantly make Ireland (island) one again (as it was as Ireland), and the last 2 days editing work will start to reversed in an way I don't even want to think about. We MUST acknowledge why people wanted this change!!!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We had a workable situation before. If you had a problem with content at Ireland you should have just edited it. Most people didn't want this change. Srnec (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"We MUST acknowledge why people wanted this change!!!!" Lets acknowledge it then. A small group of persistent POV pushers have been trying for a long time to get Republic of Ireland moved to Ireland, and the island article moved elsewhere because they object to the term ROI because it was created by the British. The move request at ROI failed multiple times, meaning they had to come up with another solution to remove the primacy of the island article. No doubt in a few months we will see a request to get Ireland (state) moved over to Ireland now that the island article has moved. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A significant group of editors objected to the use of the term ROI for a range of reasons including the fact that the two governments concerned had agreed to no longer use it. At various times there has been a majority in favour of the change, but a minority used 'consensus' to prevent change. Some of that group wanted to use Ireland (to confirm with other wiki use) but in various debates agreed to compromise to Ireland (state). Of course it is very easy to see the mote in someone else's eye while not seeing the log in your own. --Snowded TALK 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you could be bothered to look at the taskforce where most of us 'opened up' to a degree, nearly all af us agreed that 'ROI' was a red herring (though some don't like it, and some like me are neutral, nobody loves it) - deep down this was always about Ireland the island, and the complex ways people see it. And having two forking (time sharing, even) 'country' articles HAD to stop. And for many, it was about the disambiguation mess surrounding it all - though some are happy with that side effect of course. You have had a clear stake in this in the past, number57 - and your accusations of others you are repeating verbatim are simply open to yourself. You are behind the times, and are fighting an old war here - Ireland the island is widely known to be the central issue now, and you can't kid anyone with the creeky "small group of persistent POV pushers" line any more.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"You have had a clear stake in this in the past" - I wouldn't say that commenting on a couple of debates since the nonsense at Flag of the Republic of Ireland in mid/late October and !voting on one of the many past RMs back in August - is a clear stake in the past, especially when compared to the fact that some of the editors have been involved in move requests dating back to early 2007 or even 2006. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Pages moved back

 Administrator note I took the bold liberty of returning the pages back to their stable locations, as enough time for deliberation has passed considering the nature of the affair. Administrator opinion as expressed is that the moves didn't have consensus, and its effects are disruptive. As RfCs etc are proceeding, and as tens of thousands of links are currently misplaced, further discussion and firm consensus for future moves should take place from the status quo ante. PS, I left the redirects to the bot, but if there is anything else now wonky because of the moves that I can fix, please let me know. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to be the first to object to your bold liberty. Evidently it is time to take this to Arbcom. -- Evertype·✆ 16:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work - sanity has returned (at least temporarily). Lets hope this doesn't turn into a wheel war like Burma/Myanmar did though... пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Straight to arbcom? A move could be undertaken locally on the pages to move them, in the proper fashion, to this proposed set of names. Or on one of the pages providing notification is posted on the other pages making it clear what is going on. It was last tried in september? Might be worth having annother go, see where consensus is. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Narson. Let's not get over excited and go to ArbCom! How about trying an RM first? --Cameron* 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to recuse having commented on the request, but I would think the arbitrators would be unlikely to take this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom? Is that just a last desperate attempt to move them or what? Leave them as it is, there was little or no consensus to move in the first place, and moving was disruptive. Djegan (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing you could do Deacon is see the section below on Matt's innappropriate refactoring of Talk:Ireland (now Talk:Ireland (disambiguation). If anybody is to have a chance at understanding the events of the last couple of days, especially in light of this latest move, that page needs to be restored to its correct timeline, and I don't want a block for doing so. MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Self strike, no longer relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What Deacon has done while this "unifying" debate was in progress is simple vandalism. The "Admins" cited in this thread as "justification" have (bar Hemlock) been deeply involved on the side of maintaining the version that is counter to WP:COMMOMNAME, have voted in the polls - to cite their POV as "neutral is bizarre. (As is the notion that Deacon is neutral). Now the same crew who have imposed a pov-ridden set of "solutions" on Ireland article titles are citing the fact that they supressed all attempts to fix the problem as a reason to maintain the pov! (The links issue). This cannot stand. Ireland, like America, is and must be a dab page. Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deacon's action was an exercise in thumbing one's nose at the community, and the ARBCom proceeding should carefully consider whether or not his should lose his buttons for his admin wheel warring behaviors. We had a stable solution in which neither side got their way, neither side was happy, but in which all parties know, like it or not ,that readers will find their way to the right article for each reader. Now we're back to agenda pushing POV debates and demands. Wonderful, we can start all over again. ThuranX (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)This is a request for the Deacon to please name the 3 uninvolved admins he says agreed to reverse the move. I note that to date, he has not done so. From where I'm looking, this is another example of admin abuse, plain and simple, by an involved admin/editor. To use the Deacon's own logic, there was no consensus to move the articles back to their original controversial pages either! For example, take a look at the reaction and clear consensus to overturn a page move involving the abusive move "Flag of Ireland" to "Flag of the Republic of Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Deacon moving the articles back to the status quo of three days ago. But that doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed further in a rational manner. Ireland is a primary topic, and should never be a disambiguation page. PurpleA (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The admin involved indicates he doesn't care about the articles being moved back....and I note when tariq was bold he was praised, especially by you Thuran. Perhaps we should extend the same good faith to both admin? There is an arbcom application in and then if that fails I imagine a fresh RM will begin. There is no need to call for blood. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If the admin involved you are referring to is Deacon, then I find it a stretch that he claims he doesn't care about the pages, and yet he's registered his !vote against the initial move. --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean Tariq. He says he doesn't care that his move was reverted. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Narson, there's a difference between Boldness and wheel warring, and you know it. apples and oranges don't stuff that strawman well. ThuranX (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Still waiting...probably taking you a while to count all those admins up I suppose... --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration requested

For the record, Everytype has intiated an arbitration request. See here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

a letter to editor to inform a potential conflict !

Dear Editor, Well I want to mention here a fact that i have noticed on Wikipedia n is disturbing a large population f the world. And the fact is that an article about Prophet MUHAMMAD ( PBUH) shows his pics as well which is extremely disturbing for all the muslim population in the world who visit and see this article in wikipedia. It is so as in our religion it is not appropriate to make a sketch of our Holy Prophet and even impersonification in any form is not allowed. I dont know if any one before me has discussed this fact here or not but i as a regular user of wikipedia and as a responsible citizen of this world requests you to kindly take out all small pictures n sketch which some one has posted on wikipedia and are representing ( and thats a mistake n offense for large number of muslim population and may create a big conflict ) Our Holy Prophet. I hope you will care for emotions and will respect our religious facts and will take it out so that we may continue using wikipedia once again with more ease. more to hear a good news soon from you. Thanks.

Kindest regards, Nuktaa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuktaa (talk • contribs)

We have discussed this ad nauseam in various places on Wikipedia and have decided as a community that Wikipedia's no-censorship rule overrides all. We respectfully request that, if an article on Wikipedia offends somebody, they avoid visiting that page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nuktaa, please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ as this may help. Pedro :  Chat  09:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how difficult it would be for our devs to provide an ignore list for the casual reader? One that pops up so you can add various names, places, whatever, so you can be sure that you will not be perturbed by accidentally reading about them... If possible, could they trail it with a test subject of Kenny Rogers being made unavailable for anyone in Cornwall? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor raised some concerns on my talk page regarding the FAQ. It seems unnecessary to have the "other offensive content" section with the links to blasphemy, gruesome images and, in particular, pornographic images. That seems highly disrespectful. Consider that this is still basically the talk page of Muhammad, and the page is meant to address concerns by those who are offended by the images in the article. Is it really necessary to basically take a position of "Hey, if you think those images are offensive, check out what else we've got..."? I'm all about keeping the FAQ pretty much as it is as far as explanations go, but do we really need visual examples of how we're not censored? Can text not achieve the message? لennavecia 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We're best off keeping that section. One of the frequently-made accusations back when this subject blew up originally was that we were specifically descriminating against a particular group, singling them out for offensive content in a way that we didn't do for other groups. The "other offensive articles you might like" section helps to counter that accusation by providing the truth: we set out to deliberately offend virtually everybody in one way or another across our encyclopedia, because that's what encyclopedias do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought the same as Jennavecia when I saw that page - I understand the need for an explanation and think the existing text does a good job, but the "look who else we offend" section seems egregious. EyeSerene^talk 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Redvers, but that's a terrible explanation. Why can this not be explained without linking to images? Luckily the section is not named "Other offenseive articles you might like", which is just further disrespect. Perhaps best to instead link to previous discussions about it, where such images may be linked as examples given during debate. However, linking these blasphemous and pornographic images on the talk page of Muhammad's article is highly disrespectful, and I'm neither religious nor easily offended. لennavecia 13:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the explanation is correct. Those offended by some pictures of their prophet are most likely thinking that there is a anti-muslim bias and the section specifically tells them two things: 1.) were are not censored, nowhere and 2.) "hurting feelings" is not a valid reason to delete things.

Noone forces anyone to click those links and we could just rename the page to Wikipedia:FAQ for people who think we are discriminating against one particular group if someone really thinks that just because it's on that particular FAQ it's wrong. But "disrespectful" is not a term I'd use to argue rationally and I see no logical reasons why those links should be removed, because they are very useful to prove the point. Regards SoWhy 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not to be a jerk, but how come we are telling this guy to see our iron clad censorship policy when we don't have a problem telling the scots that we'll delete/blank articles on request? Protonk (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Because showing the images of Muhammad does no actual harm on this planet. Articles on current court cases can have very real and non-negligible effects in the real world. // roux   editor review 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. It does harm to millions of muslims who may see it. And it is against the law in more than a few countries. Further, we have received numerous good faith requests to take it down because it has caused personal grief and dismay in editors. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it did kind of result in some people being killed. That's harm, right? Protonk (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't cause actual harm, whereas influencing the trial of a rapist and murderer does. I'm not going to get sucked into hair-splitting; there is a significant difference between removing an image which may cause offence to some, and temporary hiding of information which can undermine the judicial process. // roux   editor review 18:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't hair splitting. Who are we to say that laws and customs about images of Muhammed are silly but laws and customs about scottish juries are not? A whole part of the defense behind posting those pictures is that we don't redact content upon request. IF we do, then why aren't we doing it for muslims, who have a good faith reason...unless we think that reason is BS? Protonk (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Roux on this one. If we make censor Wikipedia for one religion, we are not leaving the rule intact. Also 'harm' is the wrong word to use here. 'Percieved harm' may be more correct, as actual harm definitely does not occur in this circumstance. Whilst I can understand the offense perhaps caused by this, we cannot go around censoring every little thing that somebody does not like. Admittedly the Muslim population does not equate to 'somebody' so much as a big group, but the principle is exactly the same. We do it for one group, we'll have to do it for every group. Simple. — neuro^(talk) 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that line of reasoning would cause you to agree with him. We did it for the Scots, just now. Why aren't we doing it for the Iranians? Or the Saudis? Protonk (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What Neuro said. 'Being offended by' is worlds away from 'can cause a miscarriage of justice'. // roux   editor review 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And "there is information on the internet" is, in fact, worlds away from a "miscarriage of justice". Protonk (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, snark. I'm done with this discussion, cheers. // roux   editor review 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

??? It's not snark. A scottish police officer literally asserted that they would have to declare a mistrial based on the existence of a wikipedia article of a defendant and we said "Ok, we'll delete it". Protonk (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

← (Unindent) Except, it's not really deleted, as very little gets actually removed from the database. Further, once the trial is over, the article can be put back up. Really, this is apples and oranges. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just covered up because a government that has no jurisdiction over wikipedia asked us. Whether it is temporary or not is irrelevant. Whether it is "deleted" (it was) or written over by a dev is irrelevant. If we censor material upon request we censor material upon request. No one said that permanence had any impact on things. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk is right. I missed the Scottish debate here but I would have been in favor of undeletion. The very idea alone that an article here, that just reflects sources already available to anyone, could influence a court trial while newspapers and radio/television can't is absurd. As Redvers said above, anything can be controversial to a person that is offended by it. If we decide that one article is to be censored while others aren't, that's when people will really be able to accuse us of POV-censoring.

You have to ignore what those cases are about - (possibly?) influencing a jury versus showing pictures of someone who some people think should not be portrayed. In both cases noone is forced to read those articles, yet deleting (parts of) them without a reason in policy/guidelines/US law is censoring. Saying there is a good reason to do so might allow you to find consensus for such actions - but it does not change the nature of the thing. To quote a comment about the now-soon-gone Bush-administration: "Torture is torture, even if you call it 'enhanced interrogation techniques'". Same goes for censorship, it does not change to be censorship just because someone says it's not. Regards SoWhy 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We've taken down BLP articles about subjects at their request before. We've removed sections of articles and entire articles based on IAR. This isn't odd, or out of the ordinary and it's temporary. By your definition, all deletions are censorship. Well, I guess Wikipedia censors all the time then. Let's not blow this out of proportion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, okay, so while this is debated, can we also establish why it's necessary to have porno and Jesus in a jar of piss on the talk page of Muhammad? Kthx. لennavecia 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a talk page of Muhammad, it's a FAQ on why we do not censor articles that feature Muhammad amongst other things. And the links are there to avoid having tons of people here complaining about POV-censorship that only applies to "Western hemisphere bad things". They are examples and yes, as with many things here, people may be appalled by them. But, I cannot stress it enough, it just links them. Whether people choose to click on them or not is their choice. Regards SoWhy 15:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a subpage of the talk page of Muhammad. So actually, it is "a talk page of Muhammad". You still haven't explained why words cannot accomplish the point. لennavecia 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If we called the page Wikipedia:FAQ regarding topics of Islam, it would be no difference. The place of a page does not indicate it's meaning, at least not alone (foe example essays in userspace are not worth less than those in Wikipedia-space). Point is, noone included the text of the article or the pictures in that FAQ - it is just additional text, just easier than saying "we got a picture called XXX, look it up yourself". They are examples that prove the point much better than any text ever could: Someone reading the FAQ who is already thinking Wikipedia has a pro-Christian/anti-Muslim-bias may not accept a text that tells them it's not so - but they might be convinced if we give them examples that in fact we do not censor anything. As I said above, noone has to click those links. Regards SoWhy 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any Muslim editors out there from the middle east able to clarify for us if it's an offence for you to view images of the Prophet? I am concerned that we might be causing harm by allowing you to have the opportunity to view those pictures. If someone can point to a legal code that shows it's an offence (don't worry about which country you are in - we are now moving to a system where we apply local legal codes to articles), we can go from there? You might have to get an official of your govt to make a request for you but I am sure we will seriously consider it - as we have for other countries and their legal systems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User Srkris

Resolved

 – By community consensus, blocked for 3 months.

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

The first block in the log on December 2006: "Repeated incivility and probable copyright violations after final warning. Persistent and frivolous charges of Wikistalking after administrator explanation that no Wikistalking has occurred." Srkris recently returned to editing and has recommenced with this problematic conduct in November 2008 - some examples specified below:

• Uncivil edit summaries:
  • (Mitsube - clueless reverts)
  • (Undid revision 254810541 - if you are clueless, stop !!!)
  • (Ever heard of linguistic periods? They merely represent stages of the development of languages. Stop your clueless reverts.)
  • (rv Dbachmann, you are clueless about extant Vedic vs historical vedic of the early vedic period.)
  • (ever heard of metrical and other restoration of vedic?)

• Uncivil commentary:
  • Suggesting a professor who is an editor is incompetent
  • You missed the wood for the trees, that's all I pointed out. Ultimately I got blocked for trying to protect referenced content from being removed. I have no wish to come between your edit wars. Have fun.
  • Dbachmann is also then your Voice of India worker, look he enlarged it first. Have fun reverting. The professional linguist User_talk:Dbachmann#Persistent_vandalism_of_Sanskrit_page said something in your talkpage, remember? Atleast I'm trying to contribute content with the good intent of improving the article (like I did to pronouns section, compounds section etc) much of which were repeatedly reverted in bad faith by you-know-who. Sudharsansn, the sociolinguistics professor, hasnt made a single meaningful contribution to any of the sanskrit-related language articles. Need I then go into the question of who is disruptive and who's not?
  • Diff of Srkris warned about incivility
  • It is obvious who has behavioural problems (perhaps from childhood). I had to indicate the consensus that was reached a long time back to not include images of current musicians because of POV concerns raised by the same editor then who makes these POV inclusions of images now. Talk of adamancy, hypocrisy and pure stupidity. Kindly dont edit unless you really understand what's written at WP:NPOV. Just because DKP is your favourite artiste or her grandmother doesnt merit an exception for wikipedia. - unsupported accusations.

• Frivolous charges against more than one user:
  • [38]
  • [39]

• Wikihounding me by editing on pages I've edited or created, where he has not edited before:
  • [40]
  • [41]
  • [42]

This is similar to the disruptive and uncivil behavior of User:Sarvagnya, who although was found not to be a sockpuppet, engages in similar unacceptable behavior. Srkris has also been disruptively warring on multiple articles, including Sanskrit (which he was blocked for recently) and related articles, as well as Carnatic music. He fails to comply with content guidelines or policies, or similarly on conduct issues.

It appears that the only purpose here for is to use this site as a battleground against multiple editors and persistently engage in misconduct. Whether this is through direct violations of policy, or POV pushing, it's simply not unhelpful for this project. This, and more, may also be evidenced in his contribution history.

I request that Srkris be banned from editing Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ec - You upload copyvios, somebody calls you on it and you want them banned. Sweet! Sarvagnya 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use/copyvio images are an area of concern for me (I nominated some images Ncmvocalist had uploaded for deletion when he mentioned this issue to me) but the issue is still a serious one. Srkris has been persistently attacking Ncmvocalist and others despite warnings- poor image uploads from other editors have nothing to do with it. J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy vivo violations does not mean that one has to violate civility to point them out.Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ec- Maybe antagonism, team tagging and browbeating with uninformed reverts like the one mentioned here has something to do with it. Sarvagnya 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep this discussion orderly, please raise copyright concerns in a different thread. I fail to see the relevance. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry.. but if you're happy to accept random links as evidence of "wikihounding", you might as well bear with me while I point out that there's been no wikihounding whatsoever in the three links Ncmvocalist has dumped above (under "wikihounding"). Unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks and there's plenty of it in Ncmvocalist's message above. I have not yet heard what Srkris has to say, but I've heard what Ncm has had to say and I see quite a few holes in his accusations. Sarvagnya 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do address any shortcomings in the presentation. It would be more effective to do so, however, if you parse individual instances with diffs and explain the background, rather than making broad assertions. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, can someone tell me exactly what it is that is remotely ban-worthy in these following diffs Sudarshan has laid out in his complaint?

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

And similarly, please tell me what is ban-worthy in these diffs - that Ncmvocalist has laid out and rather imaginatively labeled "Wikihounding".

[48]

[49]

[50]

And pray tell me, how is this frivolous?!! "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is what we teach in kindergarten around here! Sarvagnya 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a problem. The editor had very low activity from January 2007 until September 2008, and the behavior itself hasn't changed. Badly out of step with site standards, demonstrates no receptiveness to feedback. Durova^Charge! 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The fact Srkris continues to attack other editors and behave in a completely inappropriate way, despite warning after warning, block after block suggests to me that he is not going to change his ways. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I will, of course, provide this link to a WQA report filed today by Srkris against Ncmvocalist. ►BMW◄ 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, please note the diff I used under frivolous charges. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you refer to the WQA report, please note that I suggested that this be brought to AN/I. To me it seemed clear looking at the evidence presented that this was an entirely frivolous report with no justification whatsoever and seemed to be abusing dispute resolution processes to make a point. Having taken the time to review this editors past history it would appear a number of editors and admins have tried to educate Srkris about wiki processes and the standards of behaviour expected. That seems to have failed, his contributions seem to be unnecessarily confrontational and disruptive. Justin talk 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I presented a very strong case to do the same just a few weeks ago, however, Srkris did get banned for something different. Right now, he is engaged in edit-warring with me in the Sanskrit page and has intimidated me several times. Srkris repeatedly talk about my profession, 1, 2 and 3 even this is something he inferred from my mention of that in another talk page. However, when I replied back and asked him to mind his own business and stay away from my profession, in a rightfully intimidated tone, he jumps on me by reporting at the [51] board. Now he takes one extreme step further and in spite of having gotten me banned for 12 hours, looks at my routine and wants it extended further. Now those who have dealth with Srkris really know that he is here only to push the Aryan-Sanskrit supremacy agenda and out on a rampage against all Wiki processes and guidelines. He has no place in Wikipedia and his continue presence after six blocks is only a failure of the policies and guidelines. Now Srkris is going to come back here and start going on the frivolous offensive against write everyone and try to get Ncmvocalist or myself banned elsewhere by intimidation. That is also being recorded here. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, some of the comments that both of us, Ncmvocalist and I missed mentioning:

• This is for the Sociolinguistics professor - look who first..

• Sudharsansn the sociolinguistics professor

• The professional linguist said something in your talkpage

• Sudharsansn, the sociolinguistics professor, hasnt made a single meaningful contribution to any of the sanskrit-related language articles

Within a day, he has brought up my profession four times. Now this is extremely inappropriate. First, he peeped into another userpage to find about my mention of being a Sociolinguistics professor. Second, he brings it up in unrelated talk pages. Third, he brings it up to degrade one's profession and makes it look as though Wikipedia is a place only for people like him, who should actually find themselves a job at Voice of India, and not for academics. This is extremely uncivil. If any of you even remotely understand how irritating it is to have some disruptive, uncivil editor repeatedly talk about one's qualifications!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Sanskrit -

“ Srkris, stop acting like you are drunk and berserk. Being a ruthless POV monger does not give you the right to talk about my profession or my field of study again and again. This is your last civility warning, before it is reported and you get blocked once and for all... -- User:Sudharsansn ”

Wow! Wow. And you're complaining that he called you a "sociolinguistics professor"?! Wow and good luck. Sarvagnya 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please turn down the heat and let's have a reasoned discussion. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history through the talk pages, this seems to be the style. Goad editors into making a comment, then complaining of incivility, quoting the involved editor out of context. Look at the complete history Talk:Sanskrit#region. I speak as a completely uninvolved editor who stumbled on this when I noticed a post on wikiquette alerts. I've also noticed that Sarvagnya and Srkris seem to act as a tag team, I believe a check user has eliminated the possibility of sockpuppetry but there does seem to be a strong indication of off-wiki co-ordination. Justin talk 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So there's been a formal wikiquette alert? Any other dispute resolution? Durova^Charge! 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I know that you are very concerned about your POV buddy Srkris without who you would feel very lonely in several edit wars involving the two of you pushing a blatant agenda, including your presence here backing him by trashing me. I have been blocked for 12 hours for making that comment, so I cannot be prosecuted for that again and again. The point, however, is the fact that Srkris is literally goading people into making comments and then, as Justin has suggested, quote them out of context and get them blocked so that he can unobstructedly continue with his usual thing. I had requested for a checkuser some time ago, between Sarvagnya and Srkris and apparently it got cleared. However, it becomes evidently clear that both of you are indeed working a tag-team, perhaps, offline coordination. It is time such disruptive coordinated POV behavior gets penalized. Otherwise, it is seriously pointless to have pages and pages of guidelines and policies. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So any two editors who disagree with you on a talk page are in cahoots? And may I point out to you that stuff like "POV buddies" is uncivil and borders on a personal attack. Cease and desist. This applies to Justin too. Sarvagnya 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you 'cease and desist' templating the regulars with meaningless warnings for policies they havn't breached. Really, there is no point to it. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(add) I wanna jump in on this n all, I've just seen Justin's talk page. Your multiple accusations of "personal attacks" remind me of the sort of amateur tricks used by trolls, IPs and POV warriors. I also realise by your logic this too will constitute as a "personal attack", I suggest you re-read WP:NPA, especially (and somewhat ironically) the part that says; "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack". Ryan4314 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you don't really need every single admin to come and tell you that what you are doing is simply nothing more than POV pushing by forming 'swat' teams, and defending the team members, do you? Your cooperation with Srkris, coordinated POV pushing (and several others that I don't even want to start talking about) and even your very presence here, out on a rampage against anyone saying anything condemning behavior that is very similar to yours (an example) is definitely dubious. If POV buddy is uncivil, then even your 'cease and desist' is very, very uncivil. The very fact that you are out on a rampage against all those who shun such blatant violations of Wiki policies and guidelines, by frivolously branding others of violating it, proves many things. I would recommend that this case be taken up by Srkris, involved editors and the admins. I am quite certain that no one here needs tech-support and I don't want to help you in diverting attention and hijacking this thread from focusing on Srkris's behavior. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the two open cases at Wikiquette Alerts, the aforementioned citations provide no evidence of personal attacks or slander, or any depreciated terms. What the administrators have seen thus far, and have commented on, is clear misrepresentation of not only notices, but edit summaries. Calling one a 'troll' is not a personal attack; it is an approperiate term used to describe the editing patterns of a particular user. As someone else noted, the assertions of stalking are nonsense. On Carnatic, Ncmvocalist first edited the page more than a year ago; ditto with Chemblai. One should note that the OP has accused others of vandalism where none exists.

These frivolous reports are becoming tiring, especially when users such as Neon white (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) believes that this is an "attack." I suggest that the OP and others involved back away from the article and take a break; Ncmvocalist has performed no ills here, and while his characterizations may have been off, they are by means not a personal attack. seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Ncmvocalist and Sudharsansn. Skris has promoted a strange anachronistic and nationalist slant on the history of Sanskrit and Indian cultural influence. User:Srkris often doesn't use sources. He has also been caught attributing things to sources that do not appear in them. Further he revert wars to advance his agenda, without properly using sources, or by deleting properly sourced material. He also thinks his knowledge is greater than it is, and was caught incorrectly declining a simple nominative case adjective in the first line of the Sanskrit article (he changed it to something incorrect, on his own authority). Other users seem to have lost interest in dialogue with him, for these reasons. Mitsube (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There is, I hope, no need to dig into my past edits to prove that I have been blocked for edit warring etc; I know I have been less than perfect in the past, and I dont need to be reminded that I have already been chastized for that. To know why Ncmvocalist has raised this issue against me, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist. This is apparently his mode of retaliation for my complaints against him there. Sudharsansn & Mitsube have ganged up with Ncmvocalist above simply because I represent their "common enemy", so to speak. So reporting my actions here from 2006 is the only thing Ncmvocalist could do with the hope I would be blocked for the same edits again and again. I dont think wikipedia works like that, though.­ Kris (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone has pointed out elsewhere, this is called WP:DRAMA. Nmvocalist is not bringing up incidents from 2006 but the ones that went unnoticed and unpunished. This whole ganging up business is mere nonsense. Your complaints against Ncmvocalist, Dbachmann and myself in the Wikiquette noticeboard are basically attempts at goading other editors, quoting them out of context and of course reading between the lines. The complaints against Ncmvocalist and Dbachmann have been unanimously accepted as frivolous charges with the intention of creating a fuss about nothing. For example, it is fairly obvious that a troll does not mean the hairy creature that eats goats and is indicative of frivolous edit patterns and accusations. However, you called tech-support from Sarvagnya and he is right there backing all your incivility while, understandably, going on a rampage against frivolous issues. Even your attempts at 'defending' your position are merely frivolousness and not to mention, going on an outright rampage against the editors here. It is very ironic to see you write about the way Wikipedia works. What most seem to know is that Wikipedia should not work the way you intend it to, it is not a mouthpiece of your ideas or POVs and is guided by a set of policies and guidelines which you utterly disregard. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We understand that everyone loses their cool now and again but the concerns brought up in [52] againt yourself were valid so i dont think that is a good example to use as abuse of process. In most edit waring and entrenched dispute, there is fault on all sides to some degree. As i stated on the alert, i believe this editor has some good contributions to wikipedia that are not disruptive and it is this particular dispute that has become 'entrenched' for those reasons i believe involuntary mentorship would be a good solution. --neon white talk 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the overwhelming majority of his edits I have been compelled to observe have damaged the project. I don't know what contributions you are describing as "good." Mitsube (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You might have to go back to earlier this year but there are edits that do not look disruptive to me.[53] --neon white talk 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like blatant customer support. If all you can bring up to substantiate your claim about good edits is one single edit, ignoring ALL the other disruptive POV edit-warring and other aforesaid behavior, then this is exactly just an insurance policy. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 06:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That was just one example there are many edits around that time and earlier that do not seem on the face of it to be disruptive. I'm not suggesting ignoring the recent behaviour, i'm suggesting that we can see that the editor did at one stage make some good edits and mentorship would allow oversight of any future edits. --neon white talk 07:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite's backing of Srkris's meaningless complaint is exactly what is being explained as a frivolous charge. To call someone a troll does not indicate a personal attack and this has been pointed out by several other admins and editors in the sections of this same page in which Srkris has framed frivolous charges against other editors. Trolling indicates editing patterns and NOT the hairy creature from Norse mythology that eats goats and smells awful. Just because you or Srkris cite something as a personal attack does not make it one. It has to be accounted for as a personal attack and consensus gained to establish it. Srkris cannot unilaterally establish consensus that it is a personal attack.

Srkris repeatedly talking about my profession in the disparaging sense and mapping that to what he considers as 'incompetence' thereby degrading me, my profession and my professional competence is what called goading someone. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 06:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The compliant showed very clear evidence of personal attacks and you were blocked for 12 hrs as a result. I think everyone is more than aware of User Srkris' behaviour but regardless you still need to maintain your own and not react in kind. --neon white talk 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am contesting the block because I was not even using Wikipedia during the time I was banned. Even otherwise, your baseless backing of Srkris by bringing my behavior into question is pointless. Even assuming that I was indeed 'uncivil', in spite of being quoted out of context, I was given a 12 hour ban and it is over. That has no relevance to the behavior being discussed here. Quoting my behavior or that of the other editors here does NOT absolve Srkris, at all. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not 'backing' anyone and regardless it would be my choice to do so should i wish. I'm pointing out that at least one of the WQAs had very valid points. and am repeating the advice at Wikipedia:NPA#Responding to personal attacks. --neon white talk 07:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• To whatever admin wants to take this up: I have closed the frivolous WQA alerts filed by this user. Gaming the system is unacceptable and diminishes our mechanisms for good faith dispute resolution and decorum issues. Some kind of sanction is certainly in order. Eusebeus (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The only replies I see are a series of frivolous charges against all the editors who have all raised valid issues, that have had consensus as genuine issues from several other editors, making a big fuss out of nothing and able customer-support backing all the frivolousness and drama. Seriously, nothing else. In fact, the best policy that describes it, amongst some other relevant ones, is gaming the system which falls under WP:POINT. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 06:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To make things clear, this report against me was filed in retaliation after I reported the incivility of Ncmvocalist and Dbachmann at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dbachmann and Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist. Those were civility issues which were arbitrarily closed by Eusebeus saying that the same is being discussed here, and that I am involved in gaming the system by raising those WQA alerts. This ANI report itself was not existing when I raised those alerts. I wish the WQA alerts filed by me are reopened without prejudice to this ANI discussion. ­ Kris (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree I called some editors clueless, but that was not in a pejorative way. I genuinely still believe they are clueless about the articles in question when they were making those edits. I did not intend to make any personal attacks.
• The WQA alerts that I raised against those editors' incivility are all well founded, if you see those diffs. This ANI report was raised against me much later, so it is not me that is seeking to game the system. ­ Kris (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? On the WQA, I went through every single diff you provided and commented on their lack of uncivil activity. As such, no, I'm sorry, but they were quite sadly not "well-founded". The ANI was raised to bring admin attention to your unfounded complaints - I believe you had ample time to review your actions and withdraw before creating additional issues. ►BMW◄ 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• After I reported Sudharsansn for incivility, he was banned once. Again he was incivil, and I reported him again, no action on that yet, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Sudharsansn. You dont agree he was uncivil?

• Dbachmann calls me a troll. You think that's not an insult? Yeah yeah i know you will repeat that it represents a pattern of edits and all that judgemental crap, but it is a pejorative and an insult (to most people). That is uncivil and was also reported at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dbachmann. You think this is also not uncivil?

• Ncmvocalist follows me around (WP:Stalk) and makes disruptive edits immediately after I edit some articles where his earlier content contribution is nil. This was reported as stalking at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist.

• Thereafter Ncmvocalist starts this ANI asking for my ban. One admin closes the WQA reports I filed against Ncmvocalist and Dbachmann accusing me of "gaming the system by raising counter-allegations". I have repeated that this is the retaliation filed against me, and it is Ncmvocalist, Dbachmann and Sudharsansn who are gaming the system, not me. ­ Kris (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Process to Intimidate Editors

Aside from the obvious WP:DTTR, the addition to my Talk Page [54], nicely illustrates the way the two editors in question have been abusing wiki processes to be disruptive and to intimidate other editors. Again the tactic seems to be generate heat and noise to distract from the central issue, that being two editors apparently working together to push a POV agenda. Further to the comment above, it was the clearly frivolous and abusive nature of the WQA that caused me to suggest that the issue was raised here. Note this was the suggestion of a completely uninvolved editor who had merely looked at the dispute. Justin talk 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you are suggesting that I be punished because someone else supports me? Thanks very much for your conspiracy theory. ­ Kris (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that this is the issue that needs to be resolved and all the allegations and counter allegations of incivility could be dropped as they are going nowhere fast. --neon white talk 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to what Neon White has said above, he (an admin that has worked on related edits before) has already earlier warned the users of incivility even before I raised the WQA, so the subsequent instances of incivility I reported at WQA were not on frivolous grounds. These comments by Justin above are the kind of conspiracy allegations I am being levelled against for quite some time, and based on which I am sought to be blocked. ­ Kris (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See above regarding the unfounded calls of incivility ►BMW◄ 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You see again now. ­ Kris (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Looking through the talk page history of Srkris, the discussion here (and his responses), it is clear that this is an ongoing problem. Evidently, there has been a lack of receptiveness to feedback, his behavior is badly out of step with site standards, and has not changed since 2006. Gaming the system is unacceptable and diminishes our mechanisms for good faith dispute resolution, and his repeated frivolous charges can no longer be overlooked. Srkris continues to attack other editors and behave in a completely inappropriate way, despite warning after warning, block after block, and this suggests he is not going to change his ways, even on content issues such as POV pushing. Given the sheer long term nature of this disruption and the variety of misconduct, and the multiple topics (as well as articles, and contributors affected by it), I put forward this proposal: "Srkris is banned from editing Wikipedia for 1 year." Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 09:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Skris has done more harm than good so far, it is true. I still don't see why he should be blocked for a full year immediately. Block him for a month. If he doesn't get the message, block him for two months after that, then for four months, and after that, if he still doesn't get it, for a year. I have the impression we often fail to make use of the tool of block length escalation. There is nothing wrong with placing a moderate block in order to push home the message "you're not helping. Think about it. No, do". Some people will reconsider their attitude. If they don't, they can always be slapped with a longer block still. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the message has been emphasized over six times with the latest one being a perfect indication of the fact that things just wouldn't change. Uncivility, stalking, sockpuppetry, most importantly, repeated instances of ALL of these after bans, there you go, one has a picture perfect frame of repeated violations of most of Wikipedia's policies. Any attempt at prorating this would only lead to similar long pointless threads, that would essentially ignore all previous blocks and behavior. Srkris would only come back and ask for all previous behavior to be discounted by going on a rampage against the admins and editors concerned. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 11:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Per Dbachmann William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see that viewpoint Dbachmann and William, but perhaps 3-6 months may be a better alternative? I feel 1 month is at the other extreme, given the extended duration of these problems, as well as what occurred after the first block in December 2006 - something that was completely unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I believe I have caused more harm than good only to the above (except Connolley) editors who were intent mainly on edit warring as a method of pushing POV, not to wikipedia. It makes no surprise for me that the very same editors have now ganged up to get me out of "their" way. Way to go. Banning me for life would be the best remedy for the above editors to push their POV unchecked, any less would satisfy them on a pro-rata manner. All the above editors (again except Connolley) have been warned and/or blocked for their incivility earlier, reported by me. No surprise that they are strongly supporting this ban request raised by Ncmvocalist. ­ Kris (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist and Sudharsansn (probably also Mitsube who hasnt commented so far) will keep bumping this request for ban again and again till their objective is achieved, and that wouldnt surprise me either. This whole ANI report against me was made as a retaliation for my reports against these editors at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dbachmann, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist amd Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Sudharsansn, who want me banned now ­ Kris (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I am going to be blocked/banned, I request that I be banned for life. Not only would that satisfy the above editors no end, it would also save me a lot of time knowing that wikipedia is not for me. ­ Kris (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Can you please stop this whole 'drama queen' behavior and let admins and editors vote? You are not garnering any sympathy by playing the 'victim mentality' card and constantly repeating 'oh-prosecute-me-I-am-so-poor' trick since your behavior does not really correlate to that anywhere!! Everyone who has voted so far are endorsing a ban, the only point that has come up seems to be the prescribed length. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment As much as I hate to use the banstick, I sadly now believe that should any ban/block of Srkris occur, we will likely see an increased level of problems/complaints from a certain supporter (who unfortunately borders on meatpuppetry (and no, that's not uncivil)). In my original WQA reply, I stated that at the time I did not recommend additional admin action against Srkris. Unfortunately, both Srkris and their #1 supporter then took turns taking potshots at me throughout the WQA. Yes, I have a tough skin, but at this point I see that at least one (if not more) actions will need to be taken. Everyone has something to add to Wikipedia, and perhaps a little break might just give some people new focus on how to do so. ►BMW◄ 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry??? LOL you guys are now paranoid, aren't you? ­ Kris (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I was going to bring that up too. Sarvagnya would go on an open rampage against all the editors who voted against Srkris by disruptive behavior and thereby bearing grudge. This is becoming a serious issue here, the whole problem of having tag-teams overrun Wiki policies and guidelines. While I am obviously not recommending anything for Sarvagnya, I am just writing this for it to show up on the record. I will let the community decide what would best preserve the policies and guidelines. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support 3 month ban لennavecia 13:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose an outright ban but would support a topic ban on the grounds that all evidence of disruption is related to a particular set of subjects. Taking a break from these and the POV pushing might help. I would like to see the editor involved in unrelated topics away from the editors that he/she has found communication has been difficult with. If, however, it becomes apparent that these problems are not restricted to certain editors and subjects then further action would need to be considered. I think this is a better way of dealing with it, we are at least attempting to help the editor rather than simply dismissing them as 'bad editor'. --neon white talk 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Read this ­ Kris (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment:All the admins here strongly recommend a ban of some form or the other, so to keep picking on Ncmvocalist and me is totally pointless. What you have posted here is again merely diffs from this same thread. All this is just an attempt to keep the thread growing longer until one fine day everyone gets tired of this behavior. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support He shows no more receptiveness to feedback than he did two years ago when I first blocked him, which is unfortunate because we do need more contributors in the area. Reluctantly supporting: problematic behavior occurs on too many levels to consider a topic ban, unfortunately. Blocks and formal dispute resolution have been tried without success. Politics is not a substitute for policies. Durova^Charge! 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Srkris' incivility has been no worse, in fact, much less worse than those of his opponents on the said pages. Surely calling someone "clueless" cannot be wrong when calling someone a "troll" isnt. Surely calling someone a "sociolinguistics professor" cannot be wrong when calling someone a "drunk going berserk" isnt. Sarvagnya 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Just so that you know, this is called as comparing apples and oranges!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 17:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's called tu quoque. Sarvagnya, you are free to initiate a separate request for administrative action if anyone else's behavior is also outside policy. Also both Sarvangnya and Sudharsansn, please note that under banning policy, partisans to a dispute do not count toward consensus on whether to ban. It's the opinions of uninvolved Wikipedians that matter. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant comparing the 'worst' of my insult with the 'best' of his, Sarvagnya was comparing 'clueless' and 'troll' and they are not counterparts. But yes, tu quoque too, I guess. However, I am quite certain that Sarvagnya would be raring to go on a rampage against the editors who have raised issues, hunt them down and try to ensure that he gets one of us banned for 'some' thing within the next one month. As I mentioned, this kind of tag teaming and customer support behavior is much more serious and I am only waiting for Srkris to come back with renewed vigor to do what he has always been doing disruption. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Partisan? And precisely what makes me partisan? I was not even a part of the discussions at Talk:Sanskrit or any of the other pages here. Except for my input in an AfD where Kris sought it, I don't even remember the last time I interacted with him. And thanks for pointing out that partisans votes don't count. William should now have a good time explaining his block. Sarvagnya 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support I dont belive in banning anyone outright but giving people enough chance to reform would be ideal goal to aspire to, 3 to 6 months to cool off would be good for all.Taprobanus (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support As a non-involved editor, I'd support an escalating block starting with a month, and escalating for one, two, six months if the same behaviours reoccur. Normally I'd be very reluctant to suggest use of an extended block but the response of Srkris to comments about his behaviour appears to be to try and deflect attention to other editor's behaviour rather than recognising that his own behaviour is a problem. As I noted earlier selectively quoting an editor's behaviour following a period of extensive goading is purely designed to deflect attention from what he must recognise is an inappropriate manner for editors to interact. I'd also reluctantly have to suggest that the same sanction is applied to Sarvagnya. His own incivility is just as bad and there certainly seems to be a suggestion of meat puppetry. I must admit to a similar suspicion myself based on the way these editors seem to collude; there certainly appears to be some off-wiki co-ordination. Justin talk 17:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Simple civility issues are dealt with by blocks, not bans. Many of the above people seem to not understand the difference. Additionally, Sarvagnya has a point, perhaps this situation needs to be looked in to as a whole, rather than targeting one editor. However it certainly must be made clear (through blocks preferably, Srkris knows what he is doing) that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. Prodego ^talk 17:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst I'd accept that the wording could have been better we are talking now about an escalating block for disruptive behaviour not a ban. Possibly a matter of semantic but some people don't see a difference between the two. Justin talk 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment'Exactly, i knew the difference and I opted for the 3 to 6 months.Taprobanus (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support: for wikilawyering and attempting to game the system. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This editor's unusual behavior, constant complaints, and wastage of noticeboard bandwidth suggest he is unlikely to settle down to easygoing collaboration with others any time soon. As Durova's comment indicates, the problem has been going on for two years. If a short block were likely to produce reform, Srkris wouldn't have a block log that looks like this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - to be fair, all but one of those blocks were from a two-week period two years ago. // roux   editor review 18:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support three-month block per Durova. Mitsube (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I believe this discussion clearly favours a block, the question is over length. To crystallise this, I've blocked Kris for 1 month. This is the low end of suggested periods and will disappoint some; I don't pretend to have the final vote here so if anyone else feels the consensus is for more, you should increase. This comes with a note that Kris will be watched closely after the block expires with a low incivility trigger, and subsequent blocks will get longer William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am supremely confident that Srkris will come back with renewed vigor, team up with Sarvagnya, hunt down all the admins who have voted against him and ensure that they all stay off his Indo-Aryan 'domain'. He will pounce on everyone, accuse them of incivility when there would be none, engage in more edit-wars with Ncmvocalist and myself, use this thread as a shield, complain of harassing, raise one complaint every day, make threads longer with tu quoque's till everyone is tired and ultimately try to get everyone opposing his POV off Wikipedia. One month is simply at the other extreme end of a life block. Everyone except Dbachmann endorses a ban longer than one month, so the minimum number in this vote has been taken and applied. I can see this becoming a much more serious issue seeing Sarvagnya's comments in this thread. The majority of the votes are in favor of blocks between 3-6 months with blocking for life coming next, followed by one month and followed by oppose. I don't see this one month ban likely to settle down to any collaboration with others any time soon. Anyway, I'll let the community decide. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not a bad solution - I was tempted to block for longer myself, but don't feel strongly enough to adjust the length. Let's see how this pans out. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, a wise middle ground. And apologies if any of my comments seemed out of line to any editor. Please bear in mind: Wikipedia processes are geared toward consensus, not win/lose. Durova^Charge! 03:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, consensus clearly seems to point towards a longer block period, a minimum of three-six months according to those who have voted here. All those who voted for the block, except one, have stressed on three-six months, so this is actually not the consensus, just a singular opinion. My only concern and certitude is that this will continue. A permanent edit ban is just as ridiculous as a one month block, both of them are extremes, not middle-ground. Anyway, as I have said, I am presenting my opinion seeing how Srkris has only come back with renewed intensity and repeated behavior after ALL the previous blocks including one just about a few weeks ago, in spite of being reminded about that. All this has happened right after that block. I will let the community decide. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment After reading over this discussion it seems to me as an uninvolved admin that consensus favored a longer block period. Thus, I have extended it to three months starting today. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Network" resumes

(If you're not aware of this issue, please see here for a recap)

Looks like I ticked off "The Network" pretty good. They're now attacking Tampa, Florida and letting me know [on my talk page] that they're back. They've also attacked Benjamin Franklin Bridge, as they started to do before Thanksgiving. Have we found out if that picture can be locked yet? EaglesFanInTampa 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How depressingly childish from people so privileged. Still, a week's semi-prot on the two articles will give the rich boys time to get bored and move on to urinating in public or whatever these fraternities do in this day and age. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree they need to get a life, I don't think a week-long semi-protect will work (or else I would have gone to WP:RFP); just look at the histories of Camden, New Jersey and Cooper River (New Jersey) after their weeklong blocks were removed. I personally believe that the pic needs to be locked, like was discussed in the previous thread out here on ANI. I know that locking pics is usually reserved for penis and poop pics, but let's be real; what articles, other than the ones now, really need a pic of the 1906 San Fran earthquake? It's not a generic smiley, or even a bombed-out landscape in some unknown land. We know when and where it is, so shouldn't that be enough to restrict its insertion? EaglesFanInTampa 23:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seicer has bumped the protection up to three months. That should give them plenty of time to get bored. As for the misuse of the image... well, I don't think you'll get anyone to agree to blacklist a non-offensive free image, but point yourself at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list for instructions on how to try to get it blacklisted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's why I say that the pic needs to be blacklisted: Tampa Bay Rays diff. Now it's just getting stupid. While I think it's actually pretty funny (and actually kind of proud) that I've aggravated them so much they're coming after me now, they're finding articles unrelated to Camden, New Jersey and just dealing with articles related to me. Obviously, a semi-protect on Tampa Bay Rays is now needed, but am I just going to have to go in circles every time something gets attacked? If I could just get some admins behind me in blacklisting a pic that doesn't belong anywhere but on pages related to the 1906 San Fran quake, this may makes this stupidity end and let me get back to real edits. EaglesFanInTampa 13:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're going to use other pics (mainly because they're reading these postings - most likely from "My Contributions": see diff here) to try and continue (but it looks like one single rogue IP doing all the damage User:12.195.103.2, so we should start by blocking that one). Is there anyway to semi-protect my "My Contributions" so IPs can't see it? I've asked the orig pic be blacklisted, so I'll go from there if something happens after a.) this IP gets blocked, and b.) the pic be blocked. EaglesFanInTampa 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Isn't this starting to tread into Wikistalking? EFIT is being followed around just so they can disrupt his work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I just blocked the IP for a week for harassment. This IP geolocates to Tampa, which is a little disturbing, although we are probably talking about some nerdy frat boy who can't get a date, rather than someone intimidating. We will probably have to play whack-a-mole for a while, and EFIT's user page and talk page might need some form of protection. Horologium (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have also semi-protected User talk:EaglesFanInTampa and Talk:Tau Kappa Epsilon after more harassment from yet another IP address, this one in Hialeah. Horologium (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "bumped the protection up to three months. That should give them plenty of time to get bored" - they've been doing this sort of stuff for over a year (e.g. [55]), and were impersonating me in February this year (User:Sonmo, User:Sommo), and following me around to unrelated articles and vandalising... So although I live in hope that these kids will find something better to do with their lives, perhaps we need to consider more long-term solutions - investigating open proxies, contacting the university/universities involved. I believe it's only one user, who's pretending to be backed up by imaginary friends, so open proxies makes sense to me. Somno (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Somno. I've twice semi-protected Cooper University Hospital for a month, and both times they've come back to it shortly after expiry. Hesperian 11:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Open Proxies?

Looking at the wildly diverse locations being used by this campaign (some of which are hotels and others which are likely internet cafés), I wonder if there is less here than it appears. Can anyone verify whether we have a set of open proxies? Horologium (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You know? I never thought of it until now, but that makes sense. I mean, the latest one harassing me started off by saying "South Florida", and just because the school in Tampa is the University of South Florida doesn't mean anyone here calls this area part of SF; anyone here would know it as Central. Yeah, minor, I know, but it's a thought. That would make sense how they could corroborate each move so quickly. Sure, we live in a digital, up-to-the-second society, but did you really talk to your frat brothers from other states that often enough to plan a coordinated attack? I know I didn't think that far in advance. EaglesFanInTampa 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree

Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is revert warring across perhaps a dozen and a half articles I created up to (but as of now not exceeding) WP:3RR on a style dispute. His edits (adding the adjective "American" to the first part of the first sentence in each bio, and in many cases deleting more specific statements of residency and scope of professional work), were in my opinion clumsy and degraded the articles. Giving him the benefit of doubt on the close cases I selectedly reverted about half of the edits. So far so good, that's how BRD/consens works.

Now the problem. Without discussion the editor simply reverted his changes back. I asked him to stop and self revert, he refused. I reverted some back myself with explanation. He reverted his changes back in, going up to WP:3RR (for example, here[56][57][58]) claiming that because he is acting per the MOS my opinion does not count.

At my insistence he brought the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Nationality in the lede of bios. The discussion is new but there is already a difference of opinion on the subject of how to describe nationality, and a fairly strong sentiment that this is a case-by-case decision for editors of each article. Undaunted, and after many warnings by me to stop edit warring, he just expanded the edit war to other articles I edit, continuing that I need to get consensus to stop him. Check out these edits,[59][60][61][62][63][64] which are occuring after the informal dispute resolution on the MOS talk page in full swing. So he's edit warring while participating in dispute resolution, not instead of dispute resolution. Plus, he's going down a list of my articles, and no others, so whatever his intentions it feels a lot like harassment and wikistalking.

We've dealt before with contentious editors who make mass article edits and edit war to enforce their positions, claiming that WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to them because they know the WP:TRUTH about the guideline. A quick check shows that this editor has been blocked three times in quick succession last month for edit warring against consensus on what he considers style matters, the most recent on Barack Obama - I hope he did not follow me from there.

I do not wish to edit war, but I need a way to engage in reasonable editing. You may or may not agree on the style edits but as a behavioral matter I'm completely boxed in. If I do nothing he makes bad edits to articles I've worked on. If I revert the worst of them he will edit war up to 3RR (I wonder if he would break 3RR but I'm not about to find out - that's what ANI and consensus are for). He won't wait for consensus or discussion. And he's doing it to all of the bio articles I've worked on.

Could someone please warn him to follow process rather than edit war and/or deal with him if he continues? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that looks rather inappropriate. Tom has very obviously followed Wikidemon to a number of articles just to make a point. Grsz¹¹ 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to find out from him what it was, exactly, that provoked this methodical and most likely retaliatory behaviour? If it's — excuse me — tit for tat, addressing the tat might discourage the tit? — Writegeist (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While that sounds like a promising approach, I doubt it will be productive. Asking for an explanation would be tantamount to asking for an admission that this is a cmpaign of bad-faith edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

The user name rings a bell but I have absolutely no recollection of dealings with this editor. Although blocked for revert warring on Obama-related articles he does not all seem connected to the sockpuppeter and allies who disrupted the page so much. Looking through his talk page and block history the only prior interaction I can find is a warm and fuzzy 3RR caution I gave last month.[65] There is something curious - he's a prolific good faith editor with more than 10,000 edits and only a single block over a period of nearly 3 years. Yet in the past couple month he's been accumulating one warning after another for edit warring all over the place, and three blocks in short order. Running out of civility perhaps? Anyway, although his wikigaming and stalking is bad more or less by definition, I have no reason to question his motives. He's probably just trying to spiff up the encyclopedia, and doesn't react well when I disagree.Wikidemon (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Running out of civility perhaps?" Or meds? — Writegeist (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Many things more serious than this have been deemed "content disputes" - i am quite surprised to see editors above reacting as if this were clear-cut vandalism or something. I for one find inherent value (and common sense) in mentioning a basic thing such as nationality (not ethnicity, not regional identity) in the lead of an article, and, on wikipedia in general, so does the majority of editors. In fact, I would advise not just using the nationality in the lead, but linking to the article ("American"). Just who would find this problematic but people who imagine that there's America and then there's the rest of the world? What's more, in those cases were said editor replaced a (whimsical) exception with the standard version, what prevents his scandalized adversary (-ies) to change to a compromise version that would feature both tidbits? What exactly prevents Albert L. Farr from being an "American residential architect, based in San Francisco", instead of the two incomplete versions that are not in fact contradictory? Dahn (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say this enough. Edit warring a bunch of articles simultaneously en masse in response to one's personal view of the guidelines is a very bad idea, as is the attitude that consensus does not matter when guidelines are at stake. If you look at Threeafterthree's blocks and warnings, most are for this very sort of thing - edit warring rather than accepting consensus on things that are relatively trivial stylistic matter. The last one, that got him blocked for a week, was changing Barak Obama to Barak Hussein Obama II in the infobox, or maybe it was the other way around. I forget which because I was totally uninterested in the issue. The problem wasn't that he is right or wrong, because both of them are legitimate names for Obama. The issue was that he kept reverting despite article probation and the efforts of the dozens of other editors to find and respect a consensus on the matter, thereby causing lots of wikidrama, wasted time, and instability to the article.

Wikipedia is all about editors with different opinions working collaboratively. If you look at the attempt at dispute resolution one editor was solidly behind me in principal, one was solidly behind Threeafterthree, and a third said it is a case by case decision with no clear answer (which supports my position). So we had a split result in the hour or two before he started edit warring the exact same issue on a new set of articles.

I do not own any of the 100+ articles I started or the hundreds more to which I have contributed. Many have been greatly improved by the work of other editors. Others have been vandalized or degraded and I pitch in to fix any bad edits. At least half of Threeafterthree's changes were for the better or at least acceptable and I left them alone - I reverted the ones that did not make sense to me. At that point he should have attempted to reason, or work with me, or discuss the mater. Instead he simultaneously reverted up to 3RR on every single article, a dozen or more of these, then instead of respecting a dispute resolution process opened up a new front on the same matter on a new set of articles. If you say that's a content dispute, what am I supposed to do? Revert him again until we are both at 3RR? Then we'll have a contest on the 3RR notice board about which one of us will be blocked, and likely we will both be. Let him have his way because he's more stubborn than me? That's no way to edit an encyclopedia. The only reasonable outcome I can see is to tell him to stop and follow reasonable BRD, collaborative editing. He won't, which is why I came here. Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not find these edits to be bad in any way. User:Threeafterthree appears to have made good faith edits that he believed would improve the articles and which followed the guidelines at WP:MOSBIO. User:Wikidemon changed them straight back, apparently believing, against guidelines and (in my opinion) common sense, that inserting the individual's nationality in the lead of a biographical article was unnecessary. It then developed into some form of edit war, with both reverting the other. Maybe it should have been taken to some form of conflict resolution earlier, but for Wikidemon to accuse Threeafterthree of edit warring is, I'm afraid, laughable. It was Threeafterthree who made perfectly acceptable and sensible edits and Wikidemon who reverted them. To then accuse him of edit warring is disingenuous in the extreme. May I say that had I spotted an article without a nationality in the lead, I would have done exactly the same thing. I would also, had I been in the mood and given the vociferous nature of the reversions, have checked the editor's contribution list to see whether he had written any other articles in the same way. That is not stalking or harrassment; that is good editing to bring articles in line with guidelines. It seems to me that this is a simple disagreement in which one editor is in line with guidelines and one is not; oddly, it is the editor who is not who is reporting the other for edit warring. Wikidemon's apparent claim that the guidelines are ambiguous is simply not true - the first section of WP:MOSBIO sets out quite clearly that nationality should appear in the lead paragraph - it is therefore not in any way POV to add nationalities to the lead paragraph. And, incidentally, the fact that Threeafterthree has been blocked in the past is utterly irrelevant - this is an entirely different issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The mind reels. I do not know where to begin. Let's make it simple. Don't edit war and don't systematically go after another editor. Threeafterthree was doing that and it is onerous, tendentious, and disruptive. My version of the edits I selecively reverted is better and more in line with guidelines. You and Threeafterthree are free to your own opinion but again, don't edit war and throw policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW out the window just because you are convinced you are right. Calling me "laughable", "disingenuous", and beating the drum that you would wikistalk me too are all counterproductive. Threeafterthree's recent block and warning history indicates a pretty serious problem. If we ignore or encourage it, it's going to get worse and from my experience watching editors on comparable paths the outcome will not be pleasant. Wikidemon (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Folks, I usually don’t like to spend this much time or space on disputes but I must in this case. I will try to provide some background. I find biographies very interesting and do quite a bit of editing to make sure they comply with MOSBIO. My first block was due to a group of coordinated ip editors adding “Jewish-American” to approximately 800-1,000 bios a few years back. I reverted 100s of these and had a misunderstanding with an admin. Recently I have ventured into Political articles, which can be quite contentious, and admittly broke 3rr, which I am sorry for and will try hard not to repeat this mistake. I will admit that I probably could have dealt with Wikidemon better but it is very frustrating to be reverted by a user who seems to have taken ownership of articles and takes it personally. All I can say is thank god for user Necrothesp’s input and voice of reason. He has articulated my position perfectly. I feel that I am following a very well laid out and thoughtful MOS but I am the one being brought before this court and I am the one getting slammed. Also, the joke above about being on meds is totally uncalled for since this actually is the case. The number one thing I like about Wikipedia is the transparancy. I am sure that if you spend only a few minutes reviewing this, you would not get the full picture, but if folks were really willing to spend a great deal of time review contributions ect., they would see that I do try to follow policy and work with other editors. Have I had disputes with others? Of course, but it usually takes two to tango. Anyways, this will be my last post since I have decided to retire since this type of drama is not good for my health and will defer to the community. It is user’s like Necrothesp that renew my faith that I am not totally crazy, just slightly :) Please feel free to revert any edit I made recently and best to all. Cheers! --Tom 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon: "My version of the edits I selecively reverted is better and more in line with guidelines." In what way? Care to provide some evidence? Which guidelines are your edits in line with? You are very fond of accusing others of edit warring (now you appear to be accusing me of it too simply because I disagree with you!) and being in breach of guidelines, so maybe you'd like to actually back up those claims. Because as far as I can see this is a pure case of a difference of opinion. I suggest you calm down, stop throwing accusations around, and provide some evidence to back up your claims that your edits are "more in line with guidelines". I'll provide some, from WP:MOSBIO: "The opening paragraph should give:...Nationality". Pretty unequivocal and unambiguous. You've contributed plenty of good stuff to Wikipedia, you seem generally reasonable, so I'm not sure why you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Threeafterthree's perfectly sensible edits. Nationality is an important piece of information to put into the introduction. The guidelines say it is. Most editors do it. What's the problem? Accusing Threeafterthree of edit warring and of stalking and harrassing you because he added something perfectly standard and sensible to some articles you've created seems a bit of an overreaction to say the least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not care to discuss that here because that is a content issue. The point is that there is a reasonable content disagreement. Of the three outside editors who commented you were the only one to back Threeafterthree's position. Another backed mine, as I said, and a third affirmed that this is a case-by-case stylistic choice. It's undeniable therefore that Threeafterthree did not have consensus for his edits and that there was a legitimate difference of opinion. You seem to misunderstand the guideline and the role of guidelines in constructing articles. In some cases Threeafterthree's edits were fine, as I said, and more accurately conveyed the nationality of the subject of hte article. In others, they degraded the articles and made the information more murky, so I reverted or reworded his edits. Keep in mind that there are other style guidelines that apply as well, there is an overriding style guideline about what a lede is and what it is for, and these are only guidelines after all and the point is to present information in a well-written encyclopedic fashion that is useful to the reader. All of this is the subject of reasonable editorial discretion. That kind of thing is to be discussed on a case by case basis with the the articles in question, without edit warring, using the collaborative editing process, with due attention to WP:BRD, among other things.

The claim of ownership and ongoing attempts to disparage me as an editor indicates an attitude issue on your part (Necrothesp) that needs some work. Claiming that I "like" to accuse other editors of edit warring is a low blow, and particularly immature. What are you doing, going through my contribution history for evidence to use against me? If you're looking for conflicts between me and other editors on AN/I, most of the people I have dealt with here or who have brought me here turned out to be sockpuppets or long-term trolls and are now long gone from the project. But please, don't try to disparage me personally as an editor merely for trying to deal with a situation. It is awkward to toot my own horn but I believe I am a reasonably good, and very productive, Wikipedia editor. When someone goes through an editor's entire contribution history to make mass edits on stylistic matters that are the subject of reasonable disagreement, then edit wars to enforce them, then whatever the motivations he is harassing that editor. Wikipedia is full of stylistic choices, such as using British versus American spellings, or different citation formats, and most of the style guidelines, essays, and norms on the topic say that where things are a matter of choice you should give some deference and respect to how the editors who have actually written and maintained an article choose to do it. You should not dive bomb large groups of articles to enforce your personal view of style. The "bee in my bonnet" is that another editor was mass edit warring on a bunch of articles I was working on, to try to enforce his particular stylistic choice. Going up to WP:3RR on a single article is frowned on and whether or not blockable by itself should not be used as a tool to resolve differences. What part of WP:EW do you not understand?

A little later today I would like to go through the articles that Threeafterthree degraded, and intelligently, one by one, evaluate the best way to present each person's cultural and geographic context. I would appreciate if I can do that in peace, without drama, and without being hounded by other editors making a WP:POINT about the MOS. If you don't like wikidrama, do not create it.Wikidemon (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Threeafterthree has had the good grace to leave the debate, I shall do the same. I see no point in further debate with somebody who has just accused me of not understanding what are perfectly clear guidelines and of going through his contribution history to find "evidence to use against" him. You are getting far more heated and aggressive than you ever needed to be and you really do need to calm down when dealing with those who disagree with you. You brought this issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard, yet you do not seem prepared to listen to an administrator's opinion unless it tallies with your own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have unretired :) Nothing like a good night's rest. Also, I do want to attend my first Wiki meet up in Providence on the 13th. I will not, however, edit these articles for now. Cheers, --Tom 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Threeafterthree cited running out of meds as the root of his problem (my educated guess was right!), so we must be glad that with his drug supply now apparently restored he's at last getting his rest, if it means he will no longer pursue Wikidemon from article to article to undo W's edits without explanation and/or in total disregard for consensus; and we must trust that Threeafterthree's undertaking to refrain from editing Sarah Palin et al. (wikidrama is bad for his health) implies a longer period of absence than proved the case in his "retirement." Not to mention his stated resolve to "defer to the community." — Writegeist (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Its more rest than meds, I am still waiting for a refill. Please stop with the nonsense about total disregard for consensus since is that what Wikidemon seems to be doing here. --Tom 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we done here? Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. But will anything be done? — Writegeist (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for further action at this point. Everyone has had their say. I've fixed several of the articles to balance various style objectives and generally unmong things. Assuming nobody is going to edit war over that there will be no disruption to avoid and no call for administrative intervention.Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist is there something you want "done"? Also, turkeys are done and people are finished, so the question should be are we finished? --Tom 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, sadly, "done" is le mot juste. Goodbye. Oops, no, I fear it's "au revoir." — Writegeist (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Advertising image

An image is being repeatedly put into the article Cat litter. IMO it is advertising. I've now removed it three times and another editor has also removed it. CBHA (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reported the IP editor as a probable spambot. --GoodDamon 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that was the world's greatest cat litter. I'll have to go out and get some now - and I don't even own a cat. (Or vice versa.) However, a more appropriate photo might be a cat litter box, with "before" and "after" photos, if you get my drift. That would dispell any questions the casual reader might have about the product. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's too funny. World's greatest cat litter indeed. Some cat litters are just born great, some achieve greatness through hard effort, yet others have cat litter thrust upon them. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ewww... Can I pass on the cat litter thrusting, please? --GoodDamon 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Thrusting"????

I actually use this litter for my cat! seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What's sad is that I might actually go buy it...cat has been having issues with Tidy Cat. --Smashville^talk 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing you definitely don't need is a cat with litterbox "issues". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now everybody at work wants to know what I'm laughing at and I have no way of explaining that doesn't sound insane. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Do like I do and tell them to read it for themselves.--Alf ^{an unsweet and tough shameless thing} 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better than me having litter box issues... --Smashville^talk 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you glad that the penalty box in Nashville isn't called "the litterbox"?? Might be sponsorship time to raise some $$$  :-) ►BMW◄ 14:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

HPJoker

On Saturday night, I blocked HPJoker (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for grossly incivil comments toward Atlantabravz (talk · contribs) and Bwilkins (talk · contribs). Well, this morning 74.50.119.142 (talk · contribs) left incivil remarks in a similar vein--and in the very same section--of Atlantabravz' talk page. I initially reset his timer (it had 12 hours to go, no less!) and was about to leave a "one more stunt and it's indef" message when something made me check out his history. Not one constructive edit from November 22 onward--instead, mostly a raft of uncivil comments on user talk pages. Given this track record and what appears to be a social networking approach to the project, I ran it up to indef. Please review and/or endorse. Blueboy96 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - To an extent. Maybe an indef is a bit too much, but it does pass WP:DUCK... hm, I probably would have suggested 6 months or something. Maybe I'm just too lenient. — neuro^(talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - On second thought, I am too lenient. Endorse fully. — neuro^(talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, I'm involved as a "victim", so I'm not commenting. I certainly endorsed action. Length might depend on his willingness to to an proper, polite, properly apologetic unblock request. ►BMW◄ 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Indef block due to death threat

Resolved

 – Block appropriate, also inappropriate username and thus tagged. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see here and the user's talk page as to why. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I think the block's appropriate in this case, though I could see a case where a phrase like this wouldn't be a death threat (e.g., if the target were a death row inmate vying for a commuted sentence). Regardless, good block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the user name it is likely a vandalism only account (Shorten the first name to a general nickname and say it quickly). Only edit prior to this edit was vandalism. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Should also be sending the userid for deletion anyway, after all "Doctor Bend Your Man Over" is really not appropriate for Wikipedia. ►BMW◄ 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't delete a username. :| — neuro^(talk) 17:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You knew what I meant LOL ... I typed too fast, and this computer doesn't feature my usual options. ►BMW◄ 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User block noted on the talk page. LOL. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this user is clearly no relation but there is at least one Dallas media personality who uses his actual name on the air (I've personally seen his driver's license) and that name is Benjamin "Ben" Dover. The bio on his website is interesting reading. - Dravecky (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note -- this was a sock of User:Madman C, who is apparently returning to his old obsessions. Email me if you want details. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

apparent intentional violations of WP:OWN, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV

Irgun article.

Because of some problems in the editing of the Irgun article, that resulted in a user being blocked, I took a look at the article content. The first thing that attracted my attention was this, in the lead, saying: Initially, a central part of their efforts included attacks against Palestinian Arabs,[2] but it increasingly shifted to attacks against the British. A check of the source, a book by Joseph Telushkin, showed that the source cited actually read: The Irgun, a militant group -- originally founded by followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky to retaliate against Arab terrorism, and which later to forcing the British out of Palistine... The source can be read here [66]. By selectively leaving out Joseph Telushkin's statement that the Irgun was founded to retaliate against Arab terrorism, makes the material now in the article seem POV, and I thought this rather minor and obvious change would be simple. This is my original change, correcting the material [67]. The reverts that followed are [68][69][70][71][72]. There might be a couple I missed.

The talk page discussion of this is here [73]. As can be seen, the issue has been discussed at length. The reason I brought this problem to AN/I is that it is not an editing dispute, but an intentional violation of WP:VERIFY, which clearly states: The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Distorting a quote, , as has clearly been done, violates a foundational WP principle, and is not subject to majority vote by editors claiming consensus.

• The larger problem, involving controversial articles, such as this Irgun, is a subject I raised in a thread on the Village pump (policy) [74]. I hope that anyone interested in the subject will comment. Some new ways of dealing with the issues involving controversial articles might actually help reduce volume on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Distorting a quote, , as has clearly been done, violates a foundational WP principle, and is not subject to majority vote by editors claiming consensus" Whilst this is true, whether it is 'distorting a quote' is open to consensus. — neuro^(talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neurolysis, it is a short quote, and if core content is left out, Telushkin's view that the Irgun retaliated against the terrorist attacks of Palestinian Arabs, then his meaning is virtually inverted. The standard is that The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Denying that makes a farce of WP:VERIFY. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed an editing dispute, and it is unfortunate that Schosha has resorted to little more than "no, you're wrong" responses throughout. The article is not using this citation for a direct quote from its author, it is merely being used for a brief blip of factual information regarding Irgun's formation. It is equally unfortunate that this user does not believe in the dispute resolution process, as he has been seeking commentary at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV depends on a balanced cross section of editors showing up seeking input on bypassing DR, to have controversial articles subject to either some sort of special rules or deleted outright. I really do not see a valid rationale for this coming to ANI. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, you still have no explanation of why you are supporting material in the article that inverts the sources intended meaning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't believe that it does any such thing? We are well aware of how right you think you are, but I don't see many others that are convinced. And really, this should go back to the article's talk page rather than here. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. I've just stuck my head out with a new version [75] which removes from the sentence the value-laden terms used by each side of this dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think making the sentence more unintelligible solves the problem, you have done a good job of that. But it still does not represent the source cited correctly, and is a distortion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean it doesn't follow the dource by saying that the good guys are militants and the bad guys are terrorists. Well there's enough people changing the article it will be interesting to see which wrong version gets protected. Or whether the other side are prepared to accept my version, given that you're at three reverts for now.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored my earlier edit, which I think accurate represents Joseph Telushkin's views, which are in the source [76]. If you find what the source says unacceptable, please explain why? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen, if the source says the Palestinians are to blame, that is what the material in the article should say. Otherwise it is WP:OR, and notWP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of lopping out the disputed source entirely, and noting the text with a {{cn}} tag, so we can find a better and more neutral replacement. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is astounding the exertion that is necessary to get such a small change made to an article....when editing with these guys. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't even know what this means. The most recent change I made today includes none of the text that you have been edit warring over for days. Tarc (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tark, wrote that "I don't even know what this means." Tark, I hope you don't mean that, because I have worked on the assumption that you are an intelligent editor. But to make it simple, it took me days of edits, discussion, and this trip to AN/I, to accomplish a very small change to the article; a change that could have been done in a few minutes. Since the issue was WP:verify, all the reverts, and lame excuses, by you, Peter cohen, PalestineRemembered and RolandR, still do not out vote WP:verify, and I hope that you soon figure that out. Since the problematic material is now gone from the article (accomplishing the minimum change that was necessary), there is nothing further at argue about on that account....but the remaining, now unsourced, material is subject to eventual deletion. On the plus side, it was a pleasure to discuss these things with you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that there is only one post in this thread by someone who is not involved in the discussion on the article talk page? SHall we go back there and stop boring the locals wiht our little wikidrama?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter about moving it back. Though frankly I think "attacks" is the most NPOV way to describe their actions since it's not likely any significant number of of their actions were nonviolent seminars, protests, sit ins, etc.! CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that discussion had been moved away from the talk page. What I brought here is the issue of WP:verify, which is (as far as I know) a valid issue to bring to AN/I when that is violated in the article, and the issue can not settled on the talk page. As far as the word "attacks" being used to describe such Irgun activity, I do not have any particular objection to that, as long as Telushkin's description of those attacks as retaliation to Palestinian Arab terrorism is also included. Cherry picking of which words and phrases to use, in this case, not only violated WP:verify, but also WP:OR. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The source (Telushkin) describes the actions against the Arabs as retailation, and so should our article, so long as we use that as a source. Removing it all and throwing in a CN tag is childish, the equivalent of 'if i can't have it my way, no one can have any [then throwing the food/toy on the floor].' Let's avoid such immaturity, shall we? ThuranX (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed the reference and may reinstate it later. As for retaliation, the current paragraph reads The Irgun was the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".[1] Over time the focus of their actions shifted from the Palestinian Arabs to the British.[citation needed] SO retaliation is in there already.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Slow motion editwar

There's a slow-mo editwar going on at WP:DoTTR between Bstone and Dbachmann. I'd appreciate if someone could jump in. // roux   editor review 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, input is appreciated. No, it's not a "slow-mo editwar" at this point. I have asked Bstone to comment at Wikipedia talk:Do template the regulars (you will note that I am the only party bothering to edit this talkpage so far) -- and if he chooses to negotiate at this point, an actual edit-war can still be avoided. If, instead, he refers yet again without discussion, I will agree the edit-war stage has been reached. I have no idea why this is being posted at "AN/I". "Attention all admins, a page has been reverted twice, and there may soon be a discussion taking place at a talkpage"? How is this ANI-worthy? --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see Bstone on that page... am I missing something? — neuro^(talk) 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's Wikipedia:Do template the regulars (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Do template the regulars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not WP:DoTTR as stated by the reporting user. This is the first time I've come across Bstone, btw, and my mind boggles to follow what else he's been up to. This is a minor issue by comparison, the recreation of a page that has been userified as a result of mfd here--dab (𒁳) 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the page I was on... :/ — neuro^(talk) 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) oop nevermind — neuro^(talk) 18:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I grabbed the acronym on the page. And I brought it up here because I edited the article in the past (reverting vandalism from a sock, but still) and figured it would be better to get someone completely uninvolved to look at it. Bstone is not engaging on the talkpage; the two of you are just reverting each other, two days in a row so far. Sorry if you disagree, but I felt it was best to get someone other than myself to look at it. // roux   editor review 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

why do you reply to a note I left on your talkpage on ANI? I'm sorry, this is weird. As I said, I don't object to people looking at this at all, but I am concerned that for the purposes of ANI, this is just spam. I feel you don't have a concept of "slo-mo edit war", and you don't have a concept of what this page is for: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. No, the two of us are not "just reverting each other", we have been exchanging opinions via edit summary. This didn't work, so I took it to the talkpage. Hello? This happens about half a gazillion times every day on Wikipedia. If Bstone now refuses to communicate, we may be on the brink entering an edit-war, something that happens perhaps only a tenth of a gazillion times daily. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because I didn't particularly feel like fragmenting the discussion. Care to keep making judgements about me? This isn't spam; I acted in good faith to try and head off what looked like was turning into an edit war. I am terribly sorry that you don't agree, but the two of you are just blindly reverting each other and being snarky in the edit summaries. Yes, you're trying to engage on the talkpage, Bstone isn't engaging. Fine. But all I was trying to do was get an uninvolved admin to take a look and if appropriate let you both know to cut it out. You're welcome to keep making judgements about what I do and do not know, and you're welcome to keep being wrong about them. I know exactly what this board is for, and in my opinion my post was well within those lines. You don't. That's your prerogative, but I would very much appreciate it if you stopped with the low-grade sniping. // roux   editor review 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this is amazing. Truly. I undid the gentleman's major edits of the essay based on the fact that I disagreed with them, as I stated in the edit summary. I then went to take a shower and when I came back I see that I am subject to an AN/I thread. Talk about drama. There was minimal effort to discuss on the essay's talk page and exactly zero effort to talk to me directly. Rather it was immediately brought to ANI. Talk about drama! Bstone (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God. I wasn't trying to create drama. Please re-read what I've written above: this was a good-faith attempt to get a neutral eye to look at the situation and decide whether or not something needed to be done. That is all. The two of you have pumped up the drama quotient here. // roux   editor review 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is not causing drama here, it is Roux. Do not accuse him of doing such a thing, he has in fact done exactly the right thing in bringing it up, so stop it and deal with the matter at hand. Accusing others of causing drama only causes more drama, let's just get this over with, shall we? — neuro^(talk) 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

roux is acting in good faith, of course, but the fact remains that this should never have been posted to ANI in the first place. Why? Because that sort of stuff isn't what ANI is for. If we permit the posting of random trifles such as this one, the usefulness of this board will be down to zero in no time. This is a noticeboard for actual incidents that require actual admin intervention. We need to keep the noise down. Accusing me of "low-grade sniping" for pointing out this fact in all civility isn't very constructive. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment of admin

I myself am concerned here, and I don't know what precisely I can do to help, as this appears to be an on-going problem. Apparently some user here, at one time or another, had a bout with the admin Gwen Gale. Since after Gwen ran for ArbCom, various IPs have tried to out here again and again, some have been blocked for years as a result. I am bringing this here so that more admins know about it, and will hopefully watch Gwen's userpage and talk page to prevent further attemps, and maybe do some blocking. Below can be found the current list of IPs who have attempted to out her, transcluded from my userspace:

List of Users/SPAs/IPs harassing admin Gwen Gale(listed in order of appearance)

• 173.45.64.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.250.250.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 208.94.243.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.103.143.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.64.61.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.123.162.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.190.147.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.14.177.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.253.164.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.164.200.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Acacheuntousury (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TouchyEcruSauna (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ARaucousChutney (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 203.252.125.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the thread because 1/ it was unnecessarily dramatic and sort of ironic, and 2/ this doesn't qualify as "outing" because the personal info was introduced by Gwen Gale. Other than that, I'm in agreement. There is an apparent group that's making a point to harass her. لennavecia 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the best option we have here, since this person is using an anonymizing service and open proxies, is to play "whack-a-mole". At least it lets us ferret out more anonymizing and open proxies! Oh well, lets just keep more admins eyes on this, and continue to revert, block, and ignore. This person is a troll, and the less direct acknowledgement of their activities here, the better. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The last IP on the list was blocked by me for a short duration. If that is a proxy that should be shutdown for a few years, someone please do so. This is not my area of expertise. لennavecia 20:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I will keep there userpage on my watchlist and if I see a IP matching it I will report it here or to one of the above admins. SteelersFan-94 20:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please also be on the look out for any IPs adding suspicious questions to her talk page. So far this list has continued to increase.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 20:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also indef'd a couple of registered accounts that have attempted to harass her. لennavecia 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know there were any such accounts. Would you care to list them so we can keep track of things?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just added a new IP, User:75.164.200.81, per the IP's edit to Jimbo's talk page, which I have reverted just a few seconds prior to this post.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• IF these are open proxy services, that is one thing. If they aren't have we considered a checkuser to see the (almost certain) likelihood that these IPs are being used by a current editor? Protonk (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Have the conflict of interest and other issues involved in this matter been dealt with? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dare I ask "what issues?" and how (more like if) it is relevant to Gwen being harassed ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't; the editor's privacy is best respected. The issues will be resolved decisively through normal channels. Skomorokh 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you've asked and a suspiciously new account has answered it in a somewhat slanted way. That post has now been dealt with. One thing to point out is that the existence of a serious breach of COI is only alleged. Not only has the person to edit material on a subject rather close to themselves, but for it to become a problem they have to do so in a slanted way and be actively resisting remedies when the issue is raised. I've not noticed any real, current, non-banned, non-blocked user pop up and make the claim that this is going on. Large numbers of users were quite happy to openly complain about some of Gwen's recent blocks or vote against her for Arbcom. None have thought it appropriate to come here and use their real user name in doing so. This makes me,and others, think that the person making the complaint has an ulterior motive (such as being currently subjected to a current block.) Meanwhile the COI issue is sorting itself out nicely somewhere in the background.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)(slight ce later --Peter cohen (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps I have not had enough caffeine this morn, but after spending the past hour looking at all the stuff in question, I am having a really difficult time getting my undies in a bunch over the various allegations made by these IPs and SPAs. Her rants about Wikipedia from 2005 are just that: the blowing off of some frustrated steam from nearly four years ago. On internet timescales, that sort of ancient history is like complaining about the bad table manners of the neanderthals. Likewise, while the Wyss concerns were enough to derail her January 2008 RfA, in just four months Gwen was able to reassure the Wikipedia community enough that her May 2008 RfA garnered 84.5% support. Sure we all have bad days and make some questionable judgment calls that later turn out to be pretty rotten, but that is just part of being human, right? Are there any Wikipedians who do not make mistakes? Additionally every admin worth their salt (well, except for the ones who only want to play it "safe") have made some controversial decisions that have no doubt totally pissed off someone ... but that does not mean they are "bad" or "untrustworthy" admins. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of the basis for the accusations, does anyone have any objections to me taking this to RFCU? Protonk (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • None here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 04:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • sent to "IP check". I'm not sure if that is the right place to go. Wikiepdia does have many process and policy corners. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For all who care, I regarding the SPA that just posted here, he/she also just sent me an email, an email which I shall quote below after I finish this post. Also, can someone please indef block this SPA, and remove it's ability to email?

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

Daedalus, I hope you'll take a few words of wisdom from someone who's been around WP for years (and years). You obviously have the best of intentions, but you are digging yourself a very deep grave--you should have *never* reverted Jimbo's page, he does not take kindly to that, and I would recommend undoing that revert at your earliest convenience. I encourage you to seek input from other Admins about this if you don't believe me. For better or worse, Gwen has made some errors and you need to just let these things play out without getting overly involved. I suspect that Jimbo already knows about this and so your attempt to keep it off his talk page is only going to exacerbate the problem, not alleviate it.

I do not honestly wish to get any more of these types of emails from a lying SPA who thinks we were all borne yesterday. As a side note, I am changing the log I have on my userspace, to reflect SPA accounts like this one, any accounts found by CU, and any IPs who have the same agenda.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Protonk (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The users I have blocked are TouchyEcruSauna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ARaucousChutney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user noted above on Jimbo's talk page is probably a sock of ARaucousChutney, from comments he's made elsewhere. لennavecia 06:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that these three editor's names are anagrams. لennavecia 06:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They should both be on the RFCU. IF you see any more you can probably just append them to that request. (Edit conflict)--on a good note, you using the word "anagram" made it much easier for me to get back to this section w/ ctrl-F after the EC than it would be otherwise. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Added the new accounts to the list above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion that needs to be speedily closed

As indicated by multiple editors in this discussion, please note that deletion "is not (my italics) a legal option" as the nominator merged some of that article's content that other editors other than the nominator had originally written prior to the nomination (see [77] and [78] for the merge of content written by myself and others and here for the GFDL regarding such merges}. Thus, technically, because the discussion can only legally close as "keep," "merge", "redirect", or "no consensus", i.e. anything other than "delete", it should be speedily closed without prejudice for a talk page discussion on the merits of the merge done by the nominator a few weeks back. I did ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination prior to posting here, but was rebuffed as seen here, which seems to suggest that the purpose of the nomination is to have some kind of forced redirect, while in that edit he indicates he is not opposed to a redirect with the edit history kept. It doesn't seem right to thus start a deletion discussion if the article cannot be legally deleted when the nominator had merged the content a few weeks prior and in effect is not really after deletion anyway. If it was called "articles for confirming merges and redirects" okay, but it is not. I am also somewhat concerned that the merge did not acknowledge the page it was clearly merged from something an admin had also cautioned the user about as seen here. In any event, I am not requesting any action against the nominator, but as the discussion cannot end in "delete" there is no purpose for the discussion to continue in under the auspices of an articles for deletion discussion. Incidentally, the two main characters of Tyris and Ax are actually reasonably notable (obviously not on par with Mario and Sonic, but recognizable to pretty much anybody familiar with video games) and covered in numerous reliable sources in multiple languages around the world (see for example, this and this) as well as in various magazines that I have seen without necessarily having online archives. Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any article can be deleted at AfD if those at AfD make a consensus for it. There's no such thing as an article that must legally (lol) be kept or merged as far as I know. I know admins sometimes do a 'history merge' of some articles, but I don't think that's often necessary. If he says where he merged the info from in the edit summary (if that's really the case) that's usually all that's needed. Sticky Parkin 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he doesn't say in the edit summary, but given that "merge" edit coincided with this redirect, it is obvious where it was merged from; however, if the other edit, i.e. the redirect is also deleted, then that would not be clear. Moreover, based on the comment on his talk page, he seems really after the merge and redirect and hopes that a deletion discussion, which is not what AfDs are for, will somehow be a means of bypassing a proper talk page merge discussion. And per the GFDL, we have to keep the contribution histories in tact as I have seen argued many times. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think A Nobody's point is that since the nominator merged some of the information already, the proper (as per guidelines) outcome would be a merge and not a delete so the edit history won't be lost. "Legal" was an unfortunate choice of words. I don't know if this is true or not as I haven't looked into it, and I'm not sure ANI is the place for this discussion, but maybe someone with the appropriate expertise can offer an opinion on whether the edit history should be kept (effectively resulting in a merge) if the nominator of an AfD has merged parts of the article without merging the edit history? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section of the GFDL license is "In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements." So a full history merge would be required. RMHED (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was quoting someone from the discussion. I cut a finger on my right hand pretty good (I'm right handed) and so my typing and all is a bit off tonight. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's correct that the article history mustn't be deleted, the deletion discussion about having an article of that topic is still a valid and at the right place. A history merge is not recommendable in this particular case since the page histories overlap, WP:HISTMERGE recommends moving it into a subpage into Talk space. --Amalthea 02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article's history can't be deleted as a result of the merge, then Articles for Deletion really isn't the right venue. A discussion should have taken place on the article's talk page to build consensus for the merge and redirect. Or it needs to be made clear that the only acceptable/appropriate closes of the discussion in question are "keep," "no consensus," or "merge and redirect." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A possible result is still to remove it from article space, as I said above, and AfD is the proper place to discuss that. I personally agree that a redirect is the "worst" outcome in this discussion, but it doesn't call for a procedural speedy closure. Cheers, Amalthea 03:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wouldn't ignoring the rules make sense in this case? It's very understandable to assert that this is Articles for deletion and not Articles for discussion, and I would certainly agree, but to bring a lot of users in the wrong (i.e. those straight siding for deletion) because what in my opinion is nothing more than a technicality seem to accomplish little besides getting in the way of maintaining the encyclopedia; a speedy close and proposed move of the discussion would accomplish just that. MuZemike (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IAR applies to community-created policies. It's not an valid argument to ignore the site license.--chaser - t 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an "articles for discussion"? Also, the two main characters Ax and Tyris are mentioned in international newspaper and magazine reviews, previews, etc. of the games they appear in and in some of these reviews at decent length. These reviews, previews, etc. verify much of the information in the article, which means significant coverage in reliable secondary or third-party sources and thus unoriginal research. See, for example, David Choquet, "Golden Axe," 1000 Game Heroes (Taschen, 2002), 331-334. I do see and agree that the article should have better citations, but a quick glance on Google News and in some of my video game magazines shows that the characters are integral parts of the series and do receive enough out of universe coverage to justify their coverage. With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge and redirect that maintains the edit history so that editors can use the vast multitude of sources available to improve the content when they have the sources to work from rather than having to start over, but in any event, my concern is that content I and others had been working on was merged unilaterally a few weeks back by the nominator to another article without attributing it to us in the edit summary followed by a challenge of the redirect by IPs (see here), and then instead of discussing the validity of the redirects on a talk page just nominated the article with our contributions for deletion thereby making it (if deleted) so that those of who actually wrote that content would not be acknowledged. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered where this new meme had come from. As far as I can tell, this standard has not been applied in the past on any wide scale - it only gets a single line in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which then points to an essay for clarification. If this is going to be used extensively (and frankly I'd bet my house that it'll be used in every fictional-content AfD from now until Armageddon now) then it really needs to be made clearer on the policy page exactly what outcomes are acceptable for AfDs. If we're now saying that a conclusion of "delete because all material has been merged" now explicitly requires a history merge in all cases it should be made clear - I'd rather that than have hundreds of protected redirects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have used the word legal. After reading this discussion, I suggest moving the page to a talk subpage for merging to retain attribution. That allows for both deletion of this specific page and retention of the edit history. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, they did apparently also make a toy of the character as well. Moreover, because the characters appear in multiple games, this article serves as a sort of gateway to those other articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, whereto now, or the psychosomatic mafia

Within just a few days, several things happened to make me conclude that Wikipedia has dropped down the ladder of humanity the last final steps. I always knew that it would eventually happen, but didn't expect it to go so fast. Maybe I am just fortunate to be in a section that is at the frontier, but from what I have seen certainly not by much, so keep reading: this concerns you, too; if not today, then tomorrow.

When I temporarily returned to editing about a week ago, on the specific request of a number of good users, I found the articles I was interested in, in a more sorry state than ever before. They were full of own research and synthesis of editors, false attribution to sources, heavy weight attached to fringe theories and outlier research, etcetera, and with all kinds of quality research and sources that we had collectively gathered the year before removed.

I started to improve the texts, by dealing with the issues one by one. A few other users helped. Then, a number of things happened in quick succession.

1. Every single one of our edits, some two dozen in total, got reverted, without explanation.
2. The two users responsible for the reverts refused to discuss their actions.
3. When I protested against their massive reverting, my protest was called frivolous and it was forbidden to me to protest again.
4. From then on, our edits - mostly different ones, the articles grew new issues faster than we could keep up with - got removed every day, and every day I saw the articles transformed further.
5. When I attempted to initiate dispute resolution on one of the talk pages, my comments were modified. When I protested against this, all - mind, you: all admins, and there were many that got themselves involved, declared that it was alright for people to modify my comments if they didn't agree with them, as often as they wished, while my restoring them was blatant editwarring. The regular expert on the vandalism policy talk page said different, but he got ignored.

This is not about me though, I couldn't care less if it was not for the following. It merely illustrates how things work now, and I am far from the only user with such experiences.

The real issue is this.

A year ago, a bunch of well-meaning users - including myself, patient, but also a published scientist and recognized experience expert - were happily at work to improve articles such as chronic fatigue syndrome. We found and added a lot of material, and got awarded for our work with a B-status, quite high for such a difficult topic. We even had so much material, that it was decided to create a number of sub-articles, and work was started on those. Sure, there was an editor who occasionally added his pet personal theory to the text, but we patiently dealt with that each time it happened, and the articles kept correctly indicating that CFS is a case definition for a genuine, biomedical disorder, formally known by the diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis, with all the reliable sources to support so.

The situation, and the articles, changed dramatically when two new users started to edit them. In rapid succession, the articles got renamed, stripped from all biomedical sources, and rewritten. If someone protested, they got intimidated. Between the two of them they declared to always have consensus and ignored any other voice, and several medical admins protected their edits if the need arose.

Although the transformation is not yet complete, the current articles now suggest that CFS is not so much a known medical disorder, but more of an unknown behavioural issue, one that can be cured if patients didn't stubbornly refuse to take cognitive behavioural therapy.

It is furthermore stated that, if this is changed back, we purposely hurt patients, and that I am probably getting paid for trying to get biomedical information back in.

No, I do not get paid. In fact, I have no income whatsoever, and expect not to survive this winter because of it; I barely survived the last because of the severity of my illness.

So this is where we are now, and CFS is not the only topic where this has happened either.

The project, that was started to freely spread knowledge, is now spreading propaganda.

Of the users attending the topic of CFS who saw this coming earlier, half a dozen have been permabanned, some on the specific request of Jimbo Wales. The rest have simply been scared off. A whole lot of medical pages is now dominated by a few users who are rewording them to suggest that they are psychosomatic, by falsely attributing conclusions to sources that do not support them, by leaving out the sources (the vast majority, and the highest quality) that say the opposite.

I post this here, in part because Wikipedia offers no better place, but also because it is also an admin issue. You, admins, were made aware of the problem often enough, and you stood by, not idly, but actively supporting what is happening, applying a set of randomly liberal rules to one side, and another set of randomly strict rules to the other.

It is time to make up your mind, because there will not be another opportunity for you. Decide if you want Wikipedia to be the world's best propaganda machine, or to stay true to its original purpose. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For anybody with the time and inclination, I would suggest a patient read through Guido's talk page history. Pay close attention to any diff where the byte count drops significantly. Read the text in the left column of the diff. Draw your own conclusion. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

^ yeah, that. — neuro^(talk) 03:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry about Guido's medical problems, I wish him all best. I hope he takes more care about him self, less about how to change Wikipedia policies like wp:medrs. RetroS1mone talk 04:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If Guido's block log wasn't as long as my arm, his opinion might have a bit more weight. HalfShadow 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into the nature of this complaint, but I feel very uneasy seeing comments focusing on the user instead of content. It is called ad hominem, and is a logical fallacy. Please don't do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP is about consensus. When you have 10 simpletons and 1 doctor/engineer/scientist, the simpletons view always wins. My advice would be to give up - wikipedia is about general info for the yokels, it will never be a 'proper' encylopedia for more technical issues.--Dacium (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

that's an overly insulting appraisal of this situation. I went and looked at the article back in April, and now. there are massive changes, I agree. However, I saw neither the spin that Guido alleges (the 'it's all in your head'), nor the brutal ignorance of all other comers, in fact, Guido has multiple edits in the last week. It also looks like one line 'sections', like Insecticide, have been combined with others, or removed if fairly orphaned by their sectioning. All of it looks like it cleaned up a bloated article, shepherded by an editor with an obvious POV (see Guido's talk page), and inflated by editors of the opposing stripe to those cleaning it up. Combine that with guido's block log, and I'm left thinking this is all for the best for Wikipedia, and if we lose Guido, then so be it. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Yokel. Why don't you drop by WP:MED and tell them your theory on how wikipedia works. In my opinion if a scientist or expert on a subject can only rely on their credentials in a discussion, it isn't the fault of the community that it doesn't go their way. Just because someone can't work with other editors or can't present views in proper context doesn't mean that the rest of wikipedia is broken. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Among the contributors to the page - RetroS1mone, who relies heavily on pubmed results and believes The Lancet and Journal of the American Medical Association are highly reliable, more so than the now-unpublished, not medline indexed Journal of Chronic Fatigue (see this RSN discussion). User:Jfdwolff, according to his userpage a doctor and certainly an admin who has managed to not be de-sysopped, suggesting a certain degree of trust. User:Davidruben, another doctor and another admin, also not de-sysopped. User:Sciencewatcher consistently cites reliable sources. User:Tekaphor has been contributing from a CFS-patient position and manages to be quite fruitful in my experience. The page is heavily sourced, to highly reliable journals. That doesn't seem the work of yokels. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Our self-declared expert Guido den Broeder has just indicated that all this was just an experiment to test the behaviour of human beings... [79]. Is there any reason to let this continuous source of disruption edit Wikipedia any longer? HE considers it a health hazard anyway... Fram (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignore it. If he wants to test-drive his results, he can take it to WP:FAIL. It doesn't actually impact the project in any way, it's not a blockable offence, why stir the drama? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a blocklable offence? Assuming that the statement on his userpage is truthful (the purpose, not the results), he has been disrupting Wikipedia for nearly two years just to prove a point... The small hope I still had that he was a well-intentioned but misguided editor has been vaporized, and the chance of him ever changing his editing behavior is actually subzero. Oh well, I'll shut up now :-) Fram (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I support long term ban or indef ban for continual disruption, legal threats, edit warring, incivility, advocating against NPOV, for assorted actions against policy, and for general actions not of benefit to the project, as evidenced by his post above and the "experiment" on his user page. His complete failure to understand the reasons for his previous block, and the implication on his talk page that he would continue to act in this way, while stating a conspiracy against him, all go to show that he needs an enforced wikibreak. Verbal chat 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with the caveat that the did come up with some valid results. Many of the points he raised are well worth pondering. // roux   editor review 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Experts should demonstrate their expertise through their ability to cite the literature. They'll generally have the knowledge of the key articles, access to a far superior library than most wikipedians, both electronic and paper, and can type out a decent sentence. I've never seen reason to let them rule a page and ignore our processes simply because of purported expertise.

Much of the disruption caused by Guido should vanish now, since apparently he's no longer posting on talk pages. If disruption occurs again, that's the point at which I would suggest the final step of an indef block/ban be discussed. This experiment post has no real affect on anything or anyone if we don't let it, so why bother making a big deal about it? That's how wikipedia ends up on the news - '"Free" encyclopedia editable by "anyone" blocks sufferers of chronic conditions' - I don't think the headline would in any way accurately capture the situation, but I'd rather not see it. Though I'll live to regret it, if a block/ban is supported I would suggest one final "if you screw up, you're permablocked" warning. It's probably a futile gesture since I've never seen any evidence of remorse, change or suggestion he was going to take the advice, but what can I say I'm a slave to optimism. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Having recently wandered into this mess after declining Guido's unblock request, I have read through his entire talk page history on a diff by diff basis as well as picked through a month of history. What I have seen is a complete disinterest in getting along with others in a way that makes him a net negative to the project. I had originally suggested to them that they might need mediation to fix the problems on the CFS article, but after fully exploring the issue, I think that the best thing for the article would be an indef block on Guido. I would fully support such a block. Trusilver 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

strongly support block I'd just like to say that in the UK this is often pretty much treated by doctors and government as a psychosomatic condition, so if someone was trying to make this perception of it clear when the article had previously excessively leant towards other theories, the 'psychosomatic mafia' are on the other side of the debate.:) I hope other editors exist who could keep an article WP:NPOV about a physical illness which is treated with anti-depressants, sometimes sleeping tablets, counselling and light exercise, :) and that they aren't threatened with being blocked by a 'psychosomatic mafia'. The person bringing this complaint clearly has a Point of View that this is a physical illness, perhaps to the extent of having a WP:COI, and we must avoid chasing off in general or having a chilling effect on editors who are less personally emotionally involved and so more able to bring about WP:NPOV.Sticky Parkin 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who understands the passions of Guido about their illness and wanting the artilce to show the truth of the disease to save others from the same pitfalls, I have to say that Guido cannot edit these articles. He is very passionate about the articles and I understand where he is coming from which is why I tried to see if I could help with some of the tensions arising. Unfortunately I don't think I did help stop anything, this I am sad to say. Guido is a good knowledgable editor but he takes others editing very personal and this doesn't work well here for the well of the project. There are a lot of active editors at CFS so I think that Guido not being one of them would be the best for the project. I don't know what to make of some of his recent comments like his talk page notice or his examples of what the policy of 3RR is. I think for the health of this editor and the best of project, that maybe Guido should either edit for awhile in non-medical related areas of his choice or he be blocked from editing. I say all of this with a heavy heart and a strong understanding of how he feels. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

@ Malcolm - sometimes the editor is the problem. That's why we have blocks, bans, RFC/U, arbitration and WP:SOCK. Have a look through even the Dec. 1-3rd portion of Guido's talk page, then decide if we are being unfair. The content portion of the [[chronic fatigue syndrome article has been settled or is working its way through. The issue is in part the resurrection of previously-settled content issues by the same editor, with no new reasoning beyond "I want it" and no new sources to start a dialogue around. But we have ANI for a reason - to get outside input. Perhaps we're being overzealous. Please, review and let us know. I'm pretty certain it's not a tiny cabal forcing out a good editor. Virtually all admins that have tried to help Guido have enventually turned away. The way Guido responds to this ([80] and [81] in response to this) kinda speaks for itself. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the user may be a problem. But even if that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, all the more reason not to use ad hominems. I know that I can just shrug them off -- as can most healthy people -- but, if someone is known to be ill, an attack on his/her person could have serious negative consequences. Please do not do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a good thought, we should all be nice w/ each other, but how do you stop abuse, if I say I am sick do i get to attack everyone, be abusing people, edit warring?? Is it good idea treating editors different based from if they say they have a medical condition?? RetroS1mone talk 03:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible slow edit warring and potential deliberate misuse of WP:BLP to suppress cited information

Article: Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User in question:Wikidemon (talk · contribs)

There has been a long and protracted discussion, including an RfC, on how to best present Rashid Khalidi's involvement with the PLO, and the controversy that recently arose again due to the Obama campaign. What is very frustrating is that there are a group of editors, one in particular listed above, who I feel are using WP:BLP as a smokescreen to justify improper WP:POV whitewashing of the article by deliberately removing reliable and verifiable sources.

After discussion of the issues that concerned them, the article brought reliable and verifiable secondary sources by experts in the field, which covers WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV in almost every way that can be thought of. Blanket deletion followed anyway.

Lastly, even after requesting that Wikidemon use the talk page to discuss these last edits, I get templated with a BLP warning violation.

At this point, I would request that other uninvolved admins please look at the history of the article and the reverts to determine if this is actually (slow) POV edit warring and information suppression as opposed to good-faith efforts to best reflect what seems to be an important point about this person's life. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a bogus report. I will respond in a minute.Wikidemon (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The user has not reported you, they are in fact doing the opposite - checking whether they should. — neuro^(talk) 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear what he's asking for here, and there is certainly nothing ripe for administrative action. It's a content dispute, and the editor is the one proposing language that was not agreed to or even discussed via the RfC on the article talk page. That material includes an opinion blog used to source a claim that the subject of the article is lying about his past, so I would say we have some BLP matters to discuss on the talk page. I've asked him to tone it down, stop accusing editors of things, and explain his proposed edits. Either he can go that way or claim here we have a problem that needs to be handled by administrators, but it's hard to do both at the same time. Wikidemon (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Already being discussed at length at WP:AE

I'll just leave this here. [82]. Skomorokh 03:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC) SA has a lovely sense of humour, doesn't he? RMHED (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Humor? I'm not so sure. I am extremely concerned about this, as you could imagine. I am considering reporting this to the authorities as per Wikipedia:Threats of violence. This is the final straw. Someone needs to indef ban him now. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Believe its being sorted. Discussion here should wait a bit. Avruch T 03:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Already being discussed at length at WP:AE among other places; please leave comments there. Closing this in the interest of preventing forest fires. east718 // talk // email // 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:JRH95 and also User:EagleScout18

JRH95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wonder what to make of a user who has made a grand total of 13 edits to date, nominates himself for admin, then seemingly nominates User:Blanchardb for admin, except again with JRH95 as the subject, if I'm reading it right. JRH95's most recent "work" has been to try to push conspiracy theories on the Barack Obama page. A fine candidate for admin, yes indeedy. A joke of a nomination, but there's something odd going on here, looks to me. Any other opinions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too fishy to me, just a confused new user, maybe? — neuro^(talk) 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe needs a friendly, encouraging gesture of reaching out and showing the ropes around here? Speaking of confused newbies, EagleScout18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a train wreck waiting to happen, more like a train wreck in progress. I have no idea how one might respond to this but he has been starting poorly formatted RfCs all over the place, accusing editors of vandalism, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Train wreck indeed! You, an experienced user, know better than to remove templates against policy, such as you have done with Barack Obama-related articles, for which you have already been reported. EagleScout18 (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Experienced users also know to have normal discussion on the talk page for awhile. Going the RFC route is premature, to say the least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The way the editor is digging up dirt on others' edit histories, quoting all kinds of policies (if inaptly and manipulatively), edit warring, etc., looks very troll-like. It's definitely peculiar. It could just be someone thinking that doing battle is the way to get things done here. But we may also want to consider the possibility that this is a sockpuppet of someone who knows how to disrupt things. It's just strange.Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a very strange edit.[83] Wikidemon (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not experienced. Does that mean I don't deserve civility and WP:AGF? I have not violated a single policy, unlike certain experienced users. It is safe to that that reporting me to ANI is beyond premature. It's WP:BITE. EagleScout18 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop fighting other editors, please. This is a friendly caution, you are causing a lot of unnecessary disruption. Technically you are breaking many policies, but practically you are also creating a big mess that others have to clean up. Instead of attacking other editors for trying to cope, and undoing their efforts, please take the time to figure out how things work around here. If not you will soon be blocked from editing to give you a chance to learn the rules. That's not a good way to get started. If you are interested in Wikipedia and want to have a good productive time here, slow down and chill, please. Wikidemon (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Which policies am I breaking? EagleScout18 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you now have other accounts on Wikipedia, or have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts in the past? Wikidemon (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict- reply to EagleScout18's question about breaking policies) WP:DISRUPTION for starters. Take a break, edit an article that is not controversial, and read the several warning messages (and their links) that you removed from your talk page. Including the one from an admin that you removed, the one where your edit summary was "remove vandalism".[84] ~ priyanath ^talk 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In trying to gain consensus over edit warring, I hardly call that a violation of WP:DISRUPTION. Reverting an unwelcome (non-admin) editor's REPEATED http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EagleScout18&action=history reversions to my talk page is not a policy violation, which this diff reveals, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EagleScout18&diff=255559909&oldid=255558766, is a removal of vandalism. That user was warned and the matter thus closed. I see no policy violation. EagleScout18 (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling a lawful warning "vandalism" does not make you look very good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, never did I call a "lawful" warning vandalism. And further, no policy violations. A false statement, then. Thank you, EagleScout18 (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "fair" warning would be a better term, but in any case you did it here [85] here [86] here [87] and here [88]. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, where I removed what had been removed before the reverter repeatedly reverted. In other words, vandalism. EagleScout18 (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to User:JRH95

Resolved

 – Checkuser shows no connection; Blanchardb withdrew in good faith, due to the trouble JRH95 caused by nominating him

The curious nomination by this newbie, of User:Blanchardb to admin, right after nominating himself, has been accepted by User:Blanchardb, who erased my "oppose" comment. I wonder what's up with this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mystery solved (perhaps?). The editor was trying to nominate User:Blanchardb but by forgetting to replace the name in a form template ended up nominating him/herself! See here.[89] - Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. Why would a brand newbie nominate Blanchardb in one of his/her first actions here? Could be an offwiki buddy of Blanchardb. That isn't prohibited is it? Maybe just ask? Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was wondering. Not prohibited as far as I know. But if you think they're buddies, just check out Blanchard's curiously dismissive comment toward JRH95: [90] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But, re: User:EagleScout18

I accept apologies, cake, party favors, what have you. Thanks in advance. EagleScout18 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep up your disruptive approach, and you'll have a "block party". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hysterical. Not. But apologies, I accept. Thank you in advance, EagleScout18 (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Could be a long wait. I'm now convinced that you're a troll, if not also a sock, so in the absence of any new developments, we're done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm now convinced you're accustomed to biting newcomers and falsely accusing them of violating policy solely on the basis of disagreement. So, NOW "we're done here," EagleScout18 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

EagleScout is now labelling anyone who disagrees with him as being "biased": [91] Contentiousness, incivility, attitude... Not at all a promising start for a newbie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, biting newcomers, berating, incivility, bullying? Not a promising future for a non-newbie. EagleScout18 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just before calling us "biased", he made minor edits to the articles Bias and Autocracy. Now I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Other shoe: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_projection&diff=prev&oldid=255593831 EagleScout18 (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are improvements so maybe we can see some random acts of constructive trolling. If I say I'm hungry will he do grammar fixes to the article on bacon? Wikidemon (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Naw. I don't care for pigs. EagleScout18 (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Too funny. Good catch here, you're a good copy editor.[92] I think I'm done for the night. 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there's hope for me yet. 'Night, EagleScout18 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit [93] fairly much telegraphs the user's viewpoint, which is to push a right-wing agenda. In case there was doubt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Merely pointing out hypocrisies. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

EagleScout, please remember not to talk about WP:BITECLUB. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not. Why do you keep bringing it up? EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Barack Obama still on probation? I cannot believe this has been allowed to string out so long. If this guy has any further interest in antagonising the situation let's get on and use those rules. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that the moment you refer to me as "antagonizing" you antagonize me? EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Should I use pig latin? He is armlesshay, just ankingyay our ainchay. Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No please don't. As a one time Latin scholar, I find the whole concept of "pig-Latin" particularly laughable... – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I too. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ootay atelay.. ;) // roux   editor review 18:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion Agree. A waste of ANI space. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not as big a waste as the multiple RFC's were. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost as big a waste as sarcastic and banal commentary. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Take it off ANI. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think EagleScout's rude and offensive behavior here is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Grsz¹¹ 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:BennyQuixote

Resolved

 – user is now aware of MOS guidelines, pledges to stop.

BennyQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user with virtually no activity until the last few days, has taken it upon himself to foment a revert war in various political articles by replacing "he or she" with just "he", refusing to explain his actions. Disruption 101. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned 3-4 times now. (check his talk page history, he deletes these warnings, as is his right, but he has been warned). Given that he has not done so since his most recent warnings, lets see how he responds. This has a certain dirty sock smell to it, but I can't place this guy in a specific sock drawer. Lets see if anyone can place him, and if not, then lets see if he behaves after this, or continues his crusade. Lets at least WP:AGF this pending the appearance of evidence to the contrary... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What does the Manual of Style say? Some find it tedious to replace the generic or unmarked "he" with "he or she." Compare to Spanish, where the default is the masculine, for male or mixed groups, replaced by the feminine for female groups. Edison (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor claims, via a message on my talk page [94], to have stopped after being pointed towards the MOS and seems to have made some constructive edits at Beauty and Naturalistic pantheism. I think Jayron32 is right on the money about WP:AGF, it seems to have been a misunderstanding of style. Although, I must confess, I also prefer the masculine pronoun when writing but that is a product of my rigidly Victorian education. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above, response to Edison). The MOS states, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral_language and at WP:GNL, the prefered form is to use gender neutral language in whatever form is most convenient to the particular writing. The problem here is that he is replaceing an accepted gender neutral form -"he or she" - with a non-gender-neutral one - "he". If the form "he or she" is awkward to the writing, then it should be changed to an equally gender neutral phrasing, and not to the masculine-only form. Again, the user has been warned, and has not resumed problematic behavior. Unless and until they do, we should assume good faith here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(post EC reply to lobot). Sounds good then. Marking this as resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself: I was unaware there was even a page on gender-neutral terms in the first place. I took a look at it and read it over, so I stopped making the pronoun changes. I might be a grammar Nazi, and I was bored with myself, so I made the changes. The reason I deleted the warnings from my page was because I didn't consider the notes significant enough to keep, since I stopped.

On a more humorous note, you classified me as a "guy." Isn't that gender-biased? BennyQuixote

Maybe, but it's not in an article. And girls call each other "guys" all the time anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Banime's longterm, admitted vandalism

Banime admitted here that he is attempting to game Wikipedia by producing a few meaningful edits between pieces of subtle vandalism like Podtats, which he created (and admits to here and here). That article is designed to do nothing else except demean and disparage Jarin Udom. User should be blocked as admitted, persistent vandal. TGH1970 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• ? Protonk (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is not vandalism per se, and the editor is constantly on IRC talking contstructively, calmly, and correctly too, just to let you know. — neuro^(talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Read the original versions and portions of the existing text (like the "units sold" portion of the infobox, for instance) and it becomes clear that this page had only one purpose. If you go and actually read that thread you can see this user comping to all that and more. TGH1970 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• See also Slowrun, which is (was) an obvious hoax. TGH1970 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless Banime confirms that the user is indeed him, then we can't do anything unless you have some proof. — neuro^(talk) 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually... hm. — neuro^(talk) 05:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• See also Weedpunk, this post and this edit to the very same article he posted about. TGH1970 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• And this post and this edit. These are the same user. TGH1970 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• This user may be User:Dans1120, who was indefblocked for vandalism a little over a year ago, the same time that this account registered. TGH1970 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe. They share no articlespace edits (or any other that I can see). That's relatively rare for socks or accounts run by the same person, though neither impossible nor unheard of. That account did work on Zybourne Clock (look at old deleted diffs, if you can), which was added to the SA post and the wikipedia article in the above links. Protonk (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree that the SA account is linked. I will talk to Banime on IRC if nobody catches him first. — neuro^(talk) 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• There's not a whole lot to discuss. He's admitted he's a vandal, that he intends to vandalize further and he's deliberately attempting to game the system so he doesn't get caught. It's pretty open and shut at this point. TGH1970 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) To an admin seeing this, should rollback be removed from this account. I was the admin to grant Banime's request for it, and based on what I've read above I would remove it, but I've just logged in briefly to check my watchlist before I go to bed (in a minute). Thanks -MBK₀₀₄ 06:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm perplexed by this to say the least. I can't find a justification why he would make the Podtats article or why he would defend it...but I can't accept the premise that he makes "various insignificant content edits" and then subtly vandalizes. That characterization doesn't appropriately describe his edits who has 500 edits to Frederick III, German Emperor and is shepherding it through FAC. Also, I'll be in the cold, cold grave before I take something from SA at face value in determining whether to brand an editor as a vandal. I suggest we move pretty slowly through this. Protonk (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Meh, looks more likely.... Protonk (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm convinced. Either someone saw his edits and logged into that account on SA within minutes to post in those threads each time or annefrankfanatic==banime. Protonk (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Podtats deleted as a G10. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. I'm going to bed. In my opinion this isn't an open and shut case. It looks possible (though very unlikely in my mind) that User:Banime==User:Dans1120. If that is the case (probably can't be confirmed/denied technically) then it is open and shut. However it is likely that Banime is just Banime. He's a wikipedian, or has become one (in the sense that he seems to have adopted the norms and habits of a long term user) but he is probably also "anne frank fanfic" on Something Awful. This means that he's had a laugh at the expense of wikipedia a few times. That's disruptive, though not something I'd ratchet up to a block immediately. Also, (and of more concern), it looks like he created Podtats with the express intent to attack someone (or at least ridicule). In both the "weedpunk" and "podtats" cases he knew our sourcing policies and feigned ignorance in order to keep the articles going. Having said this, I really do believe that he likes it here and contributes positively in a manner that far outweighs (assuming we are just making net benefit comparisons) his relatively minor hoaxes. The right answer is to send a message that we won't put up with this under any circumstances and we are unwilling to just watch him closely to ensure he doesn't do this again (create an elaborate or carefully constructed hoax). How we want to send that message (or ensure it is received clearly) is a matter for discussion. I'm not going to block him before I go, but I don't object to a block from another admin (of course). I'm also not going to remove rollback (I don't see the point). Protonk (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• So Weedpunk is a confirmed hoax which Banime created, then defended at AFD? If so, this is a major problem; deliberately inserting nihilartikels is a pretty serious problem, in my view. I'd consider this a basis for a ban, at least unless Banime identifies and removes all remaining problem articles. We should not tolerate people who intentionally attempt to damage the integrity of the encyclopedia, especially with deliberately falsified information. east718 // talk // email // 08:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Having just gone through the AFD discussion, I want to point out that in that discussion Banime coordinated with a number of his online buddies to have them try and alter the outcome of that discussion with a bunch of anonymous and newly registered accounts. For this user to attempt to save a hoax article with votestacking through meat (and possibly sock) puppetry is grounds for any person to be blocked indefinitely. I agree that some of his contributions are meaningful, but we also have no way of knowing whether all those edits were truly constructive since his credibility has now dropped to nothing. TGH1970 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to be rude but the time for advocacy is over. You've made your case (and evidently don't want to give us any perspective on why you would make it). the evidence you presented is compelling. We don't need more rhetoric about how to resolve this. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting here right now to show you I've read this discussion after neurolysis posted it on my talk page, and I'll be back with a reply to address these points. However, until then, if someone wishes to ban me then I'd ask to hold off until after my current FAC closes, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, as I'd like to be able to respond to the opposes to continue improving the article. I'll be back later with a response. --Banime (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Woah, guys, tell me if this has been mentioned before, but something is up. Something is very fishy about the person starting this thread. — neuro^(talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• (refactored) TGH1970 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't mention it before but I was thinking about it. It is rather fishy to have this account drop by out of the blue to say this about Banime. that doesn't make the underlying accusation untrue. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, the relation here is that I was reading the forums and came across the Podtats thread, where I discovered that anne frank fanfic had created it. Through that I discovered he had created a range of hoaxes and then filed this report. There is no connection to any earlier dispute, just that I came across it on the forums. TGH1970 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pondering whether or not to erase the four posts immediately above, and then mine. Banime has asked for time and promised to be back later with a response. It is just basic common decency to grant him that time and in the meantime leave this thread alone.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not erase them, but at least hold off on further replies and speculation. — neuro^(talk) 20:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• (refactored) TGH1970 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Stating that they can be redacted because "they amount to a bad faith campaign by Banime to discredit [you]" is utterly ridiculous, since Banime has not posted anything in this thread that is campaigning against you, they merely acknowledged reading through the thread. If you wish to accuse me of something, please say it, don't beat around the bush. — neuro^(talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• (refactored) TGH1970 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• WP:AGF there is absolutely no reason for you to throw around accusations of conspiracy. We looked at your evidence, despite the obvious fact that this was not your first account and that you might have something to gain by presenting information selectively. If you continue to rail and fulminate about this to otherwise patient and helpful users or make vague threats like "you will have a lot of explaining to do" you will probably be excused from this discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) (e/c) For someone that shouts around conspiracy theories of bad faith, you sure do forget to assume good faith. You are really starting to annoy me right now, especially in calling me a meatpuppet (it was blatantly directed at me, don't try to deny it). I am probably not going to respond again until you back off from acting like I am some sort of cross-country sock of Banime. I do not condone what Banime has done, in fact if the allegations are true in whole then I condemn it, but that does not give you the right to address me like you are my mother. Banime has multiple times said that he will not judge me if I disengage and back away from the situation completely, but that does not appeal to me because what I am 'regurgitating' right now is my own opinion, and my own feelings towards the situation, not Banime's - whether our feelings in certain areas are similar or not is irrelevant. I am taken aback by you saying that I "should be careful about the company [I] keep", that is utterly uncalled for and grossly offensive. The editors I choose to converse with are of my choosing and not yours, and don't you forget that. As for having 'some explaining to do', I don't even know what to say it is so ridiculous, and I take it as a threat. This is the last comment you will hear from me on this subject, any subsequent messages will be directly related to the topic at hand, unless I am called upon to do otherwise. Now please desist, and get back on the topic - of which you are a subject too, despite the fact that you are so insistent that you are not. The person submitting the report is liable to scrutiny, especially in such suspicious circumstances as yours, so don't try and divert the fact that it looks extremely odd that a contributor who is making their first edits suddenly comes to AN/I and requests a block - it simply does not happen. Now lets get back on topic, and back to constructive discussion, shall we? Thank you. — neuro^(talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm back with a response, thanks for your patience. As I looked at who accused me I saw he was pretty new and his contributions were 50% about me, so I thought something was kind of weird, which is why I filed that checkuser. It was declined, however I felt I had good reason to at the time because of the circumstances. Enough about the person whos made these claims, because, even if they were in bad faith (which I am not assuming), the severity of his claims have caused even good faith contributors to examine the evidence. I will assume it is good faith of course and respond accordingly. I'll number my points if anyone would like to respond to them by number (or I can bulletize them if its annoying).

1. First thing that shouldn't need to be said, is off wiki is always off wiki. I'm sure there are a number of editors and possibly administrators that belong to wikipedia criticism sites (which as far as I can tell is one of the purposes of the SomethingAwful site he showed), yet that shouldn't even come into the equation when judging a person's contributions to the site. I never try to judge anyone based on off wiki contributions. That being said, since it has been brought up against me, I am not annefrankfanatic.
2. One of the first and easiest claims to refute against me is that I am User:Dans1120. I am not, please checkuser me if you'd like. I have never had another account.
3. Another easy one to refute, he brings up that I sockpuppeted one of my first AfDs, which I did not. Please checkuser me if you'd like. I have never used another account.
4. Weedpunk was my first article creation, 9 months ago, and in retrospect was wrong according to WP:N. It was one of my earlier edits. I still believe weedpunk is real, and I have heard the term in discussions before (and I thought written), but since I have not found a reliable source mentioning it so far in my search it was wrong to put it up at the time. It was a definite question of WP:N. The article was never a "confirmed hoax", as TGH1970 is bringing up often, please read the AfD, the closing admin simply said there were no reliable sources. However, I suppose you are free to believe that the website TGH1970 is providing is the definite resource on what is fake in the world of relatively minor literary genres. Perhaps the name is odd or seldom used but much literature fits under its definition, I just haven't found reliable sources for it and therefore it was wrong of me to put it up.
5. Slowrun, which I made about 6 months ago as well, as TGH1970 claims is another "obvious hoax". Of course, please read the AfD, and see that it was never an obvious hoax and many video gamers wanted to merge or keep it. However, consensus eventually developed that there were no reliable sources for it. Obviously speedruns, longplays and I thought slowruns were all pretty well known terms but just because the gaming community uses them doesn't mean they belong in wikipedia unless there are reliable sources describing them in significant coverage. Another Wp:N mistake of mine. After this, I started editting more heavily, learned the rules, and decided to be very cautious when making articles like these so that I wouldn't make the same mistakes.
6. And I didn't until now with Podtats apparently. This was a few months ago, and I still believe the article has merits. Perhaps I got the name wrong, and iPod tattoos would be better, but if you read the article it was all real. Udom first started the idea with podtats.com so I used the term podtats. That was wrong in retrospect as again it didn't have the proper reliable sources. Besides that the article was pretty well sourced and described a lot more than Udom including current ipod tattoos, companies that do it, and techniques.
7. The website links he brought up. Apparently there is some sort of vandalism contest going on there, and I perhaps have been targetted somehow for an elaborate troll. I don't claim to know the motivations of anyone, but if someone had wished to get an innocent user banned, I suppose it may be easy to follow them around and post the edits they do and say you did it on an outside website. TGH1970 said (in reply that he deleted later from this very ANI here) that he was just "reading the forums" of that website and "came across it", but the pages he linked to were not on the first page, second page, third page, or even 108th page. They were on the 109th page of that website, which would mean he must have known where to look beforehand. I always assume good faith but when you lay such serious claims down on me such as these I'm sorry if I can't help but think that there may be a possibility of ulterior motives. If you are not annefrankfanatic or some other troll, I apologize. However, it looks increasingly possible, and at the very least, very odd.

Well if you wanted to scour over my mistakes with regards to WP:N with some of my earliest edits, you've succeeded I suppose. Next time, TGH1970, just ask me to put up an editor review though, it may be easier. --Banime (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can you explain the timing between the posts on SA and the inclusion of the content on WP? In other words, we are concerned that you made those entries deliberately to disrupt wikipedia based on the short time between your edits here and the post "announcing" them on that noticeboard--less than a minute in one case. That would seem to contradict your claim that you made those errors out of ignorance. Are you asserting (to be clear) that the synchronicity of those posts is part of an elaborate trolling or vandalism scheme to make it seem as though your edits would be illegitimate? Protonk (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  I don't like anything but assuming good faith and leaving off-wiki things out of wiki discussions, as I have said. However since these claims have been brought up I'll be as clear as I can be. I believe due to TGH1970's sketchy account creation and edit circumstances, bad tempered replies, false reasons for coming up with this report ("was just browsing") and knowing exactly where to find those links to the 109th page of that website, that I believe it is very possible for him to have done so. I am not annefrankfanatic. He may in fact be, or another troll, based on this evidence alone. --Banime (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I'm not clear. I don't care about the content of what was written off wiki. I care that what was written off wiki, if it was written by you, would show that you knowlingly created and defended hoax articles or edits (Here I mean weekpunk not slowrun, which was just nn, not a hoax) or poorly sourced "attack" articles (podtats). And I want you to say, without ambiguity, that the posts made there, literally minutes after you made edits on wikipedia about the same subject and all by the same name were not made by you but were instead made by some other user in an attempt to harass you. An attempt, I might add, that did not bear fruit until months later and solely by suggesting a possible link between the two. What TGH1970 is or is not is unrelated. If he is a troll or a sock he will be blocked indefinitely. What is important is that we can trust you. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  I did not make those posts. If you're concerned by the "months long" part, the third rule for the aforementioned vandalism contest state "3) i will keep track of your edits for at least 1 (one) month or more" which seems time isn't too much of an issue. --Banime (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ok. Despite some rather deep reservations I trust you. I would be saddened to learn that you were lying. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  Are you kidding me? You're going to blame for all of this? Have you looked at Banime's edit history? He is obviously the one who has created these articles, he's obviously the one who has repeatedly made edits seconds after posting about on the forums and he has obviously created Podtats as a mean to smear Jarin Udom. You're actually going to turn around and say that this is some kind of massive conspiracy against him? The evidence here is overwhelming, and most of it comes from Banime's own edit history and I cannot believe you're going to turn around and blame me for filing this report. TGH1970 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'm going to say that I trust him. He's told me (despite the fact that he knows I know the facts of the matter) that he didn't do it. If he is lying to me, so be it. I chose to believe that he is not. Another admin may feel differently, but getting upset about it won't change anything. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well, that's a pretty lousy administrative decision then. Of course I will wait for an unbiased third party to actually review the evidence here, because simply taking his word for it has to be the most shortsighted explanation for dismissing piles of evidence that I've ever heard of. TGH1970 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  You are welcome to that opinion, of course. I'm not stupid, by the way. Nor am I biased. Nor is my claim that I trust banime the end of the discussion here (as Category:Administrators is well populated). Protonk (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, well now I have an IP that can be checked: this post and this edit. I think a checkuser would be justified in this instance. TGH1970 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do so if it will put this to rest. --Banime (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Banime does not have a vanity host set up, and has given me explicit permission to post his IRC mask. His IRC mask (ie the one he is currently using) is PC-1110.STUDFB.UniBw-Muenchen.de, which is in Germany. The WHOIS of the IP mentioned is available here (I did have the WHOIS up, but I think it may be copyrighted). In short, there is no checkuser needed to know that they are in different continents - the IP is in Australia. — neuro^(talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe either one of you. If that's not Banime it's his proxy. TGH1970 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• this post and this edit. This post and the creation date of Slowrun (which I can't see because I'm not an admin, but which I'm certain is almost the exact same time). TGH1970 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be found is whether any posts on SA were made before the editing on Wikipedia occurred. Obviously no links will occur because you would only link after you create, but if you can find clear intent... there you go then. — neuro^(talk) 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The evidence is overwhelming. There is no point in pretending that this is anybody except Banime. Putting your own ridiculous requirements on the evidence doesn't make it any less significant. Any unbiased third party would clearly see these are the same people. TGH1970 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I understand what you are saying. If Banime didn't do this than someone who is out to smear him did. If he did do it, he should already know that the right answer is to come clean and fess up to it. My suggestion to you is that if you feel you are correct the proper route is to collect this information, present it in a fashion that makes your case (show the times of the edits and the posts, for starters) and make a clear, articulate and dispassionate argument that Banime==annefrankfanfic. Please do not get upset because we trust Banime more than we trust you. He is part of the community here and we aim to make this feel like a community--we don't want to throw him out on his ass at the merest hint of impropriety. We aren't blind to facts and argumentation, but some bias cannot be removed. Please understand that. No matter who is correct, the truth will come out in the wash. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• This post andthese edits. If this is somebody's underhanded conspiracy it would be one of the most complex and discrete in the history of the world. TGH1970 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how any of these new links you are posting are linked to me in any way and can be conceived of as vandalism in any sense of the word. They were not me, the IP proves that definitively. Annefrankfanatic said he was going to vandalize that link to X factor that you posted. He did so. The ip was from Australia. I live in Germany. --Banime (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the post two up manages to link them. Am I missing something? — neuro^(talk) 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Banime: Just so the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, please confirm that you mistyped when you wrote above, "I am not annefrankfanatic" but meant to write "I am not anne frank fanfic", the user name of the poster at Somethingawful.com. Assuming that is out of the way, I gotta say I am appalled at the way this thread has progressed. Especially, I am sorry to say, the judgment exhibited by Protonk, the only admin with a substantial presence in the thread. An editor in good standing has been accused without sustainable evidence of serious infractions, and all you can think of writing is, "Despite some rather deep reservations I trust you," and "If he is lying to me, so be it. I chose to believe that he is not." The Germans have a phrase for this, they call it "a second-class acquittal". What Banime deserves instead is to have his name cleared in a resounding manner.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had the name wrong. I am not the user that TGH1970 accused me of being, "anne frank fanfic". --Banime (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Really? In order to trust him I have to accept that someone stalked banime's good faith but misguided edits so closely that they posted to an SA forum within minutes of seeing them over multiple threads (at SA) and multiple articles (here) and that the person posting there was just hoping that banime's edits would be questionable (and was around no matter when they were made) and impersonated him on a forum off wiki (using a totally unrelated forum name). That's a staggering coincidence. It takes a hell of a lot to say "yes I trust you" when his word is the only exculpatory evidence. Protonk (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. "Questionable edits," eh? -- Except that there is nothing at all wrong with the edits, even if they're not fit to be chiseled in stone and enshrined in Wikipedia 1.0. "Within minutes," you say? (A) How do you know that: what timezone does SA use, and what timezone does WP use? (B) Of course I can follow someone around on WP via "user contributions" and react in under a minute by reflecting a post on another website, no technical expertise required. So, guilty until proven innocent? (Counting the seconds until an imbecile tells me WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COURT OF LAW.) I gotta stop, this is giving me heartburn.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure. Questionable edits. Hoaxes. Subtle vandalism. A poorly sourced article that was a coatrack attack on a person. There is nothing wrong with these edits if they are taken in isolation. Creating Weedpunk is not an "offense" in any reasonable definition. But if it was created deliberately as a hoax w/ knowledge of our content guidelines, that is different. As for the time zone thing, ok. I'll bite. the SA times are probably shown in GMT. IF they aren't, then the posts to SA are (some constant number of hours) + 1-2 minutes each time. Tell me which one is more likely. As for the guilty before innocent drama, spare me. If we were really terrible people willing to ban banime at the drop of a hat he would have been indeffed a day ago. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• The evidence is overwhelming. Banime will not be acquitted because the only evidence he can produce to the contrary is his own word saying he didn't do it. I reject that. The IP thing is a red herring since Banime is likely using a proxy. The user on SA and the user here are the same person. TGH1970 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  You brought up the IP yourself, as a way of finally discerning guilt or innocence. Because it did not show the way you were arguing are not means to throw it out. As of now it is the most provable of your links, since, at 17 November, 2008 08:17 by that websites time, there is a post stating that he is about to vandalize. At 13:19 wikitime, the vandalism occurs(I'm pretty sure the hours are due to time zone differences and the minutes are what you should be concerned with). Within seconds, at 08:19 forums time he posts the vandalism in that link. This is almost guaranteed to be him, the ip was checked and it was from Australia. As stated before, I live in Germany. This is the only definitive proof that I can show, besides my word against the word of your very odd account and a website called something awful which apparently is a humor website.--Banime (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The last time I looked, TGH, it was 'innocent until proven guilty'. — neuro^(talk) 01:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TGH, as I said before, you repeating that the evidence is overwhelming doesn't move the conversation forward. AN/I is an exceedingly well trafficked board and plenty of users besides neuro, banime and myself have seen this thread. If you were going to find takers on the "this evidence is compelling" front, you would have found them by now. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• You yourself have said that it is very difficult for you to believe that Banime did not do things he is accused of doing. You've also said that the only reason you don't believe that is because he told you he didn't. Even though we have a record of his edits that show that he did.
• And now, on your talk page, you're talking about running a checkuser on me. Why are you attacking me for reporting this at ANI? What is so vitally important about Banime's contributions that you are willing to overlook egregious breeches of policy so that you can go after the person who filed the report? What have I done wrong in all of this except try to protect the encyclopedia from a person who has admitted they are trying to undermine the integrity of the project? TGH1970 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• No one is attacking you. A checkuser will probably get filed to try and get to the bottom of things. If you are using another account concurrently and have made this one to avoid scrutiny being cast on that account, that is a problem. If you have just abandoned the old account then there isn't a problem. If you aren't using the old account you could just end this right now and tell us what it is. A situation like this is starved for context. We are trying to provide it. Also, I'm eminently pleased that both you and Goodmorningworld think I'm doing a poor job of this for exactly opposite reasons. Gives me some hope that I might be doing the right thing. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Hynkel

Resolved

 – indef-blocked by an admin

Hynkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It must be a full moon or something. Here's yet another editor devoted to weirdness and attitude, but nothing of any apparent value. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to barge in an already-resolved matter, but the user's image is already taking over 80K of space. Shouldn't that be removed? MuZemike (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gookey.jpg nuked by East718. Can't see any other image uploads, have removed the ASCII "art" from their talk page. All done, nothing to see here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User: 207.172.55.227

207.172.55.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I recently warned this user in regards to this edit. He then replaced the message I reverted and left three messages on my talk page. He was blocked by User:Euryalus and had one unblock request denied. He has now left an apology on my talk page, under a different username, User:DrakeLuvenstein, here. I have no idea what needs to be done, so if any admin could look at this it'd be great. \ / (⁂) 09:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am the user \ / is referring to, first I would like to extend a apology to both him and the user I called and idiot, second I would like to say that I love wikipedia, it has changed my life, so far I have done some minor edits such as fixing misspelled words and reverting vandalism, today though I decided that I should start contributing more unfortunately I got blocked. I fully understand why I was blocked and that it was fully warranted, I would just like to say that I am sorry and that I will never violate wikipedia's rules again, if one of you admins could please unblock me it would be greatly appreciated, though if you think I deserve the punishment I will not argue and wait until the end of the block, thankyou (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Second set of eyes needed on 3RR report decision - are admins above the law?

Please see this.

User:Number 57, an admin, reverted six times to change the word Palestine to Palestinian territories, once after the filing of the attached 3RR report. User:Spartaz, invoking the need for fairness, gave the editors who reverted those edits, most of whom did so once each, warnings from the I-P arbcomm case, and decided not to block Number 57. Note that the only editor who violated 3RR was Number 57, no other editor came close. Note too that Number 57 rejected all requests to engage in discussion at the talk page.

Please review the link above. I think this decision sends a terrible message. If you're an admin, you can violate 3RR and nothing will happen to you. If you're a regular editor who decides to revert an admin once, you get a warning that you may be blocked in the future for disruptive editing. Also, the page has been protected for 48 hours at Number 57's preferred version, rewarding his reverting. Is this right? Tiamut^talk 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to mention is that three changes to the article (Hummus) were largely to remove a section of text which turned it into an anti-Israel attack article.[95] It is also an admins' responsibility for ensuring that policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are implemented, hence the usage of proper (rather than propagandist) terminology. The fact that an article about a foodstuff has been turned into a place to detail anti-Israel rants is, frankly, ridiculous. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And what you fail to recognize is that there is no excuse for violating 3RR. You did not recognize before I filed the report and you still don't recognize it now, likely because you were not blocked for your actions.

To others reading this, I should mention that Spartaz asked that readers be directed to the 3RR section, linked above, and his talk page for his rationale. He is busy now and will not be able to respond directly here. Tiamut^talk 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Number 57 should have asked other people for help rather than edit warring. However, the page is now protected, and User:Spartaz seems to have warned all the involved users to stop edit warring. So I don't see a need for additional admin action at this time.

The root issue here seems to be the inclusion in the article on Hummus of polemical material about Israel and Palestine. I have pre-emptively added Kosher salt to my watchlist in case the dispute spreads to that article.— Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Sorry Number57 but if it's not listed under Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions, you are breaking the 3RR, even if with good intentions. No matter what one thinks of Tiamut's editing, it is as he says: It broadcasts a terrible message if others who revert in good faith are punished and you are not.

I understand why you did act like this but going alone versus multiple editors is not a good way. You should really try to avoid such edit-warring, because being an admin does not mean the rules that are very strict do not apply to you. I would not suggest any sanction but a fair warning like anyone breaking 3RR gets on their first violation. But Spartaz is correct that even admins can and will be blocked if they break the rules. Regards SoWhy 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask what is the recommended action for next time I find such nonsense on an article? I've seen plenty of stuff reported to ANI over the past two years with almost zero results, hence my lack of bothering to come here to ask for help. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to find a neutral way to rephrase the material. If you can't do that, in a last case, remove the material once. Either way, explain your thoughts on the talk page. It the material is reverted, ask either at WP:ECCN or WP:POVN to get some uninvolved editors to look into the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not above the law, of course. As with any police force, we need to watch the watchers. See: User:Tony1/AdminWatch. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)What Number 57 reverted six times was the word Palestine, and not that other material, which by the way, I did not add, but merely copy edited and restored after it was deleted. To pretend that he is on the right side of a content dispute evades the issue, which is his violation of 3RR to pursue his POV that Palestinian territories is more appropriate terminnology, against what is outlined in the source cited (which says quite clearly "Palestine"). Tiamut^talk 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You reverted this as well [96]. Neither of you is "right" and, in the end, the literal wording of the source isn't a determining factor. Nobody should be edit warring over this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did restore the word Palestine once. What you see in the rest of that diff is my attempt to copy edit down the material added by another editor that Number 57 removed. My requests to Number 57 to discuss the matter on the talk page, were ignored. He instead accused me of "bad judgement" on my talk page. I'm not perfect no, but I tried to de-escalate the situation. Number 57 continued to revert after I asked him to discuss and another editor warned him against edit-warring. All of this is in the link posted at the top of this section. I find the lack of recognition between the differences in my approach and that of Number 57's to be a bit weird. Tiamut^talk 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already said, and again: Number 57 should not be edit warring there. If you tried to de-escalate this in the past, that was a great idea. Are you still trying to de-escalate it now? The post at the 3RR board has been resolved, and no admin is likely to overrule the resolution that Spartaz decided on. If another incident arises with Number 57 (or anyone else involved in that edit war), the resolution may be different next time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)::::Asking for a decision to be reviewed to see if it was implemented fairly is "escalation"?

When one editor reverts six times while most of the other editors involved revert him each once, should everyone be treated equally? When he continues to revert after the 3RR report is filed, does he show any indication that he understands that the behaviour he was engaged in was wrong?

Having been blocked by User:Spartaz over a year ago for making 3 reverts in 24 hours when other parties were involved, and no one else was sanctioned, I find this decision doubly weird. True, he overturned my block, but only after other editors protested.

In august last year I had been an admin for a month or so and, I'm glad to say, I have mellowed a great deal since then and am not really at all block happy as an admin these days. I cringe about some of the blocks I issued as a new admin so, if I got it wrong then I'm very sorry. I have learned that 3RR is a very blunt instrument and doesn't deal with the underlying causes of disruption. I acted to deal with the underlying cause in this case (the importation of Israel-Palestinian arguments into a new article) and while I'm sorry for the fact that you are unhappy I genuinely believe I acted in the best interests of the project. This isn't the first time that there has been a complaint that I didn't block someone for a 3RR and it won't be the last. I accept that there was some inconsistency here compared to my block of you but please remember that over a year has passed, that admins do mellow and are also human. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, even though Number 57 made 4 reverts in 24 hours and two others just thereafter, one of which was made after I filed the 3RR report, Spartaz's response was to issue warnings to all the other editors involved, protect the page at Number 57's version, and then give him a warning too, citing the need for "fairness", and the not singling out any one editor.

Can you possibly see why someone with my experience might find this to be a rather odd outcome?

However, if you think everything was dealt with fairly and well here, I guess there's no point in beating a dead horse. Just my Palestinian paranoia, and all that jazz. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Spartaz. I now understand how your approach to 3RR has evolved and accept your decision was made in good faith. I was very peeved when Number 57 continued to revert after I filed the report, and disappointed that it did not elicit a strong reaction from you when in my experience, it would have previously. But I think you are right to believe that the message has now been delivered, and your solution seems like a wholly workable one. My apologies for wasting everybody's time. Tiamut^talk 17:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I think either outcome of this could have been totally justified. I think Number 57 did break 3RR as the POV edits he reverted, while they were indeed highly POV, weren't over the line into outright vandalism. That being said, he was clearly acting in good faith to preserve a neutral article: the edits he made were, I think, correct except for the fact that he made too many of them. A 3RR block would have been justified at the time, but the edit-war stopped anyway and blocks are not intended to be punitive or used to make a statement. Certainly Number 57 should make an effort to enlist help in these cases in the future, though. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to agree. The reversions were to information that appears to have been at least equal in spirit to vandalism. ►BMW◄ 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now replacing the word Palestine with Palestinian territories six times is somehow akin to fighting vandalism? The wonders never cease. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: As someone decided to complain on my editor review, that rather than read clearly and discuss their concerns with me on my own Talk page, I want to clarify: some of the edits (as noted above) served to completely reverse the meaning of certain phrases. Reversion of those potentially inflammatory changes is valid, as this is, in my opinion, equal in spirit to a vandalistic act. I'm pretty sure that was obvious to most, based on the follow-up. My apologies if anyone misread. ►BMW◄ 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me which participants are on which "side" so I can comment appropriately. I never keep track so that would help. Thanks, --Tom 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the side of Peace between all homo sapiens regardless of race or belief. ►BMW◄ 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

From one chickpea dish to another... It's all happening at Falafel now with yet another new id. Either there is an Arab version of the JIDF out there or someone is payign with sockpuppets.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 got blocked for 3RR while he was a sitting arbitrator. Admins aren't above policy either. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

List of indefinitely blocked IPs?

I seem to recall once seeing talk of a list of indefinitely blocked IPs. If such a list exists, could someone point me to it? I may take a crack at using my awesome checkuzer powerz to whittle it down. Thatcher 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• You need to be at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• You want Wikipedia:Database_reports/Indefinitely-blocked_IPs MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:PALIO10

This is a strange case. I stumbled upon a nanostub created by this user during NPP and it seems that this isn't his first on Slovak footballers. He's created several since October, has done little if any to expand them beyond a declaratory statement and has never once acknowledged the concerns of others. Would someone please look into this and discuss the matter with him if appropriate? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing a great problem... Yes, these are fairly poor articles, but it does sound like the people in question are notable. Additionally, this, while being a rather brief article, doesn't seem to me to be anything like an WP:CSD#A1 candidate, if you read the criterion. Certainly he could be encouraged to expand these articles, but he doesn't seem to be doing anything specifically wrong. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears Orangemike (talk · contribs) has deleted at least one of them as A1. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like one I just tagged, too. Trouble is, other users have tried to tutor him, but he's ignoring everyone. I'm of the "quality over quantity" school of thinking; while the subjects are notable, anyone researching such an esoteric subject such as this knows who these people are. What they need is more info on what they did, who they played for, lifetime stats, etc. I don't want to get the guy in trouble. I'd like to see him do better work is all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted moves

We've just had a fresh Grawp attack - the usual MO by Hope of the Future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I've now blocked. Assistance with the cleanup is requested. Never mind, it's already been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a weird account. Some legitimate work in August and now typical vandalism. His sleepers are getting more complex it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

General questions: How many pages are moved each day? How many of the moves are by admins versus non-admins? How many of the moves are legit versus vandalism? If page-moving were made an admin-only function (or maybe an "admin and rollbacker only" function or something), what would be the impact? If all of userspace were automatically move-protected, what would be the impact? Just thinking out loud here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of pages that get made each day with simple mistakes in the title, such as a lowercase second word if the article is about a person, or a title that includes honorifics, etc. Maybe instead, an article autoconfirmation period; if the article exists for more than 10 days or gets edits from more than k users, it can't be moved except by an admin? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like that combined with a pagemover flag--the way our rollbacker flag works. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like how image renaming permissions work, I guess. I still think the pressure of renaming new articles would require an exception, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What about a page-move speed limit? There should be little need for most users to move more than one page on any given day, so we could require at least a few hours' delay between moves. There could be a pagemover flag to remove the speed limit. --Amble (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as outlined it would prevent fixing a move that gets screwed up, but with a small tweak… Looie496 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is already a rate limit. One every few hours would be daftly restrictive, though -- Gurch (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the current rate limit? It must be rather generous, since Hope of the Future was able to move six pages in one minute. I think most ordinary editors (like me) rarely move pages, and wouldn't mind a limit of one move per few hours, but would be annoyed by having to go through an extra approval process to move pages at all. --Amble (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

8 per minute. (Administrators are, surprise surprise, exempt from this) -- Gurch (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, it scares me that you even pose such a question -- Gurch (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? BLP-outrageous pagemove vandalism that winds up in permanent logs has become a serious problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the answer to that would be turning on the single-rev deletion feature that has been sitting around for a year or so, then the page move vandalism could be deleted from the history by any sysop without straining the servers. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Could I have a link to any prior discussion of this. Also, does it cover logged items as opposed to revisions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See m:Revising_history#Looking_forward, it would easily cover the page moves since those are in the article history and based on my understanding of the software, could be applied to any log entry type based on setting (delete, block, userright, etc). It is already turned on at test-wiki for the basic model and appears highly configurable. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We should also see this as further evidence that WP:Abuse filter should be pushed with a little more urgency. Although the single rev deletion option would be nice. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Moulton again is after me

Resolved

This time on Wikipedia:Editor review/Rootology. I don't know if we can do anything beyond an extreme thing like a range block, but that would be overkill. Would someone mind semi-protecting that page to keep him off it? He's indefinitely banned here, on Meta, on Wikiversity, and from WMF IRC channels for repeatedly harassing, trolling, and outing people. His IPs today are listed here. rootology (C)(T) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblocking I'm told would take out a quarter of Boston - which I am not opposed to, but I hate Massachusetts and all it stands for. IPs blocked.--Tznkai (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've sprotected the page. I agree on the blocks - there isn't anything to do other than deprive a ton of innocent Verizon users of access. --B (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. rootology (C)(T) 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And what do you have against Massachusetts, Tznkai? :P SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what his damage with you all is, but having grown up just south of there, I have a problem with your accents. Oh, and your speed traps, but your evil pales in comparison to the living hell that is I-95 in Rhode Island. rootology (C)(T) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts competes with Maryland for worst possible drivers fer starters.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bah! Most of the nation think driving is a non contact sport. Massachusetts drivers know it's a contact sport. Boston drivers know the real truth. It's a combat sport. (Anyway, enough off-topic drivel) :D SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you driven on Pennsylvania roads recently? I95 through PA is like competing on The Running Man. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't like their fireworks laws. :) Protonk (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More Moulton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.163.98.159 rootology (C)(T) 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user returns as IP

Blocked user Fnr Kllrb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned as User:85.104.174.67 to continue edit-waring at Azerbaijani people and Chuvash people. A quick look at the history of the latter article will make the connection between the two plain. Could some one please give him a timeout. Aramgar (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up on Aisle 4...

A bit of BLP section title vandalism on the Philip Pullman article inadvertently created a BLP-violating edit summary for the vandal fighter's edit...need an admin to delete it, although the edit itself was good...thanks, Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, this looks like garden variety vandalism to me--Tznkai (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not much of a BLP concern, at least in my opinion. If any oversighters see it then sure, but I wouldn't go out of your way for it. — neuro^(talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IP threat

Resolved

 – Prompt action has managed any issues.

Threat from school IP; reported to administrative and technical contacts for school. Reported here to document fact of report. Kablammo (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for three hours due to recency of the edit. Good work on your efforts to report this. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you confirm the school knows of this vs an email sent to an address which might never be checked? Bstone (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if you can't find an administrative telephone number, ring one of these and ask for one. — neuro^(talk) 22:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I called and spoke to Mike, their IT guy. He says he will be contacting authorities and taking the appropriate steps. Case closed. Bstone (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image uploads by Kourosh ziabari

Just came across Kourosh ziabari (talk · contribs), who has uploaded a large number of photographs, most or all of which seem to be copyvios. I identified sources for three of them and speedied those; I think it is safe to assume all the others are copyvios of the same type (widely different sizes, web resolution, heterogeneous or missing camera data, all the usual signs). Could somebody help deleting? It's a bunch, and it's late here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No way an image like Image:Iran-cement.jpg is not a copyvio. What did he do, rent a helicopter to make the photography so he could upload it for free to wikipedia? As for web resolution, EXIF info says that Image:Rasht-square.jpg was originally 2304x1728 image, why on hell has he uploaded a 288x216 version? If he is the real photographer, then he has to be told that Real Photographers™ upload to Commons, and they do it on full resolution. He needs to provide higher resolutions and desist from using Photoshop to reduce photographies to smallish proportions. The thumbnailing work is already done by the wikimedia software. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet no one has done anything about it as of yet. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fabian Núñez

Please semi-protect the article Fabian Núñez. There are a few anonymous users who are inserting POV information about the arrest of his son. Thanks. Dems on the move (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:RFPP, I do believe. :) — neuro^(talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

weird edit history possible massive article disruption

Re-opening because I think more discussion needs to take place, given new info available.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the edit history of RichHandsmGuy (talk · contribs) - virtually all of his edits seems to be reverting to article versions (sometimes those versions are over a year old) of Rassmguy (talk · contribs). Sockpuppet? team editing? I'm going to take a look but some eyes would be helpful and maybe if it is disruptive - a block to prevent further damage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK clearly disruptive - virtually all of his edits revert article back at least six months and in every case seriously degrade the quality of the articles by reverting clean-up work, removing sources etc. The guy is a menace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great and as far as I can see the edits have been rolled back. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

huh? claims that it's a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It may well be written to be somewhat automated. However, this particular task ("revert to the last version by me") would never be approved for a bot. In any case, an indef block seems reasonable for the time being. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit looks suspicious, too. Why would another unrelated user make that edit? -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now trying to get unblocked on the basis that it's a autoblock of a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rassmguy (talk · contribs) has posted two unblock requests at his talkpage - the first is on the basis of "I know nothing about this" - but what's odd is that he's posted a second on the basis that the first one was declined - but nobody has edited the page in-between his edits to decline the request? huh? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Compromised by his 11 year old daughter who doesn't know any better." As compared with the average adult troll. That's an interesting twist on the "evil roommate" story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Returned today as Handllrich (talk · contribs) reverting to 69.122.210.59 (talk). DoubleBlue (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm un-archiving this discussion because apparently this problem is either bigger/more complex than first thought, or completely unrelated. The IP for this user has now been blocked(as in, today) for 3 months, following massive disruption, past and present. I am re-opening this discussion so we can come to a conclusion on how long this IP should be blocked. Yes, 3 months seems like a good number, I'm just afraid that once those three months are up, we'll have another sock farm on our hands.

Below you can find the IP check request, which either unearthed a massive sock farm, or a bunch of unrelated sock farms. Most of them were blocked before the IP check request for disruption/ sockpuppeting. Since the page at the IP checkuser request might be archived sooner than later, I am transcluding a version below that I first copied from this page, to a page on my userspace.

Another page for storing stuff I might need later.

Although it seems that not all of these socks are connected.. well, I honestly hope they aren't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

5 CCG

This appears to be a direct copy of [97]. I'd db-copyvio it, but I think USA military publications may be public domain? Exxolon (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not 100% on if this the correct place to post this, but via the following link, shows all sites from that domain are public domain: http://www.robins.af.mil/main/disclaimer.asp

Disruptive sockpuppet.

Resolved

 – User hardblocked. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrispycritter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which revert an edit and edited the userpage of a long term editor, Michellecrisp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is a socketpuppet of Darwinski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which is a sockpuppet of PublicSafetyOfficer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Bidgee (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

uw-uhblock. Buh-bye. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

wasted wiki real estate

it's probably been raised before but on a long article there's big blue nothing down the left column of the page. Why not use a floating frame so that the stuff always there on the left column at the top comes down as you browse. Mccready (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The village pump is the 3rd door on the left. MuZemike (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, some of us hate floating frames, at peak usage times the Wiki is slow enough as it is. L0b0t (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Ottava Rima

I am currently being harassed on my talk page by Ottava Rima for my vote on Jayvdb's ArbCom candidacy.[98], [99], [100]. He was told by WilyD here to stop throwing accusations and hassling me, he was told by me here that further harassment would result in a report and (hopefully) block for harassment, and he continued his harassment [101], as well as having a go at WilyD [102].

Darth Panda took it upon himself to comment on Ottava's talkpage[103], and Ottava responded[104] calling me "hypocritical and unethical."

Ottava has also taken it upon himself to badger Ryan Postlethwaite [105] and Sumoeagle179 [106] for the same reasons.

I would like some admins to look at this, because I am at the end of my patience. // roux   editor review 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A few things. 1. This user placed an incivil accusation saying that someone on the ArbCom has no right to oppose others. 2. This user acted highly incivil, cussed, personally attacked me, and the rest. 3. He never looked at what I said, nor did he bother to understand why I said it. 4. His claims of "harassment" are only further indicative of his inappropriate behavior. You cannot post a response and claim that you don't have to listen to a further response unless there is an apology, especially after you cuss the person out. That violates Civility and is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, about characterization. Roux completely mischaracterizes me. Example? Look at the diff at Darth's page. I said what Roux says is hypocritical and unethical. I did not say he was. There is a clear and strong difference between the two, and I feel that the major problem is that the above user is not recognizing such differences. This is probably the source of incivility that is rampant in his responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear God in heaven. How about you try some honesty, ok?

1. Please show me where I said that Jayvdb has no right to oppose other candidates. Oh, right.. you can't, because I never said it. I said that I found the oppose distasteful.
2. Please show me where I attacked you. Oh right.. you can't, because I didn't.
3. Please show me where I didn't understand what you said. Oh right.. you can't, because I responded quite clearly to what you said, and showed you why you weren't understanding what I said.
4. I shan't even dignify that one with a response. // roux   editor review 01:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So, now I am a liar. Okay. Lets see. I am a liar because 1) "Please show me where I said that Jayvdb has no right to oppose other candidates. Oh, right.. you can't, because I never said it." Yet he said: "distasteful" and "distasteful". So, people have the right to be distasteful? If he has the right, then there should be no punishment. So why the oppose? It is clear that you oppose him because you think his action was wrong, which means that you think that he shouldn't have done his action. Thus, no right.

"Please show me where I attacked you. Oh right.. you can't, because I didn't." Besides calling me a liar above, which is an attack, you have said: "Boo hoo" which is clearly taunting and mocking, in addition to the claims of false accusation, which are clearly not the case especially when I questioned you, not accused you.

"Please show me where I didn't understand what you said." "mistaken me" claims, saying that I am talking about someone else, when I was clearly and directly talking about you.

So, am I still a liar? Because the diffs seem to suggest otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course he has the right to be distasteful. As I have the right to oppose him for it. You didn't question me, you attacked me--and at least three other users have agreed, including one who doesn't much like me at all. That should give you a clue. As for the "mistaken me"--you said I was voting against opponents. I'm not in the running for arbcom, which means I can't have opponents, which means yeah--you're wrong, now apologise for harassing me and two other users. For God's sake, this is so unbelievably stupid it hurts. All you're doing is baiting and attacking me for no reason whatsoever. LEAVE. ME. ALONE. I would have thought that informing you that I would report you to ANI if you continued your harassment would be enough of a clue. Apparently it wasn't, because you continued harassing me here. Admins, please block him, as it is clear he has absolutely no interest in stopping his behaviour. // roux   editor review 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets get this straight. He has the right to oppose others. You have the right to oppose based on others. I don't have the right to point out that you are opposing based on a hypocritical standard? So you are saying that I don't get to voice my opinion in addition to punishing him for voicing his? Then you say that I have to leave you alone while you created a page on AN/I which would only force me to have further contact with you? Please, explain the logic in all of this. And why block me? I'm not the one cussing. I'm not the one using all caps. I'm not cussing, acting irrational, or the rest. I am a content contributor, and I have been working on a lot of content. I really don't understand how you can demand that I get blocked, especially when you previous demanded me to apologize while cussing and attacking me viciously. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your strawmen are becoming tedious. I said you can't attack or badger me. I never said you are not entitled to your opinion. Now, kindly, leave me the hell alone. Admins, seriously. Make him stop. // roux   editor review 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If I bother you so much, why do you keep responding? Why do you have such comments in your edit summaries? Why try to provoke me? Why even start this page? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Me.. provoke.. you? Are you on crack? Seriously? You showed up at my talk page and started hurling accusations and attacks at me for no reason whatsoever. I explained calmly why I did what I did. You kept attacking and accusing. I stayed calm. You kept attacking and accusing. WilyD told you to stop. I informed you--and yes, by this point I was somewhat upset--that you would be reported for harassment if you continued. You continued. I have not provoked you. You, on the other hand, have attacked me for no freaking reason whatsoever... but somehow it's all my fault? I really seriously ask: are you inebriated in some way? Your statements bear no relation whatsoever to reality. // roux   editor review 01:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, it's sort of bad form to have a go at people over how they vote in the arb elections and how they explain their vote. Maybe ask someone once about it or put it on the talk page of the votes page, then leave it at that. To do otherwise I personally would find intimidating/annoying (I suppose it's ok if people haven't understood why I said what I said and ask me, but that's that.) Otherwise, just let people vote. Sticky Parkin 01:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not equally bad form to do the same thing on a voting page, and opposing them because of their vote? :) Mine is a simple discussion, the other is something that damages someone's future. Which is worse? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm pretty sure "I really hope that you don't ever run for any other position" isn't simple discussion. This is all stemming from one huge misunderstanding, which I'm trying at the moment to fix, but if you two could stay off of each other's throats for a bit, we may be able to work this out without anybody having to leave in a body bag... DARTH PANDA^duel 01:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Darth, if he put up such a standard, and then he ran for an office and opposed, then it would be important to bring up his views. There is no misunderstanding. He opposed because a person opposed others. He put up a double standard. He started cussing and berating me because of the double standard was pointed out. I think this is all rather silly, and I stated before that he doesn't have to respond to me. A user who demands blocks, cusses, and acts that way, especially when all I did was point out a double standard is rather confusing to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

While I cannot possibly condone Roux's cussing (in fact, I'm quite appalled by it), it is not without reason. There is no double standard here. Again, his issue is with how ethical your candidate is being, not with the fact that your candidate opposed. If Roux was running and he opposed, there certainly would be a double standard, but this is not the case. DARTH PANDA^duel 01:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

←Unfortunately this is what I have come to expect of Ottava Rima, and more times than not find him to communicate in a uncivil manner. While I feel that this specific issue is stemming from a larger one, it could defiantly just be resolved by both parties leaving each other alone for a little while. Tiptoety ^talk 01:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't cuss. I don't make fun of people. I don't taunt. So, the uncivil part doesn't add up. Thats why people say "tendentious" instead. Its far more vague and can mean just about anything you want. I get burned on content disputes, not for civility. :) Plus, you can see the accusations and the cussing from the user above. That is quite different than anything I ever write. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I consider such edits as this a bit uncivil. Tiptoety ^talk 02:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jokes are now incivility, even when I didn't actually attack you? Please, do tell. This would be interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Harassment? Where? --Caspian blue 01:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux believes that it is a bad idea of standing candidates to oppose anyone. Therefore, Roux opposes. Roux is not a standing candidate. Roux has the right to oppose whomever he wants, for whatever he wants. End of story. The reason Roux is so annoyed, is because you have kept hounding him, essentially demanding that he explain his vote, which he doesn't have to. Please, just drop the matter. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• cough* the topic is if I harassed someone. Its not if Roux was correct or not. :) I didn't demand him to explain his vote. That would be silly. I just posted on his talk page. He responded. If Roux has the right to oppose whoever he wants, then I have the right to question who I want. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"I have the right to question who I want" is only correct if you are being civil, which you have not been. — neuro^(talk) 02:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your use of "civil" seems to be quite different than WP:CIVIL or any standard use of the term. Perhaps this is a neologism. Either way, it really seems inappropriate. I mean, if you want to see traditional incivility, I think just one example here, asking if I am on crack or drunk definitely fits the definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When is someone going to block Ottava for these attacks, accusations, and lies about what I have said and done--which he is continuing elsewhere, by the way, on User talk:Darth Panda, don't know about anywhere else--which he has shown no interest in stopping? // roux   editor review 02:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm highly sensitive at incivility, but don't see anything to warrant a block to him. The "conversation" is a bit uncivil, but a mere expression about your vote. IMO, there was no harassment.--Caspian blue 02:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Without going into who is in the wrong here, (which is what Darth Panda is getting to right now), may I suggest that both of you disengage from the other, at least for the time being? It's not doing either of you any good right now. SirFozzie (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I want him blocked. All I know is some guy shows up on my talkpage out of nowhere, attacking me and accusing me. And keeps doing so after being told not to. And keeps up with the lies on other pages. I'm supposed to take that lying down? Hell no. He's wrong, he came out of nowhere to badger me (and Ryan Postlethwaite, and Sumoeagle). He needs a block, because he won't stop. // roux   editor review 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, what? I'm not accusing anybody of being wrong here... I'm not even sure I agree with Roux's claims that the candidate's actions are unethical. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, saw it was being discussed there :) But seriously, roux, Ottava, both of you really need to disengage from the other, it's only feeding the conflict and heightening it on both sides. SirFozzie (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Wrong. He needs to disengage from me. He needs to apologise for his attacks and lies about me and what I've said. He needs a timeout from Wikipedia for harassment and gross violations of WP:CIVIL. He showed up out of nowhere to attack me. I am sick and tired of being treated as if I've done anything wrong here. We should not be treated equally, because I have done nothing wrong. // roux   editor review 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, it takes two to tango. While Ottava started the conversation, you could have completely ignored him. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to let someone attack me with impunity, sorry. I'm funny that way. Nor am I going to take it very well when people blame me for being attacked. Blaming the victim is ridiculous. // roux   editor review 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't blatantly attack you to begin with, and nobody is blaming you. Roux, it may be best if you take a breather. I'd let other users handle it at this point, as all you are doing is hurting your own standing by cussing and accusing him of being on drugs. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did, actually, and treating me the same as him--"you both need to disengage"--is blaming me. He attacked me out of nowhere, he is spreading lies about what I said, he is the one in need of corrective action. I am so sick of this crap. // roux   editor review 02:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Those who kill in self defense are still subject to a manslaughter charge. While I don't agree with the view that we should simply let the law handle everything (as they largely ignore our plights anyways), that's the theory we're all going for here. We're not blaming you. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This can, and should, end now.

Roux, you are entitled to vote according to your values, and you've done so. You're entitled to report incivility and harassment, and you've done so, but you have also been incivil yourself, albeit after provocation. There's no need for you to post further on the subject, and I think it would be in your best interest not to.

Ottava, you are entitled to ask questions on a user's Talk page, and you have done so, but you began by being provocative, responded to a polite reply by being incivil, and continued this until you provoked an incivil response in turn. There is no need for you to post further on the subject, and if you do, I may well block you for harassment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying he won't be blocked now? He's been continuing his lies and harassment at User talk:Darth Panda. This is ridiculous. I would have been blocked hours ago for pulling half of what he just pulled. If I'd shown up on some random person's talkpage to attack them--and continue attacking them after being told not to--I would have been given the boot in a heartbeat. Any good reason why he hasn't been? // roux   editor review 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've warned OttavaRima. The disruption will stop now, I think, so there will be no need for a block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you spoke too soon! // roux   editor review 03:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Acutally I'm interpreting the item below (which appeared at the same time as my post above) as directed at me. So far, I have a poem, an email, and a post on my talk page. Hint: Swiss or Belgian choclates are best. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory poem for this AN/I:

Oh muse, oblige me when you may

A rhyme, such a thing I do need

Now, more than anything this day;

Of course I say this, with such speed

That can make heads spin, but please say

The words, the tune, and do the deed.

But alas, she will not tonight.

Wherefore now, this will surely bite.

I admit, I have nothing. The muse has failed me tonight. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. Ottava was warned by WilyD here to stop throwing accusations and hassling me. He kept doing so. This issue is not over. // roux   editor review 03:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, please. You're not doing any good here. Please let it go (and while you're at it, remove the inflammatory message on your user talk, please?) Take a break, get some air, cool off? Ottava has been warned, and that's the end of it, please. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, no, that's not the end of it. He was warned. He kept behaving the same way.. so he gets... another warning? He wouldn't stop his behaviour, he didn't stop after being told several times to stop. But, typically, he gets away with it. No consequences--he gets to spread lies about me and what I've said, and then go on to pretend as though he did nothing wrong. And he gets away with it. Me, I get told off. Oh well. Typical Wikipedia. Treat the victim as though they were just as bad. Makes tons of sense, really--if you alienate everyone equally, then everyone's equal, right? Explain to me why nothing was done after he'd already been warned. We all know I would have been blocked had I carried on the way he did. // roux   editor review 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, you are only tainting your cause here. Enough is enough. You have been told by close to 8 editors to give it a rest, and personally if I was in your shoes I would listen to them. Please, I am asking you, give it a rest. Tiptoety ^talk 04:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

More Jayvdb ArbCom candidacy problems

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.

Just a general announcement, no need for further discussion here Tiptoety ^talk 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I don't know if this is related to the Ottava Rima thread immediately above, but editors may wish to see WP:AN#Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections? over on the admins' noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked into Roux's background and I don't see anything that could be connected to the canvassing. Ryan's definitely wasn't, but that was mostly a joke. I didn't pay much attention to the other person. I looked into some of the other names, but nothing really popped up there. However, its hard to see what connections people have as some of the names have been sitting around for years without having a connection to the dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am unconnected to any canvassing. Leave me alone. // roux   editor review 01:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Couldnt think where to put this so ...

My concern regards Henry VIII and the common misconception that he was married six times. However, according to the book of general ignorance, when asked "How many wives did Henry VIII have" they have to say:

We make it two. Or four, if your a Catholic. Henry's fourth marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled. This is very different from divorce. Legally, it means the marriage never took place. There were two grounds for the annulment. Anne and Henry never consummated their marriage; that is, they never had intercourse. Refusal or inability to consummate is still grounds for an annulment today. In addition, Anne was already betrothed to Francis I, Duke of Lorraine when she married Henry. At that time, the formal act of betrothal was a legal bar to marrying someone else. All parties agreed no legal marriage had taken place. So that leaves five. The Pope declared Henry's second marriage to Anne Boleyn was illegal, because the king was still married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Henry, as head of the new Church of England, declared in turn that his first marriage was invalid on the legal ground that a man could not sleep with his brothers widow. The King cited the Old Testament, which he claimed as 'God's law', whether the Pope liked it or not. Depending on whether you believe the pope or the king that brings it down to either three or four marriages. Henry anulled his marriage to Anne Boleyn just before he had her executed for adultery. This was somewhat illogical: if the marriage had never existed, Anne could hardly be accused of betraying it. He did the same with his fifth wife, Catherine Howard. All the evidence suggests she unfaithful to him before and during their marriage. This time, Henry passed a special act making it treasonable for a queen to commit adultery. Once again, he also had the marriage. So that makes four annulments, and only two incontestably legal marriages.

I have referred to the relevant talk page but nobody appears to be taking me seriously so I thought I'd come here and ask for guidance. One person said that it would confuse people letting them know that he only had 2 or 4 wives, however as wiki is an encyclopedia I thought the truth was more important. Evidently the people who work on the article disagree --Thanks, Hadseys 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've got a question. He married (verb) six times, right? He was only legally married (noun) twice though. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This may not be a good thing to have in the body text (in full), but it seems like a perfect candidate for explanatory notes. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know how to do that could somebody help --Thanks, Hadseys 03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• sure thing. Firs things first, make sure that you rewrite this aside in a less meandering fashion. Present it factually and clearly. Make sure that sourcing (specific to Henry VIII) exists and can be cited on this exact subject. Then you can follow the instructions in the link I gave you above. You make a separate section for the explanatory notes (distinct from the references), place a named references tag below<references group="your name here" /> then tag your "note" in a manner similar to how you would tag a normal reference: <ref group="your name here">...note goes here</ref>. If you are worried about messing it up, try it out on a sandbox or your userpage first. Protonk (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Koreans

Resolved

User:Kuebie and User:Caspian blue appear to be gaming the system in the three revert rule by Caspian blue acting as a meat puppet in a revert so it appears kuebie has reverted the same amount of times as me.

It originally started as a dispute on original research and direct copying from a source, however, i have deleted original research and i rewrote the passage (the source is reliable anyway), but User:Kuebie appears to be a nationalist korean bent on eliminating any mention of chinese influnce on korea.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected for 7 days. Please pursue WP:DR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The seemingly newbie who is very knowledgeable of Wiki rules (gaming the system?) not only violated 3RR but made such false accusation in order to get out of his various violations. The user gave me a insulting message[107] and even made a threat with lying[108] Then he even comes to make this bogus report. According to his logic, another editor who reverted to his preferred version should be his meatpuppet. This is a 3RR report on him and the other.--Caspian blue 04:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue falsely accused me of editing the article Korea. I did not touch that article.

You do not even remember your own writing. plurals: "learn how to spell plurally. Koreans not korea."--Caspian blue 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

you claim i reverted back to the original version. i did not. i rewrote what i added and there was nothing wrong with it, but it was still being reverted.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)