Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive441

I am....confused.

Here's a user: [1] whose last edit, today, is to restore information which was reverted [2] and who seems to have a pattern of making such edits [3] to the point that his/her talk page [4] is pretty much an advertisement for Sisyphean Tasks: Subtle Vandalism Removal Department. So, seeing recent edits in the same style for which the user had been repeatedly cautioned, I reported it to AIV [5]. I admitted that there was no final last uber-ultimate last chance warning given today, but that I felt the pattern itself was actionable. These are the responses I got. [6] and [7]. What did I do incorrectly here? Was I not clear in the way I stated what I'd observed? Should I have just brought it here in the first place, or just left it alone? Thanks for your clarifications. Gladys J Cortez 01:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you stated in your AIV report that you thought it might have to go to ANI, so I don't know why you are so confused. Yes, I believe ANI is the place for this, which is why I declined it on AIV. Other admins may feel differently, and these actions certainly might warrant action. I'll let some fresh eyes look at it. In any case, thanks for reporting it, wherever is appropriate :-) Tan | 39 01:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tan, thanks for clarifying (and I notice that C.Fred has blocked the user for 72 hrs--thanks for that as well!). It was more my perception of the "edits are not vandalism" template; I took that as meaning that you thought it didn't require reporting -anywhere-, that you were seeing good edits where I was seeing something else. These are the type of vandals that frustrate me most--the ones who seem to be able to game the system by spacing out their bad edits so that they're essentially untouchable at the AIV level. Anyhow, thanks for your clarification and your prompt response, both there and here. All is well; have a good night. Gladys J Cortez 01:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have given this user a ver y stern warning. You can count on this user never behaving porly again. Smith Jones (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, please do not give such warnings again ([8]). It was incomprehensible, badly written, rude, poorly spelled, and contained broken links, and would have confused the user, rather than helped them. I have tried to clean up your warning the best I can. It might be best if you never give warnings again. Neıl 龱 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the warning was either an attempt humor or else trying to make a point. Either way, it wasn't very helpful... --Jaysweet (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would believe you if it wasn't for a quick glance over the rest of Smith Jones' contributions. Neıl 龱 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And the user was already blocked for 72 h when the warning was given. --Rodhullandemu 01:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll remove it entirely. Neıl 龱 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, this was classic. Tan | 39 01:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should encourage sponstructive edits. Wholeheartedly. --Rodhullandemu 01:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Did no one else find this amusing? When I read Neil's "It might be best" line, I was almost crying. Tan | 39 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Would've been except he's not kidding. It's as though Smith Jones's keyboard is broken. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And always has been. This isn't the first time we've seen unintentional humor from him. Dayewalker (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Its classic Smith Jones. He has never responded to comments to him on his talkpage about his writing. His comments on this page, and to problem users, are generally incomprehensible or clearly wrong or both. Strangely enough, apparently his article writing is normal. Avruch 02:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Strange"? Or completely calculated? Not so clear. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the distinct impression it's deliberate. Neıl 龱 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again here in relation to the thread two down from here. I'd stay and open a beer but I need some sleep. --Rodhullandemu 02:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do need sleep. You forgot to subst the template. —Kurykh 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was Neil's response that had me banging my fist on the desk... Tan | 39 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is curious too. What the heck is going on here? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my favourite. "this is a community, not a crazy den of pigs". Neıl 龱 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My favorite is that he has a League of Copyeditors user box on his page and awarded himself the copyeditor barnstar. daveh4h 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He does self-identify as suffering Tourette's, but I was thoroughly unaware that there's a typed form of the disease. ThuranX (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's possible. Do you remember that scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail where they find a runic inscription that ends with "Arrrgh!" and they wonder why someone would write that while being attacked, and one of them says, "Perhaps he was dictating!" Meanwhile, I think wikipedia should adopt that slogan and post it on their main page: "Wikipedia is a community, not a crazy den of pigs." Now, who can argue with that? And his paragraph-long warning should be routinely posted in lieu of the bland, milquetoast, "Please don't trash this article again or we might have to warn you" types of warnings. Not only is that user's warning authentic internet gibberish, but it expresses a courage that is little seen in this day and age. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

but... but... but... On the internet, nobody knows that you are a (crazy den of) pig(s)! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pigs are charming, intelligent and good-humoured, an example to us all. DuncanHill (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They are, at that. There's also the semantics issue of a "den". Maybe he's talking about the rare cave-dwelling species. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Awww, quit picking on Smith Jones. He means well; he just needs to make use of some form of spellchecker (I'm sure he's turned off any automatic version, probably because of its constant harrassment--I know I've done the same!) If he'd just run everything through a final-pass checker, his posts would be much more comprehensible. So far, spellchecker suggestions haven't been implemented. But I don't doubt that he has good intentions. Gladys J Cortez 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We know he means well; we're not doubting his good intentions. What we are concerned about, however, is his propensity to word his statements inappropriately for the situation, whether unintentionally or not. —Kurykh 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Competence is required says it all here, I think. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurykh speaks for himself, not all of us. I, for one, look at his refusal to listen to numerous comments from other editors, and conclude that he is ignoring us and refusing to cooperate to make his efforts here worthwhile to others. I don't think he operates in good faith, but in stubborn belief that he's the only right voice. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If he was as stubborn and blind as you put it, he would be railing at our removal of his warnings. AFAIK he has not done so. I should say, however, that I was mostly speaking for myself, but I gleaned from previous statements that my sentiment was shared. —Kurykh 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Every now and then Smith Jones will become highly incivil for seemingly no reason. Here's a few diffs: [9], [10] (retatard spelling errors indeed), and my personal favorite:[11]. Stale and presently unactionable diffs, yes, but worth noting nonetheless. Skinwalker (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he can spell correctly when he wants to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

195.210.193.61 IP hopping (rangeblock?)

Resolved

 – No longer active (?) –xenocidic (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He's IP hopping, see Special:Contributions/195.210.193.78, Special:Contributions/195.210.193.80‎, Special:Contributions/195.210.193.84. Rangeblock? –xenocidic (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore (2008 video game)

Resolved

The article Spore (2008 video game) was just deleted, with apparently no explanation, or discussion, or review process whatsoever. please advise. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Article was restored pretty quickly by another admin, but we may want to check with Jacoplane (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) just to make sure everything is okay. — Satori Son 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Left a note. I'm sure it was just a simple mistake. — Satori Son 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored it presuming it was an error, as Jacoplane had created (sic) Spore (2008 video game (lack of trailing paren) earlier but didn't seem to follow through on anything, thus the deletion may be been meant for that article instead. --MASEM 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that makes perfect sense. — Satori Son 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, I'm really sorry about my carelessness there, thanks for restoring it. Stupid. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-2 17:43

Possible blanking being covered as a merge on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

Could someone please take a look at Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch and Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch along with the related discussion at Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks#Premature merging. In my eyes, someone used a fairly contested merge discussion to perform a page blanking and replacment with a redirect. No content was actually moved to the target article and the blanked article doesn't have a {{R from merge}} template, which would appear to violate GFDL. Unfortunately, I'm too involved in the discussion to take admin level actions so I'd like to have some uninvolved eyes on this please. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Contentious infobox edits by User:Maracana

Maracana was clearly warned in January[12] and March[13] not to continue certain infobox "country of birth" edits or he would be blocked, unless there was a clear consensus supporting it. After much centralized discussion ending in April no consensus emerged. Now two months later Maracana has now recommenced these same contentious edits across multiple topics, for example these Ukrainian bios: [14], [15], [16], and here [17]. Martintg (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have give Marakana the last warning for disruption. If he continues the disruption please block him Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • His edits are not contentious, they are indisputably factual. Someone born in Kiev in prior to 1991 was born in the Soviet Union. The real problem is ignorant morons constantly reverting his edits due to some unknown agenda. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yet for all your passionate advocacy during central discussion, you never supported the form [[Kiev]], [[USSR]], which Maracana is attempting to push now. Martintg (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Kiev, USSR is more factual than Kiev, Ukraine. If people dispute it then change it to Kiev, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, which seemed to be a compromise position when there were issues. However, edits such as this are the real problem. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is a matter of style. I don't see any problem with edits you cite like this, since it is also factually correct as it continued to exist de jure. Of course this was discussed at considerable length during the centralized discussion, and you can re-run all your old arguments here, but the basic fact is that no consensus was achieved during that centralized discussion, due to the fact that there were too many exceptions to the rule, therefore the default position is to treat topic areas on a case by case basis and seek consensus on the article talk page first. Martintg (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is hilarious to see the self contradiction in Martintgs style in this. Accusing me of edit warring, while you're just as bad or worse yourself. But since you agree that no consensus is reached, why is it, you insist that you are right and Number 57 and I are wrong? User:Maracana

As a vague comparison, I was checking the article on George Washington. It states he was born in Virginia. Not Virginia, USA, which would be silly since the USA didn't exist yet; and not Virginia, British Colony. Just plain Virginia. The USSR was supposedly a confederation of individual SSR's, right? So the question is, what was the official name of Ukraine at the time of the individual's birth? If it was officially "Ukrainian SSR", presumably now linked under "Ukraine", then that should cover it, da? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Colonies are regarded differently to federal parts of a country - e.g. Kwame Nkrumah was born in "Gold Coast" (a colony), not "Gold Coast, British Empire". However, one wouldn't state that a German person was born in Bavaria (a federal state) and leave it at that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You would probably say "Germany". But was the USSR a "country" in that same sense? Come to think of it, how are articles handling people born in West and East Germany? Because that's kind of a comparable situation. Or better yet, Czechoslovakia vs. the two separate countries. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.. factual edits or not, Maracana is continuing his crusade despite warnings, additionally he's now reached to his 6th revert on Jaak Aaviksoo during 24 hours and 33 min (yes, I know that this kind on disruption belongs to WP:AN3, but this thread here was exactly about this and still active). Ptrt (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also thing that he should discuss it at least at first and explain his intent instead of just take the initiative and correct everything by himself. Actually the fact is that Ukraine being the Ukrainian SSR "agreed" upon the Union of 3 other republics. It had its own capital, government, and was one of the founders of the UN. Maracana changes everything to Soviet Union no matter what. Some of the towns had a similiar names throughout the whole Union and in a lot of cases the name of the republic was used to identify place of birth with much better precision, and not with the intent to disrespect Maracana. Besides nationalities were based also upon whatever the republic the citizen of the Union resided, which implies of that person nationality. It is not politically incorrct to say that the person lived or was born in one of the Soviet republics instead of the whole Union. At times of the Soviet Union no one was calling that he was from Ukrainian, or the Armenian, or Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. People were saying that they were simply from either Ukraine, Armenia, and Estonia. When they moved outside the Soviet Union than it was customary to say that they were from the Soviet Union or simply Russia which was perceived by the rest of the world, coincidently. And if I am not mikstaken it was one of the directives from the Communist Party for people moving outside the USSR to say that they were from the Soviet Union rather the country of their residence. Well, it does not really matter. What really maters it is simply the ethics or this case a lack of such. In my opinion it wouldn't hurt for Maracana civilly explain why he thinks naming the country as Soviet Union is more apropriate, but instead of that he recklessly keeps on changing back without warning. It seems that he does his amendments not only for the Soviet Union, but for many other countries, and thus spreading confusion and frustration in the community. I do not know who was my Armenian friend that calls people names, but the agenda is well known and should be considered beforehand meaning that users should show concern toward each other. Maracana does not seem to uderstand the importance of that.

I totally agree Baseball Bugs in case of Germany. That was a bad example from пﮟოьεԻ 57. A Kyrgyz culture has nothing in common with a Lithuanian. The same goes between Armenians and natives of the Sakha republic. In my opinion Maracana needs to learn a lesson to be more courteous towards other people and consider their opinions instead of simply changing stuff. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing abusive behavior by editor

This has been going on for months (at least) and I'm finally bringing it here. Jo0doe (talk) has been begaving abusively towards me and other editors who disagree with his edits on the article Ukrainian Insurgent Army. He has already been warned a few times already times by editors and administrators: [18], [19], and especially here [20]. This is only the latest example of his uncivil posting: [21]. In the past I've been too focussed on editing to get involved in administrative matters, and this editor has added some good sources, so I tolerated it. But I feel there are limits to everything. Can someone do something about this guy, like issue a final warning or a short block to get his attention? Any help would be appreciated.Faustian (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor is incorrect - I call hoax book which does not exist and deliberately inserting numerous time in article as a WP:RS Same story with information which referenced through this book I agreed, my English is not well but as far as correctly read hoax explantion - its is. I would be greatifull if someone provide me correct English word for book which does not exist but used as WP:RS. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Book had the wrong publisher and date info, a mistake acknowledged by me. Calling this a hoax (i.e., a lie) is abusive and the editor above has been warned about it yet continues to engage in such abuse.Faustian (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was never warned about hoax for hoax usage - lie is lie hoax is hoax - is'ntJo0doe (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing argument, beyond what this board is designed for. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press exist or not? see your words -

[22] [23] I would like to point the attention how dramatically changed article over the last half year [24]– how many historical and factual hoaxes were removed [25] – despite the titanic effort of sole editor which repeatedly allegedly accuse me in Lie - @You lie@ Faustian (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Story here is a very simple – in breaching the WP:NPOV and especially in WP:UNDUE policy. As far as exist clear tend to

• must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

As far as General Doctrine of this formation as repeatedly removed - Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews . Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” . OUN (B) General Instruction - “ Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” While tend to insert fantastical battles between nationalist and German-SS is never-ending – despite undisputable fact about cooperative actions with SS against Poles and closely cooperation with SS, SD and SIPOJo0doe (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - it should be noted that Vantage Press is/was a pioneering vanity press and anything published by them is not a reliable source in the least.

You're right, and the book in question wasn't published by them. I brought issue here not because of content dispute but because of Jo0doe (talk) 's repeated uncivil behavior.Faustian (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please review the activity of User:KgKris?

The activity from this account has been nothing but a combination of copyvios, vandalism, harassment and general bad-faith activity. I'd post diffs but every edit from this account is questionable. User responded to my first attempt to welcome him [26] and engage him in discussion [27] by copying and pasting my userpage to his, including transcluding my userbox page [28] (I moved my userbox page to resolve that issue). He then responded to subsequent attempts to engage him by blanking my posts and incrementing his vandalism counter. Perhaps most significantly, he vandalizes by repeatedly removing the orphaned fair-use deletion template from Image:Obamaforamerica.png‎. He has not replied directly to attempts to guide him constructively. I can only conclude that further attempts to engage this user will be similarly futile, and that this user account is solely for disruptive purposes and should be indefinitely blocked. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update. The image has been speedied. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Parent categories

Someone has revised every category for olympics sportsmen for specific years, and designated them ALL as parent categories, (by adding them to category:Parent categories). shouldn't there be an overall category for such year-specific categories, and shouldn't THAT sole category be a "parent" category? sorry to bother you, but this seems to be getting out of control very quickly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, only Category:Olympic competitors by year should be a parent category, but this is not an issue for ANI. Have you spoken with the editor making the changes? — Satori Son 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at the parent cat talk page. kind of hard. it's not a huge cataclysmic deal, but I figured maybe a definitive statement would save us from similar misconceptions (ie a category filled to bursting with categories like "category: Buicks of the 1950s, 1960s, etc..." "Category: skating stars of the 1950s, 1970s, etc" "Category: Comic books of the 1950s, 1960s, etc" ; mega-etc etc., if you catch my drift). appreciate any help with this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

read my recent contribs list, if you want, to get an overview of my general approach to this. thanks. contribs: contributions --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Terrasidius

Terrasidius (talk · contribs)

I come to seek your help regarding a copyright problem and incivility by Terrasidius (talk · contribs). Several days ago, I was asked to edit Anti-American sentiment in Korea, so edited it a little in which has a subsection and link of Fucking USA a song about anti-Americanism, so I went over the page. I found the article attach its whole lyrics which has no evidence that it is GDFL. So I deleted[29] and then the user in question reverted to his version as claiming that it is under public domain.[30] I checked on his "blog source", but could not find any thing related to GDFL. So I reverted it with a question on his edit summary; fgs. I'm not a native speaker of English, and his edit summary is uncivil, so asked about it along with his alleged public domain evidence[31], and I got his increased uncivil answer like that."grow up" "sudden victim complex of paranoia", "hide behind flawd wikipedia WIKI:RULES" Accordingly, I left a note about his inappropriate behaviors[32] Then, he gave another nice message [33][34] Well, at this time, I am the one who should be pissed off by his improper saying and his attempt to introduce covyrighted material without proper permission.

Can any admin instruct him properly about his lack of Wiki policies such as WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO, WP:CIVIL, WP:QUOTE? Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley

Hi for a number of weeks (that I have observed) an IP address as well as a signed in editor (they might be the same person) have been causing problems on this article. These editors are 66.108.106.248 and DJ-x3.

One day I was on the article and I decided to add the article to the Michael Jackson wikiproject and added the Jackson catagory to the bottom of the page. I also saw a factual error regarding the marriage between Jackson and Presley. There was a sentence that said "Lisa Maria said she did not see Jackson in the last 6 months of their marriage". However being the Jackson obsessive that I am, I knew this was impossible, they appeared at award ceremonies together in public just before their separation. Instead of removing the sentence outright I added a fact tag, just in case I was making a mistake. The IP removed the fact tag twice and also removed the Michael Jackson catagory from the page; with no edit summaries. See here and here.

Following this the IP address deliberately reinserted a sentence from a source. The source was taken out of context to imply that Presley had seen Jackson abuse children. If you read the source she says the complete opposite (note, the sentence was originally inserted by "DJ-x3" which I will show you further down). This sentence was removed by an admin as misleading on June 20th seen here. Despite this, the IP re-added the sentence multiple times knowing an admin had already agreed it was grossly misleading, it was a little more balanced the second time around but still concerning [35].

To restore neutrality to the article that was controlled by an anti-Jackson IP, I added a well researched paragraph to the article. The paragraph was a copy of the work I did on the Michael Jackson article which I have nearly got to FA standard. I was praised on my talk page by an admin for the piece I added to the Presley article. The paragraph I added was this. The IP removed the material multiple times. Sometimes with no edit summary. However 1 time when he did provide a summary he said that I had taken a book that I own out of context. Considering the work I have done and considering that I use this book quite often, it was alarming to me that he could make such untrue allegations. See here and here.

Ok now to the other editor....

User DJ-x3 introduced himself to the article by adding a picture to the info box that had no rational. See here. As myself and multiple other editors reverted him he repeatedly re added the picture (about 10 times) despite multiple edit summary warnings. In some of his edit summary replies he admitted that the picture was taken by someone else and was owned by a website. He had no right to the picture. See here and here. For edit warring he was blocked, see his talk page.

It was "DJ-x3" who originally added the controversial, misleading sentence claimed to be by Presley. Something the IP address would reinsert multiple times, see here.

Today "DJ-x3" has returned and is causing trouble. He re added that picture of Presley onto the article and commons despite admitting previously in his edit summaries that it doesn't belong to him. We checked the website the picture came from and there is a disclaimer saying all of the pictures belong to them. This is very concerning, he is trying to pass the picture off as his own, he must think we have short memories or something. He also removed much of the content on my famed, neutral paragraph, often without an edit summary. See here and here. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look into this, it took me like 1 hour to write lol and its really concerning.— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have left an {{ani-notice}} for DJ-X3. The IP has been advised already. --Rodhullandemu 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Using a new IP this editor has gone around asking other editors to help him Seen here— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have asked for help and have not hidden behind a new IP. You are in fact MJ centric and not open to discussion I'm not well versed in Wiki. I do not hate MJ I believe an article should be about the subject.66.108.6.34 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the request on my talk page, I'm looking into the matter. LaraLove|Talk 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving to article talk page. LaraLove|Talk 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing for an off-Wiki survey

After making zero edits for 7 months, user Emelian1977 (talk · contribs) has notified about 100 or so users yesterday asking them to participate in an off-Wiki survey relating to their editing habits. I was planning on reverting all of his edits as WP:SPAM but I wanted a second opinion on whether these edits are innapropriate or if it's really not a big deal.

Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rule is, if any - but in general these things are usually left alone for the users to participate in or not at their discretion. It's also not appropriate, in general, to mess with someone else's user talk page, except possibly for removing personal attacks. If you feel strongly about this particular case, I would recommend that you could add a comment that you think this is spam that could be ignored, rather than deleting something that the user might actually be interested in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper

The user in question hasn't convinced the other editors in respect to the rocket being an inherent part of the Internal Combustion Engine. S/he seems to think that a reference that claims the rocket to be a type of IC-engine allows the articles' scope to be immediately widened and thereby, somewhat rewritten. Indeed, some of the other editors feel that if a rocket is included, then other combustable devices such as the potato cannon need to be included. The other editors' views on this subject haven't given a consensus to either arguement yet, but I am simply deleted his references as they have nothing to do with claiming that a rocket is an inherent part of the IC-engine. I added the tag and he seems to think I should be banned for this. Anyway, the user in question isn't allowing us to resolute this dispute; it seems as though we're going to have to form a consensus, but for now, I think the tags should be dubbed as "citations needed". I will refraim from re-editing any more today. Thanks for you time. InternetHero (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, I believe that Wolfkeeper violated WP:3RR, despite being warned on his talk page. He reverted edits 4 times on July 1. See 1,2,3,4. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just not correct. Two of those edits (3,4) are actually adding entirely new material. I don't beleive that I have broken 3RR. InternetHero has been repetitively removing valid references from the article though.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Meerkatxoxo

We have a general backlog at WP:SSP; help is appreciated. I call your attention to the case linked above, where a young editor says he's sorry for sockpuppeting but apparently lacks the competence to edit constructively. We don't really have a policy about this scenario, so I'd like an admin or two to weigh in on this particular case and enlighten me as to the general protocol for dealing with such individuals. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case all the socks have been indef blocked, and the main account has not edited for a few days. I would see no harm in leaving the main account alone for now, and see what happens. If there are new socks created, then I would support an indef block of the main account also. Kevin (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Grazon

Could someone please indef-block the suspected socks? Thanks. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - you want two accounts indefblocked because you believe they "might be sockpuppets or friends"? – iridescent 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there's an eminently unhelpful reply... what he's really asking for, but perhaps didn't word properly, is for an admin to evaluate the evidence at that page - which seems to me (as an uninvolved user) to show socking by a banned user - and take action if they agree. - Merzbow (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User Cspam

Resolved

 – Cspam (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User Cspam appears to be Wikistalking and harassing User Booglamay. [36] Edward321 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot Malfunction user:DOI bot

Per this diff[37] it appears DOI bot is removing accessdate= values from cites. This is not one of the functions listed in its description. Please verify and stop the bot if neccessary. Thank you. Low Sea (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not be doing that, indeed. Bot blocked, operator notified. Neıl 龱 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually it should. Journals (without URLs) have no need for an access date. BJ^Talk 01:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just realised and was on my way here. I unblocked the bot. While it should probably mention it removes unnecessary accessdate parameters, I should have checked that. I'm going to bed. Neıl 龱 01:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense but then that functionality should be described to avoid confusion. Also, two more things... (1) Shouldn't the bot remove the entire parameter and not just the value portion in that case? Why leave an empty keyword= portion? (2) Doesn't the presence of an accessdate suggest that the journal was accessed as a webpage and not as a hardcopy? Can we be certain all online journals are an exact match for their print equivalents?

In any case thanks for the fast response even if it was a false alert. Low Sea (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Block this IP address for 2 weeks

Resolved

 – blocked

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

Vandalized User talk:Keeper76 after being blocked, maybe a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Halosean. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the pattern of edits in the edit history, I blocked for 3 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch...again -- needs to be protected; ScienceApologist edit-warring to revert all criticism

Hi. ScienceApologist and QuackGuru are edit-warring to remove a month's worth of edits (and all criticism) from Quackwatch in one edit -- these edits are also inserting citations misleadingly, i.e. citing the Consultant Pharmacist, which is not a laudatory review, after a statement saying that Quackwatch has received many awards and honors. The edits being reverted were done about a month ago, mainly by jossi, myself, and a few others. Shot info was pursuing the same thing, but I told him that he would have to go at these at a time, and he seemed to agree, but ScienceApologist is continuing to edit war. The page needs to be protected at the version that it was a few days ago, not the current whitewashed version. II | (t - c) 23:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Without forming a final judgement, how was this edit from Levine2112 "reverting mass removal of content"? All I see is one sentence removed, one rewritten, and a section moved (not removed, just moved). Neıl 龱 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Page is protected and Vassyana has blocked SA for 48 hours. Neıl 龱 00:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The original reversion happened two days ago ([ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=222954370&oldid=222906851 diff]) (flagged as minor by ScienceApologist, using Twinkle). The Reception section, which had a balanced presentation of laudatory reviews followed by criticism, changed to Recognition, and all criticism was taken out. Start looking at line 236. The misuse of Twinkle and the minor tag are pretty serious. Since then SA has been repeatedly reverted back, but he keeps edit-warring. Wrote this before I saw your note. II | (t - c) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Neil, i see no such blanking. Further, blocking SA for a reversion from 2 days ago seems like revenge by someone for the Jossi fight above. More infuriating is that I notice that Jossi shows up for the first time in a month on that page to jump in on the edit warring with SA. Did he miss the section above about getting out of each other's fucking way? How can he NOT EVER get an admin? ThuranX (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're not going to look at the diff (again, diff), then you shouldn't bother commenting on the situation. Look at the difference in the two pages if you have trouble reading diffs. :) There's a difference of 1500 kbs, although the difference in content is greater, as certain things were removed. SA used twinkle with a minor tag to restore a version about a month and a half old, taking out edits which were added based on feedback from RS/N. He removed ALL criticism, and cited neutral reviews as laudatory (use CTRL-F to look at the Consultant Pharmacist). II | (t - c) 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did read it. All I see is rearrangement of areas, and the removal of a redundancy (the founder) in the lead. big deal. There's no blanking and so on.ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Start at line 236 and read carefully. Again, sometimes diffs can be hard to read, but there is substantial cutting in that diff. For example, look at the sourcing of The Consultant Pharmacist; who notes that it isn't scientifically sophisticated or technically well-organized, and that the large number of articles by Barrett himself reduces credibility. Then at the bottom, the mention by the National Review that the style is inflammatory, ect. We purposely put the criticism at the bottom of the Reception to mollify it. Now there is no criticism. Reception has been changed to "Recognition". II | (t - c) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

False accusations. Please get involved

User:Faustian, here, blamed me for being a sock puppet using the next clames: 1. National Bolshevik. 2. Likes music. 3. "Similar writing style" (whatever that means).

I'm an honest Wikipedian and not a sock puppet, and i dont like someone spreating lies on me. Here are my arguments that i wrote to prove it:

A? I like music. Wow!!! I'm the only one. I'm a National Bolshevik. And? Read about the National Bolshevik Party. It's big. Enter the web-site. It has a base in Smolensk. Log in, log out (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Ukrainians in Russia talk page you'll se i'm not the only one making such statements, it's a majority view in Russia. Besides, on the Talk:Russians i supported a many piece image while he wanted a one piece. Your clames are really to general and, excuse moi, idiotic. I can find you many Wikipedians here who are from the US, Anarchists, and like Punk Rock. Block them all. Log in, log out (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As i can see from the link you have given to his page, he likes rock. I like bard music. Log in, log out (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever check you like. By location, ip, whatever. And once proved i'm not a sock puppet, i want this user punished for telling lies about other editors. Besides, posting this clame on a user page of an administrator i'm in an argument with right now shows that he doesn't care if it's true. He probably gets a sadistic satisfaction from blocking people. Log in, log out (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

From entering the Russians history page you can see he was very active, and probably wrote alot of what he thinks. I'll give you an example. He created many collages for articles in the Russian Diasspora category. The license law changed in Russia so i re-edited those images. Does that show connection beetwen us? So now what anyone on the talk page would be blamed to be him? I request an administrator, a neutral one, to check the case. Dont get me wrong but in his contribution page i have found out that he's an ethnic Ukrainian active in Ukrainian topics, it looks that he simply wants to get of a Russian "nationalist", because his clames can include such a big category of people and to block them all for being "one man", that it would turn into a witch hunt. Log in, log out (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wrote "it seems" that the two users are the same, provided evidence, and suggested that this be checked out further. I addressed the particular administrator because I saw that he was invovled in blocking one of the two identities. By coincidence it seems that you are involved in a conflict with the same one. My motivation is that I have learned not to let problems with troublesome users fester but to deal with them quickly. I have nothng against Russian nationalists or Russians in general and have, for example, with pleasure collaborated with the Russian nationalist editor Kuban Cossack.Faustian (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how insulting it was you made all the conclusions yourself? How could you declare me being M.V.E.i.? I dont listen to rock, he does. I was against his possition in the Russians collage on the talk page!!! What i wrote on Ukraine might have the rethorics of National Bolsheviks, which he if he was a National Bolshevik might have had maybe because he learned from the same articles that i have. When you meet, for example, different marxist they will also use the same rethorics. They will use exploitation, the state as an exploitating unit, class struggle. Right? The same thing we, i think. During the oragne revolution there were so much articles on Russian patriotic sited which all used the rethoric of teling what part of Ukraine belonged to who and that Ukrainians should be thankful to Russia. He might be influenced by the same articles. Log in, log out (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Joachim Andersson, possible hoax article

Could someone with experience in the topic check whether article Joachim Andersson is a hoax or a fun action. Considering nearly single user editing, the external links, and especially the choice of categories, I have a strong suspicion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me more like a self created vanity piece by a non notable individual. Since the article creator is a new SPA, I'd take it up with them, ask for evidence of notability, sources etc (a Google search seems to throw nothing much up), and if there's no response on that in a couple of days then take it to AfD. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the username of the single editor matches one of the nicknames given in the article, that seems likely. However, having read through the article, it doesn't actually assert notability, and as such I've put it up for A7 speedy. Mayalld (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with an attack page

I consider some of the comment here as attacks on my character - if an editor has a specific problems with my a) edits or my conduct, I invite them to file a RFUC or to come here and provide diffs. The elements I have problems with, are as follows:

• What if a cabal developed a strategy to distract the closure of abusive renominations by tendentious debate in AN/I, and other devices. They might use a "returned editor" to spearhead an effort, to be the fall guy if needed. Complete fantasy and I resent the accusation. If he has evidence this Cabal exists (which it doesn't), I suggests he presents it or he pulls those comments.

• And, indeed, withdrew the AfD, supposedly. However, he continued to argue tendentiously for Delete, so, in the end, it becomes difficult not to see this as a tactical move, to head off action against him. I was asked if I'd redraw the nom so I did, others objected, so the AFD continues to run. There was no tactical move on my part and if he has anything but inference to present I suggest he produces it.

• Thus the concern that he might be a returning blocked editor, which can be very difficult to prove, is nevertheless quite reasonable on the face of it. Abd is constantly repeating this accusation up and down the board with no proof at all. I was asked about having a previous account and I answered as soon as asked, so I'm really not impressed with him repeating this slander all over the place.

He can present factual accounts of difference and that AFD however he likes, but he should not be allowed to use it to make his slurs and unsourced accusations on other editors. If he has issues with my conduct or behaviour that he has both AN/I and/or RFCU open to him. If he wants to take a pop at me (and he clearly does), he needs to do it via the right channels. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The page is not an accusation, it is, as it states, a speculation, a worry. And most of the material on the page is pure evidence, the history of an AN/I report, and then a section about what it might all mean. In that, I do comment on some odd things I've noticed in examining the history of this event. I'll stand with the comments above, but, note, I did not make them in a public place and the only reason that Allemandtando would have seen them is that he would be following my contributions. Ah, yes, and I dropped a note on the Talk page for User:Majorly to ask for his comment. That's it. Quite obviously, from what I wrote, there is no proof of any of the things that Allemandtando claims are attacks. If I were recommending action, I'd need proof. If I were accusing, I'd need proof. The second item, though, is a plain description of his behavior in the AfD involved. What I'm describing are causes for concern and watchfulness, not causes for action, at least not without further investigation.

The third item is particularly interesting. He is a returning editor, blatantly so; he did not state it, though, until he was challenged, and he was defiant about that, as I think I note on that page. He is highly contentious and has been warned for incivility. He was the subject of two AN/I reports in two days: I had nothing to do with starting those. Many editors expressed suspicion that he might be this or that blocked editor. It is an obvious suspicion. For me to say that is not an attack. For me to say, "He is a blocked editor," would be. If I wanted to "pop" him, he'd be dead. But I don't, and I won't unless things become much plainer to me than they are. I did not compile that user page to get him. If I were compiling a page to RfC or AN/I him, it would be totally different. He's relevant to what I'm doing on that page because we had this huge flap of an AfD rapid renom because he (1) edit warred with an administrator over closure of it, and (2) successfully, with the cooperation of others, diverted the AN/I report over edit warring into a discussion of a content issue, the notability of an article. Which is not an AN/I issue. Somebody let me know if I need to look further here, if I keep AN/I on my Watchlist, I can't see anything else. That is part of the problem, indeed. So perhaps I'll thank Allemandtando for bringing the attention of that beginning of an essay to everyone's attention. It's not really about him. Watch it if you want to see where it goes.--Abd (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Every minute you spend on this kind of thing is a minute you're not spending on finding evidence that the article in question has any business being in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point it might dawn on Baseball Bugs and a few others that I care more about Wikipedia than about saving a marginally notable article. I've already spent many hours, maybe too many, working on recovering difficult-to-track down sources from the Wayback Machine, and similar activities involved with that article, such as trying to figure out what the bloody hell it is about. (It's actually interesting, eventually. Takes some work to get over the hump). But the work isn't done, yet, at least not for sure. As to wasting time, I didn't bring this report here. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and notable are not the same thing. I've seen easily verifiable national news stories shot down in a New York minute due to lack of "notability". In contrast, you've had lots of time to try to demonstrate the worthiness of this article, and if you can't find any verifiable info about this obscure computer language, then maybe there isn't any; which indicates that the original AFD was skated through in the hope no one would notice. Well, someone did, and he's to be commended for not allowing the spammers to get away with it. This is an encyclopedia (as you keep saying) and the value and appropriateness of the content is more important than anything else. Also, you didn't bring the report here, you were building it elsewhere, and that same alert user brought it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how much useless argument there is here. I mention that mKR is "interesting," with no claim that it was therefore "notable." Just a comment, it was. And, once again, we are arguing a content issue here. Stop it. Sorry I mentioned "interesting."

This is an AN/I report, allegedly I'm building something nefarious in my user space. So why did BB jump in? There was a point where Killerofcruft started editing what was obviously intended to be an RfC or AN/I report on me, and I saw it.[38] Did I bring it here? No, haven't mentioned it here before now, and this is not a complaint about that file, he had a perfect right to work on it. Instead, I found a friend of his and suggested that he help his friend to stop, because it was going to be practically wiki-suicidal. He did ask, and it stopped, and Killerofcruft behaved himself, at least around me, for a couple of days (And changed his name to Allemantando.) What's in my user space wasn't about him, it was about the breakdown of AN/I, and he's simply a character in that drama, not the center of it. It isn't being written to be an AN/I report or an RfC. It isn't like that at all. However, it is possible that there will be some kind of process come out of it. Not here, though, unless Allemandtando or others insist on bringing it here. AN/I is for emergencies, actually. Not for community discussion, preferably, other than issues of specific editor conduct that might require administrative action. Baseball Bugs, as to conduct, is the proximate cause for the derailment of the ANI report that is documented on my user page.

Take a look. Al_tally files an AN/I report on edit warring by Killerofcruft (now Allemandtando), and Baseball Bugs asks him to respond about the notability of an article, an actually irrelevant question, derailing the process, and then tendentiously argues about it. Disruptive, I'd call it. (But it was only disruptive because the community took the bait, or, an alternate interpretation, nobody with admin buttons was paying attention at that time. The real problem is an increase in scale causing AN/I to become seriously dysfunctional.) So, indeed, it may be time for some further process. Not here, though. Probably ArbComm, because it involves not just one or two administrators and overall policy issues. It's not really about misbehavior, but about some serious and deeply divisive disagreements over what's important, and that's why it might be necessary to go to ArbComm. But I'm trying to figure out some way to handle this short of that. There may be a way. ArbComm is not fun. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is far from irrelevant - it's a requirement for any entry in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, notability is a content issue, and AN/I is not for content issues. It's for behavioral issues. What isn't clear about that? This page isn't a "entry in wikipedia." It's a process page and it is focused on the behavior of editors, specifically where response might require admin tools. This is not a place to discuss content issues, period. That an article isn't notable, supposedly, is utterly no excuse to edit war over an AfD closure. None. Being "right" isn't an excuse for violating policy about edit warring. Multiple reverts without discussion and attempts to find agreement is edit warring. Once was bad enough. Twice was inexcusable. This was not a new editor, a clueless newbie. He knows. And he simply defied the policy and the closing admin and got away with it, largely because you helped him to, by continually turning the matter into a notability question, which it wasn't. Al_tally didn't close the AfD because he considered the article notable (though he may have thought that), he closed it because it was an abusive renomination. And he deserved support from AN/I, not irrelevant questions and arguments. And you are just digging your hole deeper, I'd say. --Abd (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I've "edit warred" on anything in connection with this article. And show me where notability and verifiability are somehow irrelevant to an article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't edit war. You supported someone who did. N and V are crucial for articles, never said they were irrelevant to it. They are irrelevant to edit warring. Used to amaze me, been writing on-line since the 1980s. This is written communication. One would think it would be clear. But quite a few people can only see what they think. --Abd (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When you start writing something that appears to be "building a case", where everyone can see it, you set yourself up for complaints such as this one. You're better off doing something like that on your own PC, until or if you're actually ready to file it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And I'm grateful to User:Allemandtando for filing it, in a sense. (But I regret the wikidrama part of it, the expansion of AN/I traffic.) It calls wider attention to his behavior, which seems to continue to be disruptive. Technically, "everyone can see it" in my userspace, but nobody would unless they were watching my contributions (or maybe the Talk page of the one admin whom I pinged about it for comment). Now, it's out there. Though I'd have preferred it be emblazoned across the sky when it's actually more than half done! And it isn't about Allemandtando. It's about AN/I. He just happens to be a player.--Abd (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And regarding your edit summary, "Thanks, Allemandtando and Baseball Bugs" - You're welcome. I'm always glad to be of service. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record I too have concerns about Allemandtando's behaviour with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination), which I have noted on that AfD page. I believe Allemandtando initiated an invalid AfD and then edit warred to prevent it being early closed. And I too have concerns about his refusal to be open about the identity of his previous account(s), claiming the "right to vanish" when he has obviously not vanished. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a separate issue you could raise here or at the sockpuppet page, if you care to. He explained the reason why didn't want his previous ID known, i.e. that it was his actual name. I don't know what the rules are in such a case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to write commentary on Wikipedia in their user space. Sometimes, solutions to problems or other good ideas come from it. That said, if you feel it's inaccurate, tell him why. Looks like you've already been doing this, on the talk page. I don't see that the mere existence of this page is any kind of problem. Friday (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Post closure of 2nd AfD

The second AFD has been closed with "no consensus", so the self-promoter gets to keep his article awhile longer. But how much longer? There are no wikipedia-valid sources for it, so a properly-done AFD should kill it. The claim has been made that the second AFD was opened "too soon", although there is no such rule. So the question is, how soon can another AFD be opened on this article and satisfy the ones who claimed the second one was "too soon"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OOPs, I spoke too soon. The second closure was again done by a non-admin, which is part of the trouble with the first one, and an admin has stepped in and reverted the closure. So the soap opera continues! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually started to reply to this here more extensively. However, this is all moot here. There is, true, minor misbehavior by an admin, referred to above, but it's minor and certainly not any kind of an emergency. (The reverting admin had voted in the AfD. Naughty, naughty! Kids, don't edit war! Let a neutral editor or admin sort it out!)--Abd (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. It's like dealing with kids. Yes, notability, sourcing major problems for that page. The first AfD didn't really touch on that, so it's really an issue of "should a DRV have been created instead". Yet there have been many megs of text typed opining various issues, agendas when quite frankly, you've a case on someone new to wikipedia not knowing the often arcane ruleset. All that really needed doing was a delete/userfy action, with an admin/experienced editor working with the guy to a) educate him in wiki protocol and b) attempt to rectify the concerns with the page in question prior to it possibly being mainspaced. Seriously, does anyone with an IQ higher than double figures actually believe the page required such megadrama? And people wonder why wikipedia is a laughing stock... Minkythecat (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I resemble that remark! >:( The AFD was re-closed, by an admin, as "delete and userfy", so hopefully everyone's happy now and this can be marked "Resolved". Or not. Either way, I'm done with this subject. Have at it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The notability issue is resolved for now, because the community of those !voting Keep, including 3 of the 8 administrators who voted, the overall total was 18:14 for Delete, are not contentious and gratuitously disruptive and seem to have no plans to go to DRV. That community discussion, in fact, was No Consensus, however. The decision was technically incorrect, in that there was no consensus behind it (but the admin, of course, had the right to make that decision, and I congratulated him for it, and no charge of impropriety could stand against him), and it seems to have simply depended on opinion as to relative primacy of the two issues involved: notability and process (which is why we had an unusual level of participation from long-time Wikipedians: We had one !vote each from accounts registered in 2001, 2002, and 2003.) I've not seen that in an AfD before. I disagree with Minky on one point: this was not a "new user." This is a sophisticated returning "vanished" user, who came in swinging, appearing on AN/I twice in as many days, being so actively offensive that he is being massively vandalized (which does not mean that he did something wrong, only that this simply points how he dove right into massive disruption, as his original user name announced, Killerofcruft. Disruption can be a good thing, but it's a very delicate issue, and he's not delicate. The name, however, worked, politically. It endeared him to the deletionist faction, who have rushed to congratulate him, barnstar him, etc. And I consider this very, very dangerous. He edit warred. He was uncivil. He makes massive edits to "cruft" articles without discussion, and largely ignores protests. Why should he discuss, after all? He's "right." Being "right" is one of the most dangerous positions for an editor to be in. It can justify, for starters, edit warring. It, indeed, has been used to justify the AfD itself. "Okay, it was out of process, but ... he was right, the article isn't notable." And Bugs did this from the beginning, with the edit report about Koc's edit warring: "What about the notability?" As if that admin was supposed to make, or even have an opinion, on notability. *Notability was, at that point, irrelevant.* Gotta pick up the kids. I'll be back later. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The contents of the encyclopedia are what matter the most, because that's what the public sees. Allowing articles with non-notable subjects that don't pass the verifiability rules does not serve the public well. That should be your primary focus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your constant sniping and obsession with me is getting getting frankly creepy and a bit scary. If we lived in the same country, I'd be getting stronger locks about now. Do you think you could fit *some* editing in between snipping and obsessing? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All this megadrama was because people didn't follow process. As a result, there were two WP:AN/I incidents filed, both still open and unresolved, and 44 letter sized pages (almost 24K words) of votes and commentary in the 2nd AfD. With more commentary elsewhere. This is far from resolved. There is still a WP:DRV for the article, and a WP:RFC/U for behavior. And potentially a WP:ArbCom case eventually. — Becksguy (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The megadrama was triggered by people's blind obsession that process is all. The first AfD ended unsatisfactorily as people clearly hadn't looked at the page, looked at who created the page, realised it's an area that needs expertise of sorts. People didn't address the notability or sources, didn't grasp that aiding the page creator, who is new to Wikipedia, would be beneficial for attempting to improve the standard of the article. Should a DRV have been created immediately? Maybe. Should the second AfD have been created? Possibly. Either way, the glaringly obvious, simple solution to the initial AfD was overlooked by blind obedience for process as be all and end all with a staggering lack of common sense applied by all. ANI threads? RFC/U? Possible ArbCom case? Dear gods, fish rights groups would be after my head for all the deserved trout slapping I'd love to apply over all of this. Delete/userfy, assisting the creator - who having written the language is clearly the best person to work with on the article - was the bleeding obvious way to have gone initially. Anything else happening is just process wonkery for the sake of it... people who have performed the minor miracle of environmentally regenerating a molehill into a mountain really need to consider if this makes Wikipedia look good... Minkythecat (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one object to being labelled as a"blind obsessive" and a "process wonk" just because I do not agree that the end justifies the means in cases like this. As the excellent essay Process is important says "If everyone acts outside of process, there is no process, no organization to our efforts. Then we do not have a collaborative project; we have chaos." The problem with making exceptions for editors such as Allemandtando because we believe they are "fighting the good fight" is that the exceptions grow, and this stance eventually degenerates into anarchy. Already I see Allemandtando has started yet another AN/I thread about a new wiki-drama below. The admin who closed the second AfD was brave - I wish the community were equally brave in tackling the reckless and disruptive behaviour of editors such as Allemandtando. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bangs head. Did you plainly not read anything other than a couple of quoted words? "End justifies the means"? No, although to deny there are always cases where that's necessary is somewhat unrealistic. FACT. The original AfD was mismanaged, focusing upon the wrong areas of concern. The notability, sourcing were always the real issues but got ignored - so sure, DRV could/should have happened, but then you'd be accepting the process (original AfD) was wrong... so then blindly following routine for that doesn't necessarily help. This was a simple thing to resolve, instead too many people got into a "how high can we piss" contest. CLUE. You might win, you'll still get wet. So, getting back to the original point, I assume the page has been userfied - are any admins/experienced editors assisting the page creator by helping him try to gather references to try to satisfy the article problems of notability and sourcing, or is that now secondary to the lulzdramaz? Minkythecat (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not quite done with this. Yes, the page was deleted and userfied: User:abd/MKR (programming language) The complaints about process were over a non-existent rule. There is no "minimum" wait time before filing a second AFD. And because the first one was swept under the carpet (or attempted to be), the second one was essentially a continuation of the first one. But one of the main objecters, User:Abd, now has it userfied to him, where he can work on finding sources, to his heart's content, and I gather he's OK with that. If the article proves to be worthy, it could always come back. Never say never. The issue of the article itself seems to be resolved. As far as behavior... well, you summarized it well. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs here, as with the AfD, made one of the more interesting wikilawyer comments I've seen in a while. The policy requires a reasonable pause between AfDs, and it is true, there is no specific period stated. Therefore, the argument goes, the period in this AfD did not violate the policy, because there is no minimum period. Yet the minimum period was violated. From WP:DP: Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.

The minimum time is whatever is less than "a reasonable amount of time ... to give editors the time to improve the page." Apparently Bugs likes his argument, because it was answered similarly before, so what Bugs been doing is justifying disruptive behavior, and encouraging it, which is disruptive, when he should know better, and may result in sanctions. At this point, since he hasn't been formally warned, he shouldn't worry, a block shouldn't come down because of what he's done in the past. This, here, should be considered a warning, if he shows that he's read it, so if he stops replying here, he could later claim he wasn't warned, so maybe somebody, maybe me, (better if it's not me) will warn him formally on his Talk page. If he doesn't repeat the behavior, then he can respond here, no worries about that either.--Abd (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trying to get revenge upon other editors, you need to focus on finding sources to justify the restoration of that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the warning, BB. Tell me, which is more important, cleaning up a single marginally notable article, or addressing disruptive behavior? A single marginally notable article, present or not, will make very little difference to Wikipedia. One disruptive editor can damage hundreds of articles, drive away hundreds of editors, get whole groups of Wikipedians fighting with each other, and generally make this a quite unpleasant place. And, more to the point, which is the subject for AN/I?

User:Arcayne was just blocked. Totally improper block. My jaw dropped when I saw it. An admin lost his marbles and could lose his buttons as well. Why? Provoked, I'd say. (No excuse for the admin, who may have protected himself by unblocking and making some attempt at an apology. Or maybe not, the admin may also have been edit warring.) What would have brought him to that? I'm not prepared to come to a firm conclusion, but, from seeing the immediate preceding history, he was faced with a user disregarding the consensus process that is the very foundation of how Wikipedia works. This isn't a complaint about Arcayne, whom I have seen try to tone things down, he actually tried to restrain Killerofcruft (now User:Allemandtando), though with a bit of wink-wink perhaps, but, even a very gentle and well-behaved dog, running in a pack, can become quite dangerous. What I saw forming around Killerofcruft was a coterie of cruft-haters, using battle metaphors, cheering when massive swaths were cut through articles, without discussion with other editors of the articles, without the gentle pressure toward reliable sourcing, the placing of cn tags, the attempt to serve the article's community by finding sources oneself, and the seeking of sources from other editors, explaining what RS means and requires, the extensive warning that text will ultimately be removed if not sourced, the seeking of consensus and the avoidance of edit warring, the acceptance of reasonable compromises, all the courtesies of peers editing articles as a joint project, if this is set aside in favor of "immediate clean-up," massive chaos and disruption and, yes, angry and impudent response can result. That admin may end up before ArbComm, but if he does, the whole affair will be examined, and, I'd predict, there will be other sanctions against other editors come out of it. That admin did not act in a vacuum, or, more accurately, he was sucked in, suckered into making a very bad move. If he's smart, he will listen carefully to all the criticism which arises, and completely abandon any defense of himself, acknowledging the mistake openly and completely, showing the community that he's unlikely to make the same mistake again, and, if he does this, I predict, he'll keep his buttons. As to the other editors involved, I can't make such predictions. Being a POV-pusher (and "deletionism," when it becomes a Holy Crusade, is a kind of POV) isn't a blockable offense. But disruption and aiding and abetting disruption is. Revenge doesn't interest me, I haven't suffered any personal damage here. Honesty, however, is an avenging angel, it's amazing what it can do. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints have been noted and logged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Abd is continuing to work constructively with the page creator, as he has done throughout this saga. I'm not going to waste time and space re-stating the legitimate concerns of myself and the other "process wonks" - they are already spelled out at the AfD page. Minkythecat and Baseball Bugs , we clearly disagree about identifying the "real issues" here, and there is no hope of finding common ground, but I suggest you try to be less derogatory and more civil towards editors who disagree with you. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would take to throw a civil comment in there. It's clear you're seeing only the words I wrote that you want to see. No big deal. This whole saga is nothing more than a total lack of common sense from day one, hopefully Abd will be able to either make a decent article or not be able to, to hopefully put this shambles to bed. Minkythecat (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was rightly killed due to lack of any apparent evidence that it belongs here, and now Abd has all the time he needs to try to prove otherwise, which was one of his primary complaints about the AFD. So everyone should be happy at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I plead guilty to sarcasm, although I've seen a lot worse. And I see nothing uncivil in Minky's comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now setting up a kangaroo court in his userspace - he does no editing that is not either about me or involves me - check his recent edits. How long am I expected to put up with being stalked? Do I have to approach the foundation about this? --Allemandtando (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A page designed to examine the behavior of the above editor neutrally has indeed been created in my user space, User:Abd/Allemandtando, but I'd suggest WP:AGF. It isn't a kangaroo court, it has no indictment or subpoena power, no authority to determine and impose sanctions, it is simply a place to collect a neutral description of the record, so the above hysterical response may say more about the user than about that page. What stalking? Looking at the contributions of an apparently disruptive user (alternative view: bold and brave user ridding the project of cruft and junk), and documenting them? I'd urge reading the page before jumping to conclusions about what it is (and the Talk page attached.) The above is a reaction to a mostly blank page! Wait until there is some actual content! --Abd (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He will get nowhere with an ArbCom. It will be seen for what it is: a personal vendetta. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that I wouldn't waste my time and theirs even presenting such a thing. It's correct, they would not accept a case that was a personal vendetta, unless they believed that there were issues worth their time and the community's time; if it was based on a personal vendetta, whatever they determined with respect to the user, they would surely censure or sanction me. I'd beware, though of considering me some vengeful nut case. I'm not, and most of what I do finds pretty substantial community support, at least lately. --Abd (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you try to bring my name into it, claiming I'm his "cheerleader", don't forget to point out where I had suggested on this ANI page that he be blocked for a week or so, for disruption on an earlier topic. I am no one's "cheerleader". I thought he was wrong on the earlier issue, and I think he was right on this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest not anticipating what I will do and then vigorously objecting to it. Users are not consistent, and may do one thing (a good thing) and then another (a not-good thing). What was mentioned here was the effect of certain actions. "Cheering" does not mean "meat puppetry." This incident report was based on allegations regarding a file I was preparing on how AN/I was diverted from its task, and the initial disruption grew out of a question posed here, in another AN/I report, by Baseball Bugs that was irrelevant to the issue brought there. The article could be utterly and unquestionably not notable and it would have been irrelevant (except that if this were the case, the whole thing would not have happened). Edit warring isn't permitted even if the edit warrior is "correct." This is a fundamental operating principle of Wikipedia, which can be set aside only for clearly necessary reasons, which did not exist here. Baseball Bugs has not actually addressed the specific point made here, which relates to the purpose of this report and an important point raised by it: how a legitimate AN/I request for admin support, by an admin facing edit warring in a reasonable performance of his function, was diverted over a truly minor issue: the notability of the article, which is clearly marginal, not utterly non-notable (there is at least one decent reliable source, when red herrings are set aside), but neither clearly notable (there is otherwise a paucity of RS, beyond minimal references -- listings -- by experts --, and only the personal testimony of several knowledgeable Wikipedia editors that it is, in fact, notable, even important, which is, yes, not sufficient in itself). Edit warring was the issue there, in the prior report, not notability. Was Killerofcruft edit warring? Nobody has claimed that he was not. Yet a number of users, including Baseball Bugs, have effectively condoned it by raising the notability issue, then and now. We have a process for determining notability, and edit warring is not part of that process, and neither is rapid renomination; Baseball Bugs has wikilawyered with an argument that, since no minimum time is specified in the policy, a few days violated no policy, an utterly preposterous argument that, again, has found no support. Here, the issue was, again, something different: the propriety of my working file, which was claimed to be an "attack page." The page has been judged, by the community, to be legitimate, but Baseball Bugs continues to claim that User:Allemandtando was "right on this issue." What issue? If Baseball Bugs is not again bringing in irrelevancies, this would only mean he is confirming the claim that the page was an "attack page." Yet he has not substantiated that argument. What about the page is an "attack"? Does it contain "personal attack" that violates policy? If so, I'd certainly need to know. Warn me, with specifics. Or stop filling up AN/I with useless distractions. Every post to this page postpones archiving by a day. This is not a trial of Baseball Bugs, and if he fails to defend himself here, it will not harm him. No proposal has been made for sanctions against him. All that has happened is that a specific behavior has been called into question; that may become relevant later, but he, and others, would then have the opportunity to question and correct any errors.--Abd (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Every minute you spend concerning yourself with this matter, is a minute you're not spending looking for sources for that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Move this thread

Although the 2nd AfD was closed, this thread has effectively become a continuation of the 2nd AfD debate. No admin action has been taken on this, and I think it's highly unlikely at this point that any will be taken. Therefore, unless there are objections, I will move this thread to a subpage of the 2nd AfD talk page and leave a link here. That way, this thread can archive and stop clogging up the AN/I board. Those that are interested in this thread can watch the subpage much more effectively. If someone wishes to file an issue that requires immediate admin intervention, they are, of course, free to open another thread here. — Becksguy (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, this is an AN/I thread, even though it was hijacked into "a continuation of the debate," and I, many times, attempted to return it to that topic. I don't think it belongs there, with the AfD, I don't recall much mentioned here that wasn't already discussed there. But a link from the 2nd AfD talk page, which does have some post-AfD discussion, to here, once this is archived, would be fine and, I'd say, more useful. So I oppose the creation of that page. This AN/I incident isn't about the AfD, it is about an alleged attack page, and it belongs here, in the archives, not there. What should really be done is to close it, since there appears to be consensus about its topic. I would do that except, of course, it's about me and so I'm COI on it. --Abd (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate content hiding on Intelligent Design

would someone please come over to Talk:Intelligent_design and look into the weird archiving practices there. archives are being used as a tool to close any active discussion that suggests revisions to the page - this is clearly against the basic principles of discussion that wikipedia relies on, as well as being a rude page-ownership violation. thanks. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They have reasonable-sounding rationales for being closed this way. I took a quick glance and agree that some of what was closed was off-topic and irrelevant. These articles are plagued by some recurring problems; if people are trying to keep the talk page in line, this is generally a good thing. It's possible it goes too far sometimes, though. Which one specifically do you think is a problem? Friday (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As frustrating as this is, it has been a standard practice in this part of Wikipedia for years. For example, see my draft essay. And the archiving or hiding or userfying or removal of off-topic or repetitious material is allowed under Wikipedia policies. If an editor has dealt with the same complaint 100 or 200 or more times before, and someone brings up the same thing yet again, usually because they do not understand policy, then sometimes people are a bit curt in how they deal with the situation. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not acceptable. Explain it 100 times if you have to. Better yet, make an FAQ. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the big yellow box at the top of the talk page? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply redirect them to the archives. It is not fair to ask people to explain science 100 times, specially since most on those pages have their minds made up. Brusegadi (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) There's a whole bunch of boxes there, perhaps if things got tidied a little? (or make it the top box, and somehow different from the rest?) or... something. People ignore boxes :-)

If it's any consolation, if there's 100 new people, and we assume only 1 in 10 people "gets it" enough to be able to explain to others as well, that means you only need to explain 30 times. (less if you're better at explaining) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but half of them think its a culture war, so its not really "explaining" its more like arguing. I have seen honest questions, and we answer them happily at climate pages, but I have seen far many more just out there to prove science wrong (or religion right.) Strict TPG works best. Brusegadi (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, explain there's no culture war going on, explain we just post attributed stuff, show them how to help, etc... It's kinda worth it when you manage to get through to people. :-) (Otoh, I know how hard it can be ^^;;) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What Brusegadi is referring to when he says "culture war" is a US-specific thing. And yes, there is a culture war going on. That is exactly how it is described by those on both sides. And the courts are involved. And politics. And it is quite ugly. It has been going on in the US for many decades, and likely will continue for a long time to come. Think of it as having a Taliban right inside your country. If things continue down their current path, maybe Holland will get a taste of it eventually.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the term. I have been living in the US for too long now! Brusegadi (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I salute you for your optimism! I babysit if I see hope, but most of the time (at least in GW pages) people have their minds made up. No offense to anyone, but concerning Intelligent Design, I doubt wikipedia is as good at indoctrinating people as churches are, which have been going at it for a while. So, if they dont learn policy the nice way, they'll learn it from experience, or move to a more "conservative" project (if you know what I am talking about!) ;) Brusegadi (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In hard topics such as ID, where passions run high, it is a good idea to be strict regarding WP:TPG. This involves removal of tangential stuff. To keep coolness, anything remotely off-topic should be avoided and you should strictly focus on the article. Brusegadi (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself never userfied and did not hide material in this way. I would engage the person complaining and say it over and over and over and over. And you know what? People got extremely angry at me for doing so. And so now, I have topic banned myself from those articles. See? They got their wish. Attack me and see how much better it is now? --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Making a FAQ is a great idea, and I have suggested this to people in a number of cases. Might be nice if there were a standardized way of presenting them...? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. What's more, FAQs can sometimes be helpful. Either way, if the pith is so self-evident, it should be a breeze to either explain or see in the article text. I left a friendly note for User:Odd nature and undid the latest thread closure. Talk pages are for the discussion of sources. If the article isn't cutting it for some good faith editors, it only means the article is lacking, as highly nettlesome and tiresome as this may sometimes seem. Meanwhile if a user is truly being disruptive about reliable sources in the article, there are other ways to deal with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On FAQs: As far as I know, I was the originator of the first one on Wikipedia, for the evolution article. This idea was copied and there is one at the intelligent design article, where it has been for many months now.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has been referred to the FAQ, to policies and guidelines, and to WP:TALK, but has continued to present unverified original research with demands that the article be changed, in defiance of the talk page guidelines, while taking this alleged closing of discussion or alleged incivility in providing guidance with links, to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design#policy misuse. Ludwig was engaged in disputes with ID editors over civility and attempts to rewrite NPOV policy before starting to produce these extraordinary unsourced screeds on the ID talk page. Gaming the system comes to mind. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Still no need to close article talk page threads. If Ludwigs2 is pushing OR over and over, that's disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen. You can create sub talk pages for each repeated issue. If there is a post on the main talk page about a repeated issue, simply move the post to the sub talk page and leave a note on the main talk page such as "duscussion thread move to ...", providing a link to whereever you moved the discussion. Bebestbe (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Global Warming page we simply delete such talk page comments. Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig's actions do indeed look like disruption, and I'd appreciate another opinion on that. See the RfC thread I've linked above, and talk:Intelligent Design. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel I can look at this in an unbiased fashion, however, I would urge a previously uninvolved admin to please investigate this, as it has some tangential bearing on the ongoing OrangeMarlin saga... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rationale: Talk:Intelligent_design#Please_respect_other_people.27s_time_and_patience Ludwig2 seems to be playing the victim bully here. Odd nature (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Having seen this sort of drama play out, hundreds upon hundreds of times (many times with the same editor, banned, come back as a sock puppet), I can see that some in this thread just have no idea what it is like to be involved in this sort of discussion. None. No experience. Nada.

On one hand we always get the response "if they are pushing OR over and over, that's disruption, so just ban them", etc. Well you know what happens then? All kinds of charges of unfairness are made. Demands for leniency erupt! How dare those terrible pro-science brutes act like that!

In fact, did you know that the horrible alleged mythical ID Wikiproject cabal is under attack on all sides for just this terrible kind of behavior? There was a brutal attack at a WP:BLP, orchestrated from an off-wiki attack site, the article Rosalind Picard. There was an RfAr against the members of this alleged cabal for unfairness. This devolved into not one, but two RfCs (one of which is still active) against the members of this terrible putative cabal. And now there has been a secret trial against two members of the awful purported cabal where these editors were not allowed to present evidence in their defense. And their convictions from that secret trial were vacated, but now an expedited RfAr against the same evil ID Wikiproject editors has surfaced, which is to be followed by an expedited Arbcomm proceeding. And there have been hints that this is just the first of more such proceedings to come against the other members of this brutal cabal!

All because of acting the way you suggest. That is the entire point of User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. The culture that exists on Wikipedia will not let you just enforce the rules against this kind of disruptive behavior. The only thing you can do is maybe after the disruptive editor drops the "f-bomb" 3 or 4 times in a row, block them for incivility. That is your only recourse. And that might not even work.

This was the entire motivation for me creating User:Filll/WP Challenge. Because so many people have no clue what it is like to edit these kinds of articles and what sort of actions you can take. So I created the challenge to expose a wider range of people to this kind of environment that exists in some dark corners of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is tiresome. I believe that the problems with an approach predicated on hasty archiving and so on have been extensively discussed on the talkpage of one of the essays linked above, and alternative, workable, policy-compliant and tested approaches explained over and over. Perhaps a FAQ is required? (Irony alert.) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat my comment here that I made there. Unfortunately although you claim standard methods work, you have not presented any evidence that they work. And many people with 10 times or 100 times or more experience in these matters have said clearly to you, over and over, that you are mistaken; these "alternative workable policy compliant tested approaches" otherwise known as the same old methods do not work. By the way, archiving or usefying is policy compliant and has been used at Wikipedia and on many other online communities to handle this sort of thing for years and years and years. So in its own way, it is also a "workable policy compliant tested approach". --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Considerable evidence was provided, and ignored. Several editors pointed it out to you there, many of whom have considerably more experience than you in these issues, including myself. I believe IDIDNTHEARTHAT was referenced several times on the page. As for your similarly substantiated claim that over-hasty archiving is policy-compliant, no doubt you can point out the relevant mention here. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I must have missed it somehow. A group of editors with much more experience on contentious articles than me who claim that there is no problem with CIVIL POV pushing on Wikipedia? Who claim that the status quo is just fine? I have about 32000 edits and several thousand edits in the evolution, creationism, intelligent design, racial and alternative medicine areas, all of which are hotbeds of controversy. I would be very interested to meet anyone who has much more experience than I do on controversial articles who believes our current set of tools is completely adequate, and is just being implemented incorrectly or misused somehow. Please tell me who these people are. Please link me to the discussions I must have missed with the evidence that the standard methods work beautifully and efficiently and that everyone is happy with them, including FRINGE proponents and disruptive editors and those mainstream editors who are trying to maintain NPOV and other Wikipedia principles in these controversial articles.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we measure experience by more than edit count here. As I said, the userspace proposal talkpage above has several explanations, all of which have been made to you. This is the third time I've mentioned it: are you illustrating the problem through your behavior, perhaps? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok. So those with minimal edit counts are much more experienced. I see. I also guess I am just too slow to find what you are referring to without diffs.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

DGG has worked in areas all over this encyclopaedia for years. I've been here, one way or another, since 2004. If you wish to suggest that we have 'minimal edit counts' and thus are irrelevant, you will fool only yourself. That extends to the other people who explained to you and to others at length why your methods of dealing with disagreement were counter-productive, at the talkpage of Raul's absurd little essay. We experienced editors know that pretending to have forgotten where something was mentioned is Obfuscatory Method #34. (#34a is maintaining you don't know where even after being told.) --Relata refero (disp.) 05:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The very term Intelligent Design is a nest of worries and hardly worth the time spent. I've reviewed Ludwigs2's comments and they're mostly unsourced OR ramblings. My eyes glazed over. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be an agitator here, Gwen, but the ArbCom (or at least FT2) seems to take Ludwigs2's opinions quite seriously.... heh.. Seriously, though, you may want to consider commentting here... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed some of Ludwigs2's recent contributions at WP:WQA on subjects in which he doesn't have a bias, and I will admit I may have him figured all wrong. It looks like you've been doing a good job over there, Ludwigs.

I just don't know any more, I guess. Wikipedia is too effing confusing for me since the ArbCom imploded the other day :D --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've seen happen a couple of times. Perhaps part of the solution is to invite troublesome people to come help in some other part of the wiki for a while to learn the ropes? They can then get back to the troublesome article in a constructive fashion. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This of course is a great idea and one I have encouraged. Some even go to a related wikimedia project and contribute in severe situations. Unfortunately, traditionally things often have to become very unpleasant before such remedies are considered or imposed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, it is quite simple, really. Mrs. Picard is not even a scientist in the life sciences field, therefore her views on ID are quite irrelevant. POV sections and paragraphs on the subject are unwarranted. All it does justify is perhaps a single sentance midway through the article. That is the proper application of WP:UNDUE, nothing more, nothing less. Please stop obfuscating the conversation by bringing in the tired old WP:BADSITES argument, nobody cares. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am afraid that I am still allowed to disagree with you. And as for the BADSITES comment, I will direct you to my comments here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• The archiving practice needs to be spelled out clearly in the talk page headers. There is no reason that tired arguments need to be kept on the main talk page. However, that main ID talk page should have a clear table of links to existing talk subpages that allow new comers and others to express their views. The FAQs can be a subpage as well. Bebestbe (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I seem to remember reading somewhere that comments were supposed to be about edits, not editors. yet I keep seeing evidence that disconfirms that, from highly experienced users. I'm beginning to get a bit confused on this issue; can someone please clarify?  :-) (err... yes, that was sarcasm...)

now, I understand the need to keep talk pages under control, and normally I wouldn't have an issue with it. however, this has stepped over the line into abuse. the argument I am making is not some angry POV spiel that goes on endlessly, nor is it a rehash of some older argument. it is simple, direct, clearly reasoned, and not something that's been presented before. If you can respond to it as a reasoned argument, properly and thoroughly, then it and I will go away as soon as I realize that you're correct. but if you can't respond to it as a reasoned argument, then you have no right to squirrel it away and mark it as resolved. in fact, you have an obligation to let it sit there until someone comes along who can resolve it, or until you admit it's correct.

fact of the matter is, here, that I'm pretty sure I'm right. I might be wrong, and I'm always open to that possibility, but in this case it doesn't strike me as very likely. the only way we're going to find out for sure, though, is if we discuss the matter. sorry if that cases you inconvenience, but... --Ludwigs2 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2. On one hand, discussions should not be prematurely archived to win the argument because consensus can change. On the other hand, the main ID talk page probably should be reserved for issues not addressed over and over. The compromise seems to be to create topical ID talk subpages that allow editors to post their views and others to contribute as they desire. Bebestbe (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I think you're editing in good faith, but if you don't start citing some reliable sources in your talk page comments, you may be blocked for disrupting Talk:Intelligent Design. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bebestbe - that might be a possibility, but in this particular case it strikes me as another way of pushing an argument out of sight and out of mind. I'm willing to discuss the matter, though.

Gwen - I have cited where needed, but unfortunately my arguments get crunched into archives before I can really develop anything significant. also, I need point out (a) that this is a talk page, not article content, and so the rules of citation are somewhat more lax, and (b) that citations are support for statements that are being made by an editor, not claims in and of themselves. if I can't actually get a discussion going, there's no actual place to use citations, yah? if anyone cares to question any claim I make, I will be happy to source it as best I can. --Ludwigs2 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

P.s. Filll - I haven't really had any dealings with you to date, so I hope I'm not being rude, but it seems to me that your entire above post was about bad experiences you've had with other editors. however, I'd prefer to be treated as a unique individual rather than an amalgam of all the unpleasant people you've dealt with before, if at all possible. --Ludwigs2 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Perhaps you did not quite understand. My long post is an explanation of why we cannot easily block you. And you probably will not deal with me near as much as you would have a couple of months ago because I will not work on those articles. I have found that editing those kinds of articles leaves me open to attack.

Now if you would prefer that I not intervene to explain why you should not be blocked, well then, ...what can I say?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Ludwigs2, I suggest that you create a subpage of the article, or even a subpage of your own userpage and develop your argument to your heart's content in private. Then when you feel comfortable, invite others in to see it and comment on it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, I've already referred you to WP:TALK. Note that at the outset it states that Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies, and though there is some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

More generally, a request for advice. One of my replies[39] has been cited by Cla68 as a bad example, but to me it accurately summarises the problems with Ludwig's talk page rambles, and gives good advice on how to contribute successfully. What do others think? . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I love that example Dave. So you made a polite statement which was really deemed to be a hostile uncivil statement in disguise. And you, or for that matter KC wondering if it isnt a personal attack to unfairly characterize your polite statement as uncivil is itself deemed to be a personal attack: [40]. And I suppose someone else could come and claim it is a personal attack to say that it was a personal attack to say that it was a personal attack to mischaracterize your polite post as uncivil. And so on and so forth, as an infinite regress. And so I have placed this example in a place of honor as number 28 in my CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame: [41].--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, I see it all the time. I can only say that sometimes, an editor's PoV is so overhwleming and to them, self-evident, they either can't possibly imagine Wikipedia's sourcing policy has sway over their edits, or simply game the policies in the belief their outlook is so worthy as to trump anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry Filll - guess I'm getting confused by the unexpected welter of emotions here. my apologies if I offended; I didn't mean to.

Dave, you continue to miss the point. I've made a good argument, with proper sourcing to the extent I was allowed. you could have chosen to dispute it, you could have chosen to refute it, you could have chosen to agree with it, all of which would have ended this debate relatively quickly and cleanly, and probably without ANI. you chose instead to play the bureaucrat, and brush me off as though I was some annoying flea who dared to buzz into your office. well, it's not your office, and I'm not a flea, and if you are unhappy with the confrontation that we are having now then I suggest- respectfully - that you go take a good long look in the mirror. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Friday was right on as always. The talk pages are not a free expression zone, megaphone, or soapbox, but a space to concisely discuss concrete and specific improvements to article content. People who enjoy debating the ins and outs of the scientific method (and I'm not solely addressing Ludwigs2 here) have any number of other online forums in which to do so. Stop fighting about the archiving, and open one thread briefly addressing one problem with the article and proposing a specific solution, ideally with sample text. Do not base your argument on your personal beliefs about the scientific method, but on what reliable sources have said. MastCell ^Talk 00:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with MastCell and Friday as usual. Oh well. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ludwig2 is still at it with the OR there, ignoring all calls to find sources or move on. Would someone do something about this please. Odd nature (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, even discussions about stylistic changes to the lead (which can be in no way construed as OR) are now being archived peremptorily. see this diff which shows Professor marginalia's response to a discussion about a change in style for the first paragraph of the lead, and this diff which shows my response, and the immediate archiving of the section, even though Professor marginalia and i are having a productive conversation on the topic. this is pure absurdity... --Ludwigs2 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Ludwigs2

Resolved.

Note: see User_talk:Ludwigs2#blocked_for_disruption_at_Intelligent_Design. Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for 55 hours (his first block) for alleged disruption. On that page I asked for, but have not yet received, the specific diffs, that support the block. I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On further review of this, after review of the diffs supplied, I do not think this block is justified, and I call for its immediate lifting. I suspect that if uninvolved admins (that is, admins who do not regularly and have not recently participated on the ID page or its talk) review the matter, they will agree. I could be wrong of course. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse removal of the block at this time. While this is a complicated matter, I'm just not seeing the justification here, even with the diffs cited on the respective editor's talk page. RFerreira (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the evidence, I don't see any reason for a 55 hour block, if any block was called for in the first place. I strongly recommend an immediate unblock. Dreadstar † 20:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited ID-related stuff, though I have engaged Ludwigs2 on policy talk pages, e.g. WT:NPOV and WT:FRINGE, and at Talk:Royal Rife. My concerns about his editing are pretty much those expressed by Gwen Gale, and have to do mostly with ignoring the talk page guidelines and arguing at length about beliefs, the scientific method, and so forth rather than discussing concrete article improvements. This kind of talk-page abuse is really tough to deal with - everyone gets mad and cries "censorship" if off-topic posts are removed or archived, and blocks seem awfully blunt of an instrument.

I think there is a real issue here, albiet perhaps not one warranting a 55-hour block. Ludwigs2 hasn't requested an unblock yet, so I'd like to see his response to the block. Ideally, he could agree to focus more and respect the talk-page guidelines, and the block could be lifted. I do think it should be shortened (or lifted) regardless as the length seems excessive, but I don't think that should be perceived as a complete vindication of Ludwigs2, since there is a real issue needing improvement. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 disrupted the article's talk page for many, many days with an endless stream of Original Research challenges and proposals. He rejected input from many others to provide sources and later to abide by consensus. He repeatedly reverted the archiving of OR discussions. And lastly he ignored warnings about the problems with his actions. Ludwigs2 met 3 of the 4 definitions of a disruptive editor given at WP:DE and was given chances to reform which he dismissed. The only question is not whether he should have been blocked, but for how long. 48 hours seems reasonable to me considering he wasted at least that many man hours at Talk ID. Odd nature (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you an "uninvolved admin" by my definition? I'm personally more interested in the views of those who are uninvolved in judging whether there is a consensus to unblock, although I thank you for your input in any case... ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has already been unblocked. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Ludwigs2 following this thread. The consensus for it was too highly mixed and I don't think a 24 hour block would have been meaningful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone objecting except Lar, and I disagree with him. However, I'm not interested in arguing about it. If Ludwig continues to disrupt the ID talk page, we can always simply ignore him and/or remove his comments, depending upon how blatantly off-topic or repetitious they are. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've objected. But I'll be happy to re-block if the disruption continues. Dreadstar † 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I read your post as a block review, supporting Lar, rather than as a separate objection. The difference is negligible, at any rate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that this ill-thought out comment of mine might read as less than respectful to Dreadstar, and/or insinuating that he is merely a follower of Lar in this, rather than having given the matter his own attention and come to his own conclusion. I commented thoughtlessly; I hereby retract and apologize for the comment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen, I think it was a compassionate and understanding decision to unblock. If Ludwigs2 proves to be a disruptive, tendentious editor, I will support a re-block. I think all the other editors involved in ID and other editors that edit the same articles and policy/guidelines that Ludwigs2 edits should be examined for WP:TE, WP:HARASS as well as other Wikipedia policy infractions. I see some editors and so-called "groups" or "cabals" are already under community and ArbCom scrutiny. This entire situation over WP:FRINGE and paranormal articles needs to be investigated in detail and the paradigms for what Wikipedia presents should be clarified. We are not here to promote truly fringe OR, nor are we here to debunk. Some here seem to be confusing scientific methodology with debunking. That dichotomy needs to be addressed. Dreadstar † 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I so agree with everything you say. It's clear we need to find more consensus as to how to go about dealing with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how those editors could possibly be under more scrutiny. One was just the subject of a completely secret ArbCom "case", and was deemed so uniquely dangerous that he was not even allowed to know that a case was being considered until after it was "finalized". Others have presciently just left, rather than deal with the current psychosis that seems to be afflicting the community from top to bottom. There are multiple RfC's and AN/I threads on a daily basis. What additional scrutiny should these editors be placed under? Or maybe our existing dispute resolution mechanisms are actually sufficient to deal with this if we don't lose our minds over it? MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no psychosis, there's just a bunch of people who own a bunch of articles and talk to everyone else like they're "anti-science". This pisses people off, and since this unch of people have played off each other for a while and developed a fondness for the fine art of troll-bashing, they've pissed off many non-trolls over time. Most of those people would like this behaviour to change. You help them change that, the problem goes away. Its not fixed yet by a long shot, so even more scrutiny is required. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>People over and over have said that the standard methods work fine, that there is no reason to have the discussion at User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing, that removing offtopic posts from talk pages is wrong, that I am just stupid, etc (see above comment, which is quite representative). The atmosphere around the controversial articles is quite different than around regular articles, and quite poisonous. And now we had a little tiny demonstration of it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, so you do know where the discussion took place! hooray! --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the atmosphere around some controversial articles is indeed quite different, and indeed quite poisonous. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To make it clear what Lar says, he is assigning partial responsibility for that to your methods. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not my methods. I have never hidden posts or userfied a thread. They were in use long before I came to Wikipedia. And they have been in use on other websites long before Wikipedia existed. I have merely watched these techniques in action. And I am one of those claiming the current standard methods are inadequate; remember? And I have topic-banned myself for the most part, and do not edit these articles any more, so if you want to blame anyone, you better look elsewhere. And I am still waiting for a link to the evidence that the standard methods work and are adequate. I find the claim that those who have few edits on Wikipedia have more experience editing Wikipedia than those with more edits on Wikipedia to be somewhat dubious, but you are free to make that assertion.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Without my putting words in anyone else's mouth, I think it might be useful if you admitted the possibility that what is referred to is not anything that are not your methods, but strictly things that are. For instance the last time I encountered you, re: two sourcing issues, was this outburst an accurate reflection of my editing at that point? My reaction: [42]. The thread in full at this point: here. That section apart, the talk page demonstrated no consensus on these issues, indeed John Carter had alluded to similar concerns, though had been rebuffed with a statement by you more absolutist than any I had yet made.

Endevouring to never encounter you again, I wandered off. Some hours later, feeling uneasy leaving an article possibly mis-sourced so easily, i asked for a third opinion here. Soon after, five days after my first raising my points on that busy talk page, many involved editors chimed in, meaning that i felt i had to withdraw my TO request.[43] Out of all of them, you included, I feel only Hrafn made any attempt to seriously engage with what I was saying. I soon left the page.

Since then, one source has been very moderately strengthened, by linking to the paper in full rather than a footnote that did not support the assertion (this was a suggestion of mine in response to Hrafn [44]). The other remains untouched, despite its having nothing to do with the assertion that it supports that i can see, or that has been explained to me.

This is my experience with checking two of the first four sources on the article. There's every reason to believe other ones are similarly problematic. I certainly will not be checking to see. Perhaps this is an example of what might be called your "methods"? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos

Resolved

 – No merit to this report --Jaysweet (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos is coming after me for my edits. Let's start off by saying I'm a conservative (completely for fairness and neutrality on Wikipedia) and Blaxthos is a liberal (from his edits, discussions, talk page) with an apparent axe to grind. He will not allow liberal bias to be added to the NBC article, but staunchly defends the conservative bias entry to be added to the FOX News page. Now, I've had this problem before with a liberal administrator who found it "necessary" to put me in his cross-hairs just because I was a self-proclaimed conservative. Now, it happens again. Other than Talk pages, I have kept my neutrality high. I removed quotation marks over words which makes one side seem right and the other wrong. I put liberal labels where needed. I changed progressive to liberal once because they are the same thing and "liberal" is a much clearer label. I don't like it when a liberal admin tries to abuse his power in order to ban me from editing just because I'm conservative. That is all.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links to the edits that you are concerned about. FCYTravis (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just check his talk page as it should give you a clear idea of his obvious liberal bias.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're filing the report, you need to provide the DIFFs. Just glancing, it seems like you're upset with him for filing an ANI report at you earlier. Some context and examples would help. Dayewalker (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We're really not concerned about someone expressing a personal view on a talk page. Unless Blaxthos is abusing his admin tools in order to enforce his POV, there's nothing actionable here. FCYTravis (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the NBC/FOX thing. Read that part and read the discussion on his discussion page. His DIFF didn't include specific example of MY editing behavior, yet other admins took it at face value. Why the double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, specific DIFFs please. It would help your case if you could show specific examples of this bias from an admin, and how he used his tools in a biased manner. Dayewalker (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What I see on the talk page are unsupported accusations of bias based on an editing conflict. You obviously disagree with Blaxthos' position on these edits. Work on the article talk page to discuss the dispute, and perhaps use the request for comment process in order to bring more editorial viewpoints into the page. FCYTravis (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is blatant trolling and clearly a retaliation for this. Blaxthos is an excellent editor of long standing and PokeHomsar has a short history packed with POV edits that have been reverted by other, more contentious editors. We should not entertain this nonsense further. Gamaliel (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging from his recent edits, he appears to have abandonded this thread when he was asked for actual evidence of his claims. His next seven edits all seemed to be POV pushing, or accusing others of bias. Dayewalker (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The trolling and harassment and battle mentality continues even as we discuss the situation here (I notice I now have a new message on my talk page, doubtless from him). I've also referred this matter to WP:WQA, though I think it's now escalated to the point that blocks may be in order. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Classic POV pushing. His view is neutral, everyone else is POV, and there's nothing to be discussed. He doesn't seem to respond well, either. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now he's insisting that others carry out extensive reading assignments before they consider themselves fit to have a discussion with him [45] [46]. Classic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy obviously watches Bill O'Reilly too much. It's poisoned his brain. I weep for him, I deeply sympathize. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Behave yourself Bugs. You know better - especially for a newbie. That's not a good example when we are challenging their behaviour is it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand. I used to be an O'Reilly watcher myself. He turned me into a newt. But I got better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had interactions with Blaxthos in the past, including at least one case where I helped mediate a dispute between him and another user, and while his personal allegiances are quite obvious, I find that he always makes an effort to be fair and unbiased in his edits. I feel he tries hard to see the other side of the argument, even though he clearly feels quite strongly about United States political issues.

Those are my general opinions on Blaxthos. In this particular case, there is no merit to the complaint whatsoever. I have marked it as resolved, even though I admit I may be slightly involved, as there appears to be unanimous consensus here that the thread is meritless (if not outright retaliatory). --Jaysweet (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some sort of process to discourage users from wasting everyone's time at ANI? In addition, from a cursory review of his edits in the past week, it appears that any attempt to deal with this user will just garner more attacks or dismissals because "he hates Liberals" which he defines as someone who disagrees with him. Community action should be taken against PokeHomsar immediately. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If a user repeatedly files spurious reports at noticeboards, it could potentially result in a block. However, the community is reluctant to do so for a number of reasons. For one, sometimes it's very hard to judge if somebody is making a frivolous report, or if they really just didn't understand the process. It would also be a lot of extra work for not a lot of benefit. Lastly, there is concern it could have a chilling effect, where users are afraid to report their problems for fear of retaliation (and in fact, I worry sometimes this is already happening... it's hard to avoid it, but it's frequent enough that somebody is causing trouble, and they decide to report the object of their vexation, which then results in the community noticing their troubling behavior for the first time and taking action. Happens shockingly often.)

That said, I have recently heard from a couple of users who feel we should come down harder on people who file frivolous reports. I am not sure if I agree. It's a tough one. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Ramsquire was referring to his battlefield mentality and POV warriorism more than just the meritless ANI post. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

whiel wikipedia should never fee; like a battlefield, blocking someone for passionate ideologisticism seems rather timeconsuming. if and when a user ivolates a preexisting rule then they should be blocked but just beause someone has a strong POV and is very occasionally obnoxious then we can let it slide with a warninGS? Just my two sents. Smith Jones (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible implicit legal threats?

We seem to have a comparatively new editor, User:Dem1970, who seems to have a pronounced interest in ensuring that the content of the Steve Windom page meets his own personal standards, and he has recently implied on both the talk page of the above article and my own user page what seem to at least me to be at best thinly veiled legal threats. It should also be noted that the editor has shown little if any interest in any other articles, leading me to believe that it might be the subject himself. I would welcome any other input in the matter on the talk page of the above article. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

this is... familar.. (anyone???) --Allemandtando (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am a relatively new editor, I have not insisted that content meet my own standard and I am certainly interested in more than one topic. I have not and will not threaten John Carter, legally or otherwise. In fact, as I am not the potential target of defamation in the instance at hand, I cannot legally threaten him, even if I wanted to. I encourage other editors to read the history of this on the relevant discussion page and in the historical versions of the article. I have merely pointing out that there are land mines one must avoid when editing biographies (e.g., defamation) and that certain parties seem to be running right in to the same ones repeatedly. Dem1970 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He may in fact be interested in more than one topic, but as per his contribution history here, he has in fact to date dealt with no other subjects. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation is inappropriate. The user has clearly stated now on multiple occasions that he is not the subject of the article and to continue with these accusations is less than civil. Moreover, the editor's geographical location, which he seems to have inadvertently exposed in an IP edit, is completely inconsistent with that of the article's subject. This is a new editor, why don't you assume some good faith and give him a chance to edit some other articles? Please, don't bite the newbies, per WP:BITE. Cleo123 (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A better example of WP:BITE (as well as WP:CIVIL) violation would be if someone writes something ludicrously and unacceptably self-important such as: "I see from your editorial history that you have only really been actively editing Wikipedia for a few months, do not appear to be a member of the biography project and have unfortunately been blocked multiple times during that short time frame. I'm sure that you are a fine editor, but you are still a relative novice to this forum, comparatively speaking. I have read your remarks on various talk pages related to this subject matter and am somewhat concerned by statements you've made that seem to fly in the face of policies relating to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:STALK, WP:NOT and WP:HARASS." Like [here] perhaps? Tendancer (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been in communication with the page's subject, and I have made him aware of what is happening. If there was any legal problems on his end, he would have notified me, which he did not. Therefore (unless things change over night), there are no possible legal actions for "defamation". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I wanted to note that I have asked Swatjester for his opinion on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

I speedy-deleted Kathleen Moore as a courtesy G7 after it was nominated for AfD and the author/subject became a little upset and demanded its removal, threatening legal action if it reappears. I initially blocked the account and the IP that actually issued the threat, but unblocked, since it's not really a present threat. Just a note in case anybody sees anything else from this editor. Acroterion _(talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind [47]. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

She seems to be a little upset. I'm going to take a few minutes and try to engage; maybe something positive can be salvaged. If she confirms the legal threat, though, I concur that a block is in order. No one can be that incivil, and WP:BITE is the only thing holding up a block. Let me see what I can do, here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually re-blocked after that last post, and courtesy-blanked the AfD discussion. I think some kindness is in order, though. Acroterion _(talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are a lot more patient that I am. And I've had deal with this crap for a living! Good luck... — Satori Son 20:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise she's already been blocked. I removed the rant from her talk page as is contained numerous personal attacks. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, and the block; I've notified the user of the block, and reiterated the need for her to calm down and talk to us. Worth one more shot, I think, but some of her comments were quite over-the-top. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance: keep in mind also that the original registered account is blocked too. Acroterion _(talk) 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I support that block of the parent account.[48] Simply unacceptable behavior. — Satori Son 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I had to scrub the abusive stuff from the IP's talk page again. It may need protected if she keeps it up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ans she's done it again so I protected the IP talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after that last gem, I can't disagree. Should the block on the IP be extended? I still think it was worth trying to engage her, and it burned an hour on a slow afternoon - but I haven't seen that much rage since 2004. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I found it funny and it was me it was aimed at. I'd elaborate, but it's a little crude. Work it out for yourselves. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Always worth trying to engage. For most people your approach would work. But I note from her contributions list that she is only here to self promote and was pretty pissed when her original rant backfired and we speedied the article at her request. Anyway I don't think it's worth extending the IP ban at the monent. If she comes back after the ban and repeats her behavior then that's a different matter but for now we should IMO consider the matter closed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide if "A gang of ignoramuses and ILLITERATES" [49] is funnier than "A crazy den of pigs" [50] and its attendant candidate for replacement of the standard warning box. [51] The former might be a little more literate (ironically) while the latter is a little more creative. Maybe we need an Inflammatory Barnstar, or a competition for the Top Ten funniest insults of the year. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Then may I submit this, aimed at me? Another Canadian, they seem to have just the right touch for invective. Corvus cornix_talk 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should start such a competition? Village Pump discusion time? Or is it too in breach of WP:DENY or like a BJAODN re-run? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(groan) Dispute getting nasty...

Could someone take a look at this, please? It took a turn for the worse when Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gave me a personal attack warning for this, despite a clear desire of mine that he not interact with me in my userspace.

He then referred to me (a 19-month contributor) as a newbie. Please tell us both (me and him) to shut up, officially, on the page. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And another dispute (I'm not involved in this one) in which Arcayne suggested that another user "got a hard-on" from arguing. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You already know the solution is for you two to leave each other alone, but you want to be told this? Err.. ok, leave each other alone. Friday (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Which he has been asked to do. Repeatedly. On other AN/I complaints where he was told the same thing. Maybe, at long last, TT can now heed that advice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

TT, that whole dispute started getting nasty because you thought this would be a good idea. If you want Arcayne to not interact with you, I suggest you reciprocate. Neıl 龱 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea because how else do you suggest I find the answer to those questions? They are quite reasonable, as it is. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 06:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible to choose to not interact with Arcayne. His purpose here is to control and "win" for it's own sake, using whatever it takes. Arcayne is a loose cannon that should have his own permanent section in AN/I - He is perennially locked in some bullying dispute with any one of dozens of editors or administrators. He's also an aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander. Someday perhaps people will begin to string together these many, many incidents and ask, "Can everybody be wrong?" No, they can't. Arcayne is a bully whose purpose here is to game the system for his own personal gratification at the expense of nearly every Wiki tenet of civility, intellectual honesty, manners and decorum. 75.57.201.254 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll the anon, why don't you create a subheading here and explain what's your issue with Arcayne, including specifics. Vague insults about his personality aren't going to solve anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An "aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander"? Omg, is the anon actually talking about me? I think no one who has ever encountered me would pair those two descriptions with my personality, like, ever. Btw, the anon appears to have been a user we blocked back in April for gaming the system to bypass admin oversight. Does anyone need those prior AN/I's? Coz, I am going to be asking for the anon range to be blocked to keep out the attack pages as soon as I have the results of the RfCU, located here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As you know, non-specific personal attacks from IP addresses always have a high degree of credibility. Though not in this universe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, just ignore the insults. That was my point precisely. Believe me, I see from the summary on my talk page here what to take when someone calls them "Unsupported claims of authority about a subject which are fraudulently offered" without any specifics. I see from such edit summaries like "If you are an OXFORD POLI Grad as you claim you should know better", I think it's time we have to consider range blocks to stop this nonsense. I'll add a note on the last user talk page so let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really take the insults that seriously. Really, I was amused at the choice of mischaracterization, as they have never really been applied to me. The user has tried this same sort of stuff at least three times before. I just don't want him cluttering up my page with his rants, and trying to poison wells elsewhere. Still waiting on RfCU to confirm the related status so I can properly request the range block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize - here are the specifics: "With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English...penultimate being the climax of the story."[52]. Arcayne has made other claims to superior authority in the past, he has also argued forcefully over weeks with numerous editors that the EU is an NGO: "Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak, ... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)" I hope the specifics help.75.57.205.135 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we just block this IP range and dispense with the user? This is his fourth or fifth IP in two days, He is likely specifically restarting his modem to shift IPS. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Threats on user page

Resolved

 – Removed and warned. --slakr^\ talk / 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of edits by User:Saul Douglas Whitby... and then saw his user page. I don't want to antagonize him further by warning him. Does someone else want to tell him to remove it? This knight is chickening out! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably suggest a block for incivility. A userpage like that is just asking for trouble. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They seem like harmless, tongue in cheek comments to me. But then again, what do I know? I had an ANI for myself a few days ago... lol, good times. What raises an eyebrow is his knowledge of Wikipedia, despite being a registered user for only a few days. Maybe an IP check-thinger-majig is in order? Yes? --Endless Dan 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. It's clearly tongue in cheek. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly a possibility. Some sniffing as to the puppeteer would have to be done, though. I would think that he doesn't actually know very much about Wikipedia, but then, perhaps he does. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No I reckon he's a newbie with a sense of humor. Nothing to see here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no. The threats are definitely empty, but it's the fact he claims to know everything that bothers me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

uno and dos. The rest is up to him. --slakr^\ talk / 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't acknowledge his intellectual superiority in your message ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Laying aside this snarky response to Roguegeek's message, they responded positively to slakr's message. We can probably move on at this point. (In the future, we should also let the editor know we are discussing them here.) — Satori Son 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dreadstar

Resolved

 – Procedure misunderstanding. No issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly diff diff diff diff changed my talk page comments. User describes my comment as 'uncivil'. I have asked to user to refrain from editing my comments and to follow WP:TALK, to no avail. I suggested that instead of altering my comments, he pursue dispute resolution, rather than unilaterally deciding what I am allowed to say. Again to no avail. I have also politely asked diff diff that he refrain from posting on my talk page and instead discuss the article at the article talk page - again to no avail. Thank you for looking into this matter. Dlabtot (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Dreadstar's response. The section headings as originally posted, "Another whitewash" is the opposite of assuming good faith - "whitewashing" is a form of covering up the truth, ie, lying; and, saying it's "another" instance of that is doubly uncivil, because it implies that the cover-up is ongoing. It's possible there is a cover up, but it's not necessary to make that accusation to discuss the inaccuracies you perceive in the edits. Considering the incivility of the section heading, a neutral refactoring seems appropriate. The text of your comment was not changed and still makes your point.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my point is that the article is a whitewash. Since my comment no longer says that, I don't see how the meaning of it can not have changed. And to whom is it that I am supposedly being uncivil by describing what I see as the shortcomings of the article? I must respectfully disagree with your slant on this. Dlabtot (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)BTW, when I said 'another', I meant 'another of the many, many' articles on Wikipedia that whitewash their subjects. Do you really believe my criticism of Wikipedia and what I believe to be its dysfunctional enforcement of its own policies is inherently uncivil? 'Speaking ill of Wikipedia' == 'incivility'? Really? Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you did not intend to convey that editors whitewashed the article? That's what's written in your text: "he said what he said, yet some editors want to suppress this information." Your statement is clear, with or without the section heading. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did mean to say exactly what I said, exactly in the manner I said it. Which is why I object to someone else changing my words. The question is whether my expression of my opinion that this article constitutes a whitewash is inherently uncivil. I happened upon this article, and looked at the talk page, and saw there was some controversy, but I couldn't really tell what it was about. So I typed the person's name into Google and very quickly found that one of the most significant things in this person's biography - directly related to his notability - was missing from the article. That's what the supposed 'controversy' was about. And is this 'unsourced or poorly sourced'? Not at all - we are talking about footage from an Academy Award winning film. I don't know anything about the edit history of this article. I don't know who is on what 'side' of this particular pointless and rather insignificant battle. But I do think it is indicative of some of the problems with 'the encyclopedia anyone can censor edit'. Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling an article a "whitewash" - particularly in a heading - is inflammatory and does not encourage collaborative editing. It does not much matter how one phrases it, it insults the editors who have participated presumably in good faith. The comments that followed the heading make it clear that the editor is doing so - accusing people of wanting to "suppress" material, and saying this is why Wikipedia sucks. Moreover, it was a heading that was changed, not the comments. People often do add, remove, and refactor talk page headings to better organize the pages and more accurately and neutrally describe the conversation. For what it's worth, it appears that both editors in question violated WP:3RR in edit warring over a talk page heading, not a good thing. Also that there was more than one editor objecting to and reverting the heading to a more neutral form. Wikidemo (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Given your opinion that the word whitewash is inflammatory, what would be a non-inflammatory way to express the opinion that an article is a whitewash? Dlabtot (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to make something clear. I'm not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith -- no doubt the editors who battled each other to produce the article all thought they were making their best efforts to make a good encyclopedia. It's the product of those efforts that I am criticizing. I would agree that 'suppress' was a poor choice of words on my part, and if I had been asked to refactor that part of my remarks, I don't think we would be having this conversation. Instead, my main point was redacted. However, I consider the incident closed. I've made my points, for what it's worth, but consensus appears to be against me. Dlabtot (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the thoughtful response. One can choose a neutral heading, e.g. "deletion of interview material", and argue that the material is well sourced, relevant, and well sourced, and that people should not remove it. I wouldn't agree with that, but you're certainly welcome to your opinion. Voicing a generalized sentiment that an article is a whitewash is probably not going to do any good for anyone. Talk pages are for helping edit and improve the article, not for griping about other editors and the state of Wikipedia. The more specific you can make the suggestion, the more likely it is people can make something of it. (please note this is just my opinion and I'm not an admin)Wikidemo (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're both partly right and partly wrong. An editor has the right to neutralize an "inflammatory" section heading on an article talk page (though "whitewash" is pretty tame when it comes to "inflammatory" terms). However, an editor has no business messing with text that you've entered. That needs to stay, as "evidence" if nothing else. If it were a personal attack or a threat of some kind, that could be a topic of debate here. But asking editors not to delete stuff is, again, a pretty tame statement. Meanwhile, since the original complainer makes oblique comments rather than coming out and saying it, I'd like to know what the alleged "controversy" is and what is alleged to be "whitewashed". How about stating it here so we have some clue of what this is about without having to read the article's history? Oh, and leave out the editorial comments about how wikipedia sucks. Just the facts, please. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really the one to speak of it; as I said, I just happened upon the article and got to wondering what exactly they were arguing about. I don't know anything about the history of the article or what was or was not included in it in past versions. Here's one of the sources in question, though: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51347-2004Oct21 Dlabtot (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong issue. It's not whether the header is incivil or not. No one owns the headers. Dlabtot, be reasonable. Section headers aren't exactly comments. They're headers that are used by many editors in discussing content, collectively under the single header. Your comments are your own. The header of the thread is something shared. Regardless of whether or not your own comments are civil or not, you can't really expect to own a thread shared by multiple editors and claim the header as your own, especially if you want others to participate in the discussion occuring under that header. If you want people to respond, the header becomes communal property. What you're saying here is that he changed your comments. All he did was change a header that he himself would be using as well. As such, it's just as much his as it is yours, regardless of who wrote it to begin with. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, my main comment was what I placed in the header. My mistake. In the future, I won't put anything in a header that is essential to making my point, now that I know that anyone else is free to change it. Something neutral and uninformative like 'My Comment' I guess, would be appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. However, the other editor did remove an actual comment posted by the complaining editor [53] which he should not have done. He could have pointed out that the complaint was without merit (as you just did), but he should not have deleted the complaint itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "removal of an actual comment" you point out was totally inadvertent on my part, and I put it back immediately upon realizing what had happened. My only intention was to change the section title to something less inflammatory. And I did explain my complaint, in what I thought was a very clear and civil manner. I still think the section heading should be changed to something a tad bit more neutral. Dreadstar † 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good. All that remains is for someone to explain just what it is that is allegedly being "whitewashed", as I don't feel like reading the whole history megillah to find out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I had missed the Post post [54] from 10 minutes earlier. So what's being "whitewashed" is Coker's derogatory comment about the nation of Vietnam? Well, if I had been in the Hanoi Hilton for several years, maybe I wouldn't have had much good to say about that country either. I suspect you'd find similar reactions to our boys and girls who have served us so loyally in the current hellhole known as Iraq. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep your politics to yourself, please, Bugs. Neıl 龱 09:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't make any assumptions about what my politics are. I know people serving in Iraq, and they hate it there, serving in an ill-conceived war that has "Vietnam II" written all over it. But they are loyal Americans doing their duty, willing to take a bullet for us every day. The claim was made that something was being "whitewashed". If so, that needs to be spoken to directly, instead of hinting around about it... on the article's talk page, not here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

From AIV: 79.77.22.109

• 79.77.22.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) anon removing Persondata and navigation templates from articles, e.g. this diff, interspersed with some valid edits; vandalism continued after final warning. Struway2 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving this report here for more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The anon editor spent much of yesterday rearranging articles about England football managers. I noticed their edits when Alf Ramsey, on my watchlist, appeared with the supercollapse template deleted [55]; these templates were introduced following discussion and consensus here to try and keep footballer articles tidier. The template was put back by User:Daemonic Kangaroo, who spent much time and effort clearing up after the anon. Removal repeated [56], again restored, and since removed again by User:Squares18 [57], who seems to edit the same range of articles in a similar way, and again restored. Similar sequences occurred here, here where WP:Persondata was also removed, here, etc, etc. I warned the anon three times using templated warnings, then reported to AIV when they removed valid information here. They have since removed unused parameters from an infobox here and removed wikilinks here, changes since reverted by experienced editors.

I realise this isn't as clearly recognisable as vandalism as when 12-year-olds write rude words to amuse their mates, but IMO it's more disruptive because it takes more work to sort out. The former can be dealt with by bots, or one-click reverted; but when an editor makes some constructive edits and many valid if not particularly useful ones (like rearranging categories or changing the order and formatting of players' honours), and mixes disruptive edits in with them, it isn't as straightforward to clear up. thanks for listening, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed various bits of vandalism to Bryan Robson and Peter Reid in particular, changing dates, removing correct pieces of information. Some of his edits are constructive, although not well referenced, so it's difficult to revert the bad bits, while keeping the good bits. Peanut4 (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Burma and respecting consensus

I am writing with regards to the naming dispute that has taken place on the article Burma. A brief history for anyone who is not in the know, there are folks who would rather call the country Myanmar, whereas the majority call it Burma, and this of course resulted in a dispute on wikipedia. The first attempt at consensus took place on the talkpage at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. It then progressed to a debate at Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Burma where, after much discussion, it was determined, by Beaurocrats, the consensus is for the article to remain at Burma. Now user:Deamon138 has filed this Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma. Basically what I want to know is how much more fucking debating has to happen when the Beaurocrats have already made a sound judgement of editors' consensus and should user:Deamon138 just let it go and abide by the consensus? --The High Commander (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. IMO Burma is a deathtrap for editing, so I'd rather not get involved. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also too long, which is not a good sign. It's due for a Burma-Shave. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Consensus can change, and considering that Wikipedia is a "slow cook project", I don't particularly see anything wrong with trying to change it within the system. And of course, it's up to the mediators to accept or reject this.

More importantly, do you need any immediate administrator action? If not, then perhaps your concerns would best be brought up in a forum more closely related to the actual issue. --jonny-mt 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea it'd be great if an admin could shutdown this new debate which deamon138 has started less than a week after consensus was reached in the Cabal, of which he was a fucking participant! --The High Commander (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He was? Maybe he could help out with the User: Exanimous discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

oddness at the village pump

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this, it's odd. As far as I can work out - a sock of banned user is trying to use the pump to debate his religious beliefs or something... --Allemandtando (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting increasingly odd - the user in question, operates this site. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nukeh: Doug youvan (talk · contribs) is a self-admitted sock of Nukeh (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked (after a tumultuous history here) for making legal threats. Since the legal threats and disruptiveness are obviously not a thing of the past, I've blocked Doug youvan (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a block-evading and independently disruptive sock. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PleaseDoNotQuestionMyEdits / Editquestioner

There's something silly going on here. PleaseDoNotQuestionMyEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a username already reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is being reverted by Editquestioner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know what to make of this at all; some of the reverts seem to removed cited information, but not knowing the topics in detail I can't work out if it's a legit rollback or not. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody is having fun with us :) -- Ned Scott 08:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:PleaseDoNotQuestionMyEdits. -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll add that to my signature. That will ensure they won't question my edits. They might revert them, but they won't question them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc? Please don't question my edits!} 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I opened an SSP, so if someone wants to deal with that... but I figure I'm questioning the accounts, no the edits, so I might just be OK... :/. Alex Muller 10:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Both users blocked indef, obvious disruption. Nakon 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked ConsiderablyOverTired (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), sockpuppet. Nakon 16:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lehi (group) problem

I would suggest some administrator look at this page, Lehi. An edit war of a very provocative kind is being encouraged. The page was stable, until a single sentence, standing there for a month or so, was suddenly attacked by several editors, some of them new, in what looks like coordination, though perhaps it is fortuitous. Outside hands, who have a neutral interest in these issues, as far as I know, (User:Hertz1888, User:Ceedjee (two commendably rule-sensitive I/P editors) and Vishnava), took the page back to its state before these rapid and numerous interventions. I think the proper procedure is to lock that page in to that version preceding the fuss, and then ask all parties to achieve consensus on the talk page. I would add that my talk page has been smeared by constant accusations of my having violating virtually every rule in the wiki book of etiquette by the editor pushing for the change, in a way that seems to constitute a provocative fishing expedition. But if there is even a hint of truth to these innuendoes in my various attempts to reason over the, to my mind, incomprehensible edits being proposed for the Lehi page, then I will not protest any sanctions an administrator might impose. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've locked the article for three days (paying no heed to whatever version it was I protected) and left a note on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen Gale. I agree that the page was stable for a long time until a very recent edit of Nishidani, indeed from June. Users have started to notice that the lead was changed, without consensus and this turned into an rv fight. There was coordination obviously and at least one user, user:MeteorMaker was caught stalking me, and reprimanded by an administrator. Amoruso (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Several users never worried about my edit, until you, and newbies, entered the fray. For the evidence of someone canvassing at precisely the time you and they starting editing there, see the talk page. For evidence of stalking, see Amoruso's recent behaviour on pages I edit, and his provocative 'psychoanalysis' of myself on my own talk page. But, who cares. Amoruso edit warred. I got the page locked, even if that means his version stays for three days more than it warrants. Enough, we are boring busy administrators. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/128.197.130.145

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 12 hours by Ultraexactzz, IP's contributions have been rollbacked.

This user keeps adding "His/her papers are currently housed (or house [sic]) at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center" to many pages despite being asked not to. Should I issue a warning and go through and mass-rollback? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be easy enough to check; I'm on their list of holdings of notable figures here. Let me have a look. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the individuals are listed as having papers on file, as with Michael Denison, for example, found here. However, two three letters do not qualify as "His papers...", which would imply that all of them are on archive. I've warned the user. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry for not actually looking for the info myself :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's not much info to look at, which is part of the problem - there's no context to describe what is being archived. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This might explain some things. I've blocked the user for 12 hours, as they continued to add the notation despite being warned to discuss the matter first. I invite review, and have no objections to unblocking IF the user talks about the concerns first. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that we can't really verify most of these, and it's a fairly trivial addition to any of the articles, I'd support a mass rollback of the IP's contribs. GlassCobra 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To me, unless each and every one is supported by reliable sourcing, it is all hearsay and we should do a mass rollback. Barring any objections and of it hasn't been done already, I'll do some later when I get off work (can't spend the time from here). -- Alexf⁴² 16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can get started right now. Objections? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. They are most (all?) unsourced as far I looked. -- Alexf⁴² 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though all the edits have been reverted. OK to mark this as resolved? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. (I love unlimited non-admin rollbacking :D ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've left a note on the user's page directing them to this thread, so it's possible that they'll want to discuss the matter, if unlikely. I'll watchlist the next five names on the list and see if these edits resume once the block expires. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes

This user has returned to posting {{vandalism}} templates to various user's talk pages and reverting edits as part of various content disputes, where the edits in question are not vandalism.

A couple of cases currently active: in one, he is reverting valid edits by 71.103.160.53 in order to re-insert invalid PSIP channel numbers which had been removed from Los Angeles TV stations KABC/KCBS/KNBC. The US TV system (according to ATSC spec A/65 on psip.org) numbers channels based on the last analog channel used (so KCBS is 2.1, KABC is 7.1) so "2.1 / 60.1 || main KCBS-TV/CBS programming" is incorrect - yet he reverts to repost this nonsense and accuses the user who attempted to fix the problem of vandalism here.

In another current incident, he is removing information which he considers to be "trivia", accusing the original editor of vandalism here in what is not vandalism, merely a content dispute, and threatening to have the users blocked from editing Wikipedia. When confronted, he responds with "it's a personal attack on an editor that is not content-related, so you'd better think twice before contacting me again on any subject."

The problems are ongoing and have been raised here on WP:ANI a few times before for other incidents involving this editor or accounts used in apparent collusion. There have been issues in the past with this editor abusing WP:AIV to pursue content disputes and even an edit war on WP:RFPP at one point. I'd hoped that this had stopped, but it seems problems are indeed ongoing. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I crossed paths with this Rollosmokes guy a number of weeks ago, in the WGN-TV article. I don't know what he specifically "smokes", but among other issues, he's on this obsession about The CW, as per this diff [58] in which he says "proper grammar is paramount over 'what the network prefers'." In essence, he's saying The CW doesn't have the right to call itself The CW because it's "improper grammar". I really don't think it's wikipedia editors' place to tell companies what they can call themselves. This has to stop. He's got a long list of TV station articles where he's been edit-warring over this stupid issue. It's disruptive, annoying, and extremely petty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollosmokes appears to have some signs of wanting to own certain articles. He is quick to brand edits he disagrees with as either disruptive or vandalism, and frequently discounts any interpretation of form or style that diasgrees with his own pre-set notions. He has been informed on several occasions that the proper name of these networks is "The WB" and "The CW", and they should be referred to as such whenever possible. His comment about capitalization and grammar does have some merit, but only when it applies to usage in a sentence - his interpretation about usage in infoboxes, however, is completely in error, as are his actions in reverting any mention of them in that context. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

His last 50 contribs seem to contain a whole lot of this 'grammatical push'. Despite being told that it's how the company identifies itself, despite the clear 'the' in the logo, this editor doesn't seem to be interested in stopping. He's demonstrated a continuing willingness to edit war and not stop, and a healthy block is definitely in order. ThuranX (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) User has been notified. ThuranX (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. I had made the same point to him, over and over, that the logo says "The CW" right on it, but he won't listen. In effect, he's making the article contradicts itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been notified, let's see how or if he defends his actions. I do thin ka block is needed, however. ThuranX (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. And I'm trying not to get into any other edit wars with this guy. The one article was more than enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the block, or atleast a ban on parts of Wikipedia. I've seen Rollo's edits come up on my watchlist (not engaging in conversation or discussion as I'm usually very gnomish when it comes to editing) but it seems as if he's increasingly owning articles and totally ignoring any discussion about it (other than to rant and rave about the grammer useage), after reading the discussion here it also seems like he's becoming les and less civil. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just looked through Talk:WPIX (the article itself is full-protected)... ouch. It was bad enough when he was revert-warring over "KCBS-TV is the west-coast flagship of the CBS Television Network..." just because it's licensed *outside* New York State. He's also still threatening users with "If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing" for classic n00b mistakes like [59][60] which, while very poor form, are not intentional vandalism - this after the issue of warning template abuse was already raised here. WP:Do not bite the noobs, anyone? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Those examples predate others on the page, and do not represent continuation since start of this AN/I report. ThuranX (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

His activities in total have come to a screeching halt, at least for now. [61] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say taht. His not logging in is not the same as him stopping the pattern of behavior. ThuranX (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm just saying he stopped doing editing, and might be waiting for this discussion to end with no action being taken. Or he might just be on vacation. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The defense speaks

I never disappeared. Just spent the past couple of days tending to my non-Wikified life before heading to Kennedy Airport to see my wife off to Ghana.

One at a time, because I can't type to more than one person simultaneously:

• To Carlb and his sockpuppet IP 66.102.80.212 --

GET A LIFE. Your efforts to push your DTV transition changes were tharthed because you refused to discuss them with the Wikiproject TV Stations group and kept making the changes. I outed you as a sock because...well, that's what you are. You certainly have something against me because I put a stop to you, culminating with the deletion of your Template:Infobox DTV creation. Don't bring up other "problems" when your own house isn't in order. My advice to you: Get over yourself and leave me the heck alone.

• To that "wascally wabbit" Baseball Bugs, TheRealFennShysa, and all other grammatically-challenged editors --

I have said this before, and will obviously say it again until I'm BLUE IN THE FACE: The word the is a proper noun that only requires capitalization when it begins a sentence. (While this edit shows I did not think this at first, I was corrected of this after more research.) The CW Television Network may be the name of a business entity, but it should not be treated the same way as titles of television shows, books, or movies whose titles begin with The. Therefore, to say "WPIX is an affiliate of The CW Television Network" is still NOT PROPER GRAMMAR.

It is also not required to tack on the word in the title's short form, thus "The CW 11" is not correct either. Just because the word The is included in the logo doesn't mean it should be written literally as such. The same goes with MyNetworkTV, which should be written with the proper spaces between the words (and should be read as "My Network TV").

Lastly, the fact that an editor suspected to be a IP abuser brought about this BS is a joke. My edits have been primarily accurate and well-written, and have been well-received by most editors. I have no tolerance for innacuracy of any kind, whether it be grammatical or factual, and I have even less patience for vandalism. I have only labeled edits as vandalism when I feel it truly is, or unless it shows up repeatedly. We should all be focusing on proper writing style and grammar if we want Wikipedia to be taken more seriously by the mainstream. That has been, and will continue to be, one of my mottos. If you all don't agree with that, that's cool.

Perhaps it's jealousy on the part of these folks who can't handle someone who's a better writer, but I don't know. I will admit to being a tad rough on the edges, but that's just my style. I'm not here to please everyone, and I will offer no apologies for that. Rollosmokes (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We should put you in a ring with User:Saul Douglas Whitby and see which of you proves to be the more "superior". Regardless, it is not your place to tell "The CW" what to call themselves. Your grammar argument might be true for normal sentences, but for the infobox "The CW" is the correct usage, because that's what they call themselves. They decide what their name is not you nor anyone else here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, according to the Manual of style here (as well as the AP Stylebook), proper names of institutions are proper nouns and require capitalization. There is an exception for "the" when used in the middle of a sentence, but that is not the case in infoboxes, where all these problems have arisen. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. I love the 'I'm right and you're all too stupid to see it' response. attack those who report you in attempts to put them on the defensive, thus avoiding admitting any wrongdoing or errors on your part. Classic dodge. Not going to work, though. The CW is the proper term for the infobox. There's consensus that the network's self-identification and deliberate marketing style trumps your interpretation of Strunk & White's, yet you can't accept it. Do so soon. ThuranX (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not arrogance. I know a great deal about professional writing, both from direct personal experience and through my wife, who does this for a living. For the risk of sounding arrogant, there are some folks here who either don't know or choose not to understand the proper ways of doing things, those who believe that the Wikipedia Manual of Style and what the entity prefers is the end-all, be-all. When it comes to this issue, I'm not one of those people. I'm standing firm, so don't bully me on this. Leave this pettiness alone and let's get back to more serious, pertinent issues. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one fomenting the pettiness. What your supposed expertise has apparently failed to teach you is that people and organizations can call themselves whatever they want to, and that that decision overrides normal English grammar rules. "The Dalles", noted below, is a great example. I'm guessing you would also be arguing against calling Qwest by their chosen name, on the grounds that it should be spelled "Quest". Ya see, son, the name of the company is not just "CW", it's "The CW". and as with The Dalles, the "The" is being used as part of the name, effectively as a noun or an adjective. Therefore, it's capitalized. I say again: They decide what to call themselves, not you. You need to back off from this personal and misguided crusade. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.. .'bullying you'. yes, that' what we're all doing when we establish a consensus that goes against your intents. Consensus is just bullying! What a novel way to invoke WP:IAR and try to get your way. There are now, what, FOUR people opposing your edits, and you've got zero support. You can go stand firm in a field for a decade, consensus is against you. Invoking special knowledge "I know a great deal about professional writing, both from direct personal experience and through my wife, who does this for a living." does little to impress me, when I know you're just plain wrong. ThuranX (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess we all agree to disagree. I have the documentation to back me up. If you choose not to at least understand where I'm coming from then I feel sorry for all of you. I'll keep doing my thing (defiantly, if necessary) and you keep on doing yours. Don't cross me and I won't cross any of you. Rollosmokes (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What on earth kind of documentation do you think you have to "back you up"? We understand where you're coming from - however, you are mistakenly trying to apply rules for one circumstance to another where it most definitely does NOT apply. In the case of infoboxes, you are flat-out wrong, no matter how you justify it to yourself. Consensus and style guides are against you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Don't cross me and I won't cross any of you." ??? A threat now? Get real. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Snort. "The" is not a noun, it is an article, most definitely. And, as with so much with the English language, for every rule there is an exception: for example, the town in Oregon is "The Dalles", not "the Dalles". And the rock band is "The The", not "the The" or "the the". -- llywrch (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

changes to MOS

Notice that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Broadcasting was changed by one of the parties on this dispute [62] (mind you, the changes look to me like correct and reasonable) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Elonka using blocks and threats inappropriately

By virtue of this block and its attendant threats, Admin Elonka is essentially decreeing that I cannot dispute or undo any edits made by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Because her language is vague and incorrect, without clarification, this could be interpreted to apply to any and all edits of his, in any article. The problems with her reasoning are given in my unblock request. In brief, she is misinterpreting the nature of my reverts of some of RAN's edits, calling them "blanket" when they are completely specific, and she is acting in defiance of an ArbCom [finding of principle [63] that the edits in question involve a "legitimate disagreement over content".

The underlying problem here is one of misunderstanding. Elonka has acquired the mistaken notion that I'm opposed to all quotes in footnotes, or perhaps all such quotes written by RAN. The evidence that this is incorrect is abundant in the long paper trails of the involved conflicts, but Elonka has missed that, and decided that I'm pursuing an irrational vendetta rather than trying to make legitimate improvements to articles. Since this notion of hers is incorrect, it's difficult for me to know when I will have overstepped the line. Wherever that line may be? is it fair? If RAN makes an edit involving a footnote quote which I believe to be detrimental to an article, am I simply and flatly forbidden to correct it? With or without discussion? If I discuss the issue, and RAN (as he often does) simply stops responding, am I then allowed to make my edit? If, by virtue of one Admin's decree, I am suddenly placed under some special restrictions, I have a right to know what those restrictions are.

I'm willing to accept a restriction that I not become newly involved in articles that RAN starts slathering his footnote quotes all over, although such a restriction against barging-in-to-edit-war would be a greater one than has been enforced on RAN and his partner Alansohn; see here. But as it stands, Elonka's threats apply to all articles, including ones I have a long history of involvement with, such as Elizabeth Bentley. RedSpruce (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a leftfield suggestion here, RS, but why not leave the quotes for other editors to decide whether or not they warrant inclusion? Just for a couple of weeks, at least? Neıl 龱 11:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, as long as the default decision is that they do not warrant inclusion, until some third party has determined that they do. RedSpruce (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please let Elonka know about this thread? Maybe then she'll explain the block in more detail (diffs and such). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do. RedSpruce (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I helped out at one of the disputes between these two editors (RedSpruce and RAN). Elonka followed that up with a suggestion which might be relevant here, and which can be seen at User talk:Carcharoth#RedSpruce and RAN. My view was that such restrictions need to be voluntarily agreed to, not imposed. Not sure whether what Elonka has done here is related or not. Will have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My explanation of RedSpruce's 3-hour block is at his talkpage.[64] This block was reviewed and upheld by PhilKnight (talk · contribs).[65] In a nutshell, this is something that will probably end up at WP:LAME: For months now, RedSpruce (talk · contribs) has been following along behind Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs), blanket deleting quotes out of footnotes, making personal attacks, and quibbling about other details on a variety of articles, most recently G. David Schine, William Remington, Elizabeth Bentley, and now Frank Coe. They have discussed this ad nauseum, but without being able to find a mutually-agreeable compromise. There have been multiple RfCs, multiple ANI threads,[66][67][68][69][70][71] and even an ArbCom case that got kicked back to the community as "content decision, work it out at the talkpage". The problem is, that even when it does get worked out at one talkpage, such as when a clear consensus was confirmed at Talk:G. David Schine,[72] RedSpruce just follows RAN to another article, and starts up again. A few days ago, I tried mediating between these two users at Talk:William Remington, but then the incivility started escalating (especially from RedSpruce)[73][74][75][76] and then when I asked him to tone it down, RedSpruce just blew up and left. Then yesterday, he engaged in a particularly blatant violation of WP:POINT, moving the dispute to yet another article that RAN was working on, and deleting quotes[77] without any attempt at discussion at the talkpage, or even trying to find a compromise (such as shortening the quote). I therefore opted to place a brief 3-hour block on RedSpruce to prevent him from further disruption.[78] He requested an unblock,[79] and it was reviewed by PhilKnight and the block was upheld.[80] Now RedSpruce is continuing to escalate, with this newest ANI thread. My own feeling is that RedSpruce's behavior is heading for a complete community ban. He has been following RAN around in a violation of WP:HARASS, and a glimpse at contribs: RedSpruce (talk · contribs) shows that this is pretty much all he's been doing for some time now, is obsessing about RAN's edits and these footnoted quotes. RedSpruce needs to take a break, and go work on something else. If he disagrees strongly with a quote at some new article, he can bring it up on the talkpage, suggest a compromise, or make minor changes such as condensing a quote or changing it to something better. But this practice of blanket deletion, and this pattern of following RAN around, has to stop. --Elonka 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Elonka

• "RedSpruce (talk · contribs) has been following along behind Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs)," This is not correct, After Annie Lee Moss, RAN started editing a series of articles that I had a long history of involvement with.
• "blanket deleting quotes out of footnote" This is not correct; the deletes are not "blanket" as I gave clear reasons for all of them (albeit abbreviating in some cases due to repetition)
• "falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)" This was not false, there was an RFC in support of this edit, as well as extensive discussions [81] here] and elsewhere.
• " even when it does get worked out at one talkpage, such as when a clear consensus was confirmed at Talk:G. David Schine," There was nothing like a consensus at G. David Schine. I gave up on trying to discuss the problems there because RAN and Alansohn were engaging in utterly absurdist stonewalling (see here). This, combined with a few drive-by comments on both sides of the various issues, has somehow become "consensus" in Elonka's opinion.
• "Then yesterday, he engaged in a particularly blatant violation of WP:POINT, moving the dispute to yet another article that RAN was working on, and deleting quotes[15]". Mea culpa. I shouldn't have done that. However, it was not a case of WP:POINT and this was in an article that I edited and had on my watchlist long before RAN ever edited it.
• "He has been following RAN around in a violation of WP:HARASS," This is completely false. RAN has been "following me around", editing many articles in my general field of expertise, the McCarthy Era. I don't believe be has done this out of malice, however. Given the number of his edits, it's natural that from time to time he will follow "threads" of subject matter like this.

RedSpruce (talk)

Funnily enough, at the earlier ANI thread (just after the arbitration case closed), which RedSpruce started, a lot of editors seemed to support RedSpruce, and Alansohn eventually got blocked. RedSpruce was also claiming that the arbitration case decision vindicated him, and I then told him I saw things differently. It seems a bit of a turnaround. From what I have seen, RedSpruce does make good points on talk pages (some of the edits of RAN and Alansohn are debatable and should sometimes be restrained), but the behaviour laid out by Elonka is troubling. Having said that, I would like to hear what RedSpruce has to say, first. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"RedSpruce was also claiming that the arbitration case decision vindicated him". I never claimed that. Use a diff if you believe otherwise. RedSpruce (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• He is doing it once again, post 3-hour block here. Again it is harassment and testing authority. A quick glance shows that footnote 85 also contains a quote but only my entry has been targeted. He is also reverting to an inaccurate title for the article that is the source of the reference. He is making no attempt to trim the quote, he is just removing it, again. The pattern is to just move to a new article to avoid the consensus at the previous article. How long is this going to go on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce disruption to make a point

• Here is a summary of the same deletion multiple times, despite 3 editors reversing his deletions. Saying he is just removing quotes from references is a red herring. Even if consensus is established the edit warring continues: Here Redspruce removes facts not added to article by himself on May 01, reverted by AlanSohn and again the same deletions here back to his version on May 08. Again during an active Arbcom on this very subject. He does it again on June 02, reverted by AlanSohn and once again on the same day here, again reverted by AlanSohn; again here on June 06 reverted by me; June 15 reverted by BioPhys; and again here on June 19 and it is reverted by me. The only common thread to the deletions, is that the information was added by me. I believe that is why Elonka is calling is disruption and harassment. When consensus is reached at at one article to keep the information, the same disruptive behavior just moves to a new article. We are now at the 5th article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Here RedSpruce explains why he deletes what I add to articles: "I would agree that the use of quotes in footnotes, in any single article, is a minor, even trivial issue. As I noted in my first statement regarding this case, what makes Richard Arthur Norton's behavior non-trivial is that he is repeating this "minor dis-improvement" (as I called it) over literally thousands of articles. I wanted to convince him that this was wrong, and since he has at times been profoundly, insistently resistant to engaging in discussion, the only way to force a discussion was through edit warring [my emphasis added]. If you look at this as a dispute over one or a few articles, I'd agree that this particular instance of edit-warring over a stylistic issue was lame. I looked at it as an effort to stop the dis-improvement of thousands of articles." RedSpruce admits he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• RedSpruce hasn't been particularly civil in getting his point across either:

If you can't explain and justify your edits, then you are admitting that they are meaningless and unjustifiable. Continuing to make edits that you admit are meaningless and unjustifiable is, shall we say, not the most intelligent behavior imaginable.

Continuing to make disputed edits while refusing to engage in a discussion about those edits is a form of disruptive behavior, and will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you.

RedSpruce, these diffs from Elonka and Richard Arthur Norton are pretty damning. It sounds a bit like you should be grateful that the block was only three hours. Am I missing something? Do you have something to support this persistent behavior that has been going on for months now? If not, I'm sensing a longer community ban (topic ban or otherwise) around the corner. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing what you usually miss when you get one side of the story. I have at times been incivil toward RAN, but only after the most grotesque and prolonged provocation. He on the other hand, uses distortions or fantasies to mischaracterize my actions and statements at every possible opportunity. I first called him an "idiot" after our first meeting, after this highly bizarre exchange in which he repeatedly reverted my edits and "responded" to my attempts to discuss the issue with a series of frozen non-sequiturs. I have never repeated an insult of anything like that magnitude toward RAN, but he has repeated the tale of me using that word literally hundreds of times over. RedSpruce (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All three of them (RedSpruce, RAN, and Alansohn) are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's disruptive to spend so much time fighting over footnoted quotes, and that includes both obsessively adding them and following RAN around to remove them. Alansohn specifically was sanctioned by ArbCom because his behavior in a variety of spheres was unacceptable, but RAN and RedSpruce just need to disengage with each other. Ideally, this would be voluntary: RAN moves on to work on some more pressing encyclopedic need besides adding footnoted quotes, and RedSpruce stops monitoring him. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• "All three of them (RedSpruce, RAN, and Alansohn) are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"? User:RedSpruce seems to have taken WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to McCarthyism and has been involved in extensive edit warring, removing sourced content that has been added to a series of articles, most notably G. David Schine, Elizabeth Bentley‎ and William Remington. In all three of these articles, RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed content added by other editors. The pattern is that other editors, including myself have added content and sources, and then RedSpruce has removed it. While it takes at least two to edit war, the cycle here is that of an arsonist who sets new fires after the firefighters have put out the previous one and a new building has been constructed in its place; the arsonist then blames the firefighters for causing the problem. This can be best seen by User:RedSpruce's recent edits during the month of June, during which other editors added content and sources and every single one of RedSpruce's edits removed sourced content: June 1st) this diff of William Remington‎ (rm repetitious & unnecessary footnote quotes); June 2nd) this diff of G. David Schine‎ (rv); this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with the classic edit summary of "rv for the usual reasons..."); June 3rd) this diff of William Remington, removing sourced content without bothering to provide an explanation; this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with an edit summary falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)".); this diff of William Remington‎ (again, based on an unsupported claim of "RV per RFC and general consensus"); June 4) this diff of William Remington‎ (again, an unsupported claim of "RV, per RFC and general consensus"); this diff of G. David Schine‎ (with an edit summary of "RV per general consensus. Editors can look at the history and the discussion if they want to see what the issue is" after deleting content uder discussion at RfC). On June 5, User:RedSpruce swept through all three articles -- Remington, Bentley andf Shine -- again deleting sourced content without explanation or justification, a continuation of the edit war on these articles. After taking a week-long break following the previous ANI, User:RedSpruce returned, sweeping through all three articles again -- Remington, Bentley and Schine -- using the edit summary of "restoring to better version" as a justification to remove weeks of work on improving, expanding and adding sources to these three articles. This time around User:RedSpruce added some more arbitrary deletion of content at Joseph McCarthy, and then some WP:wikistalking at Lizzie Borden, deleting content from an article he had never previously edited that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been actively updating. During the month of June, dozens of edits adding sources and sourced content to these three articles has been removed by User:RedSpruce. In no case has RedSpruce indicated why this content violates Wikipedia policy nor has he added any content or sources to any of these articles. I and other editors have shown a sincere interest in improving these articles; User:RedSpruce has shown a persistent objective of interfering with any effort to change these articles from what he has decided he will accept. MastCell, I have already identified dozens of RedSpruce's edits (and can provide dozens more) that meet your standard of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you insist that I or other editors have disrupted Wikipedia in adding sourced material to these articles, I hope you can provide evidence to support your claim. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Could I promise a simpler community injunction - if RedSpruce removes a quote from any article, he gets blocked for 24 hours. Then 48. Then 72. And so on. That's the problematic behaviour, it's what is causing all the issues. If the quotes shouldn't be on an article, in his view, he can point this out on the article's talk page. I would rather see this than see any kind of block or civility parole - it's black and white, there's no grey areas to quibble over (was that message uncivil, was it not), and if RedSpruce is as smart as I think he is, he'll voluntarily agree to this. Neıl 龱 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's reasonable to address one side. I'd also suggest that, since the onus is generally on the editor adding material and since footnoted quotes are obviously contentious, that RAN seek consensus on the relevant article talk page before adding more footnoted quotes. If he doesn't, or if he keeps edit-warring to re-add them, then he should similarly be subject to blocks. This isn't a one-sided problem - it's a interaction from which they both need to disengage. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is already his third block over the same issue. And he has just deleted another footnote after coming back from his 3-hour block. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Footnoted quotes are contentious here simply because RedSpruce has turned them into a arbitrary controversy. Despite your contention, the edit history shows RAN and other editors adding sourced material and expanding these articles, while RedSpruce makes blanket reverts. This is a rather one-sided problem here. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I would agree with that, and would go as far as also asking RAN to abide by the same restriction as RedSpruce - if he wants a quote adding to a footnote, put it on the talk page and ask others if they would consider adding it. Redspruce asked to stop removing quotes from footnotes, Richard Arthur Norton asked to stop adding quotes to footnotes. Same for Alansohn. Neıl 龱 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That seems to be a perfectly reasonable solution. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no restrictions in WP:Verifiability to using quotes and the consensus at WP:Footnotes has been that they are there to use. RedSpruce is following me around to make a point, I am just trying to add verifiable sources. I am following the rules of verifiability and he is disrupting Wikipedia to make his point, and been blocked three times for doing it. To say we are both wrong is incorrect. Arbcom had a chance to decide that quotes are not to be used in footnotes and made no such decision. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• He is doing it once again, post 3-hour block here. Again it is harassment and testing authority. A quick glance shows that footnote 85 also contains a quote but only my entry has been targeted. He is also reverting to an inaccurate title for the article that is the source of the reference. He is making no attempt to trim the quote, he is just removing it, again. The pattern is to just move to a new article to avoid the consensus at the previous article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Here is a good summary of RedSpruce removing correct information from articles. The only thing in common is that he didn't add the information to the articles. In some cases he keeps restoring the incorrect information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm way off here but I see Richard Arthur Norton's point. What he's doing seems reasonable to me. Unless someone can prove to me that adding detail to footnotes is a problem, I don't see why he should be told to cease and desist. Just because one person disagrees with it. But I can very easily prove that following someone's contributions to undo everything they're doing is a problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted above, this is not a case of "one person" against RAN, ssee here, and I am not "following someone's contributions to undo everything they're doing." I am not following RAN, and I have been happy to see many of the additions he's made to articles on my watchlist. RedSpruce (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it not a WP:COPYVIO to include lengthy verbatim quotes from a (presumably) copyrighted source? This in a world where the Associated Press reportedly demands a payment [82] for quoting more than 4 words[83] in a blog. Edison (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation, the source is attributed, and the quote is usually a single sentence or two, well within the confines of "fair use". In some cases the title of the news article is longer than the quoted material. The same amount of text, or more is allowed in the body of the article using the blockquote feature. Google uses the same, or more, amount of text when it returns search results, and stores much more in the "cached" version. Ultimately the DMCA determines copyright issues, not the threat of a lawsuit. Even if a lawsuit is filed, the court determines the outcome, it isn't determined at the filing. The New York Times dropped the paywall over this very issue, the incoming links from places like Google and Wikipedia were doubling their revenue from the older pay per article approach. To quote the NYT, at the risk of infringement: "These indirect readers, unable to get access to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal direct users, were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue." [84] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a community sanction here, I would suggest this:

• RedSpruce must stop blanket deleting quotes, unless there is talkpage consensus to do so.
• Richard Arthur Norton should not add quotes "just to add them" on an existing unchallenged reference, but other work should be fine. If RAN is actively expanding articles, and adding sources along with (brief) quotes to verify the information that he is adding,[85][86][87][88] then that seems to be perfectly good (and encouraged!) practice per both WP:V, and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnoted quotes. He might want to tone things down when quoting sources that are already easily-available online, but for other harder-to-access sources, quotes are very helpful for verification.

--Elonka 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How about modifying the second bullet to indicate that if a footnoted quote added by RAN is removed, he will not re-add it without a clearly good-faith effort to address the issue and achieve consensus on the talk page? Like a footnote-quote 0RR? MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would that be required and not the opposite? Why can anyone remove a verifiable quote sanctioned by every citation template and the burden is on me to restore it? That is just sanctioning what RedSpruce is already doing. Since no one has a crystal ball there is no way to determine if a link is stable or not. No current New Jersey newspaper, that I am aware of, has a permanent archive, NJ.com clears the articles after a few months, and even the New York Times has changed its urls to articles from the older proquest archive. Google News (as opposed to Google News archive) is not an archive either, links are purged periodically. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I would agree with your change, if it were someone other than RedSpruce who removes the quote. In that case, I would like to see RAN respond, not with a revert, but perhaps by talkpage discussion, or adding a shortened or altered version of the quote in an attempt at a compromise. But as long RedSpruce is the one that is prevented from removing quotes (via the first bullet point), I think that your alteration would be workable. --Elonka 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So the rule will be anyone can remove a footnote without explanation, except RedSpruce? And the burden is on me to justify the restoration, and no burden is placed on the deleter to justify the deletion? It seems that we are sanctioning RedSpruce's behavior so long as it isn't by RedSpruce. Is RedSpruce the problem, or the deletion of quotes without consensus the problem? RedSpruce already justifies it by calling them "clutter", "trivial", and "redundant". Note, I have not objected to trimming quotes, placing them elsewhere in the sentence or in the paragraph, or swapping the quote with a better quote from the cited article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, that makes sense - after all, the idea is to promote disengagement and more productive work from both of them, not to give one of them the upper hand to continue this fight. Richard, WP:V has always placed the onus on the person wanting to include content. If someone removes a quote without explanation, ask for one on the article talk page. If they ignore you and a few days pass, then you've made a good-faith attempt to discuss and you can reinsert it. This isn't complicated - it's actually expected editing behavior. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My reading is the exact opposite: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully [my emphasis added], providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." As the person adding information, the burden is one me to make is as complete and verifiable as possible: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question". Not to make it less verifiable and less "full". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why are we having different burdens of proof for deletion and for restoring? Why isn't the same burden required for either? Elonka, can you give me a recent example where I have used the quote function improperly and it deserved to be removed, and was. Also "quotes" is just a red herring, as Alansohn point out above, RS has been removing sourced facts from articles, not just citation quotes. He was blocked for edit warring and violating 3RR, not for removing quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Mastcell and Elonka are on the right track. I do not see the bad faith by Elonka that RS claims. I think that RS needs to stop his stalking of RAN and that RAN needs to stop adding them without talk page consensus, esp to stable, long established footnotes. The arb case decided this was a content issue. It seems to me that most editors don't want footnoted quotes (probably why we see so few of them). This does not mean we can't have them. I feel they should be used only with good reason and be short and to the point. If RAN adds a new footnote with a short-to-the-point quote and no one objects in a reasonable time, I think that's okay. Long, wordy footnoted quotes are inappropriate in my view. RS and RAN need to disengage from each other, and quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Elonka has acted in bad faith. I think the basic problem is the same as RAN's: she doesn't "get it" that when an article repeats virtually the precise same text two or more times over for no reason, it makes the article look stupid and amateurish. When this is being repeated over literally thousands of articles, some of us perceive this as a serious problem for the quality of Wikipedia. The fact that she doesn't "get" my side of the story naturally has made her more favorable to RAN's "walls of words."RedSpruce (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the block and all suggestions by Elonka were good and justified. Adding new sourced content is not the same as blankly deleting it without consensus. RAN creates a lot of good encyclopedic content, just looking at his edits. Let's help him to continue.Biophys (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:RedSpruce has contributed twice to this thread. RAN has almost written a short novella. Something is wrong here. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RAN has now removed a large section of irrelevant text following a request by Elonka on his talk page [89]. She wrote "the more that you post at ANI about it, the more likely that you will be subject to sanctions yourself". As MastCell has said, it seems only fair to discuss voluntary restrictions with both parties. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing quotes from footnotes almost inevitably harms Wikipedia, and there is rarely a good reason to do so. I've already explained this to RedSpruce more than once, and if he hadn't agreed to stop removing footnote quotes, I would have started blocking him myself. The problem is now solved. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion?

It seems to me that the conclusion that's emerging here is something like this:

1. If RAN or (Alansohn, who has a history of stepping in to edit for RAN) adds a footnote quote to an article, I will not remove it. I am allowed to open a discussion on the issue on the Talk page, however, and if there is a consensus to remove it, it will be removed.
2. If another editor removes a footnote quote added by RAN, RAN will not replace it without establishing a consensus on the Talk page to do so.
3. Trimming of footnote quotes may of course also be discussed and be a part of consensus.

I'm happy to abide by these guidelines, and I realize I need to back off from this issue.

RedSpruce (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, RedSpruce, that's an admirable attitude. I hope RAN also agrees, but even if he doesn't, your agreeing to this is a big step forward. Neıl 龱 13:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me, though I'd go a step further and say that RAN should not add quotes to existing unchallenged references, nor should he add extensive quotes that are from easily available online sources, for information that is unlikely to ever be challenged. But that's a quibble. If this does turn out to be consensus, I recommend that we post something formal at the editors' talkpages that is easy for other uninvolved administrators to see and/or diff. That, plus previous warnings[90] and ANI decisions[91] should help to stabilize things here. --Elonka 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You guys both have a lot of substance to contribute to this encyclopedia; treat this like the minor distraction it is. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of (1) User sticks foot deeply in mouth (or perhaps the metaphor works better, it's in someone else's mouth...) (2) User realizes a mistake was made, listens to community response, and promises not to do it again (3) It all blows over. Contrast this with situations where (1) User's foot ends up in mouth, (2) User defends, vigorously, right to put foot in mouth and attacks anyone pointing out that it is there (3).... what usually happens next? Okay, let's make it a little more complicated, sometimes it goes this way: (3) Users who support the first user jump in and defend right of user to put foot in mouth, the mouth deserved it. (4) Supporters of offended user rage at the other side. Sane voices, if any, are drowned out. (5) Pages of wikidrama ensue. (6) AN/I becomes less usable because it becomes a tendentious RfC, which it should not be, beyond determining immediate response (or there should be a separate emergency noticeboard), (7) .... 7 is usually the same result as 3, except it wastes a lot more time, and more editors get bruised. --Abd (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

CarolSpears has been blocked indefinitely by community consensus. Sarah 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John but I'm reclosing this. Several admins have said they support the block but oppose a ban and have indicated they would be willing to unblock under certain circumstances, thus she is blocked indefinitely rather than banned. Sarah 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol Spears' edits

At Carol Spears' RFC talk page a few editors are working on a list of only her new contribution and correcting them. There are about 150 and a small number of editors working on them. They appear to contain major factual inaccuracies, such as northwest Africa being confused with eastern African volcanoes, taxonomies that say the almost complete opposite of what their source says, and other issues. I have asked her to stop adding new information and new articles until all of the existing ones, most of which appear to have problems, can be corrected, and until she can start working with her mentor to understand plant taxonomy well enough to insert information that is at least in the vicinity of what is correct. She refuses and is resorting to personal attacks.

Can an administrator ask her to take a break from adding wrong information to articles? Her response to the RFC has been to post a question, what rhymes with species, so it's unlikely anything will help.

--Blechnic (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted that she is still refusing to engage, and effectively wants us to do things her way. She will add what she wants, unsourced, or going beyond the source, and it stays there until somebody finds a source to prove her wrong.

Her response to her RFC has been flippant, arrogant, and dismissive.

I can see no reasonable hope of her becoming a productive and constructive editor, despite many people expending a huge amount of time trying to guide her.

At this juncture, I feel that I must propose an indefinite community ban. Mayalld (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to search for a source that can prove her wrong, just use her sources, which don't actually say what she writes, even she's plagiarized it, because she applies it to the wrong thing. So, finding a source that disagrees with her is easy: use her sources. --Blechnic (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate. She has confirmed that, after a week of not responding at all to the request for comment on her conduct, she posted a riddle whose answer was feces.[92] After several editors asked her to seek a mentor's guidance before resuming mainspace work, she archived the discussion,[93] then declared at a wikiproject talk page that she considers it more important to fill in red links than to identify species correctly,[94] and resumed editing article space.[95][96][97] Please see this discussion for a summary of the seriousness of this problem. In the words of one edior: Yes, many of the copy-pastes are from unrelated topics, like the West African continental margin geology just flung across the whole continent. So, after everything is checked for plagiarism, it must all be checked for accuracy, because there appears to be a bigger issue with inaccuracies than even the plagiarisms. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Everyone at the RFC who has commented agrees except for CarolSpears, whose statements express a combination of confusion and mockery. Since she refuses to cease creating cleanup tasks, I earnestly ask an administrator to give those who are performing the cleanup a respite from fresh problems. Durova^Charge! 08:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This has gone on far too long, with little sign of improvement or even understanding from the editor concerned, and I feel that resuming mainspace editing is the last straw, so I have indefblocked her. Productive editors, as patient and understanding as they have been, should not have to endure this type of disruptive activity indefinitely. EyeSerene^talk 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wow. People like this are what gives Wikipedia the back eye its critics say we have about unreliable information. Fully endorse this indefblock and would not support unblocking because we shouldn't have to automatically assume an editor isn't telling the truth with edits. SirFozzie (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - D.M.N. (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - after reading the RFUC and the links within - words fail me. The woman is a danger to wikipedia. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• You all are too late, by an hour. :) [98] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - what's too late? EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements for a block that has already happened. JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Carol's response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It must hurt you deeply to be labeled "ignoranat". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I was just bringing it to the attention of the readers here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block and/or ban proposal. She was given another chance and has fooled around and squandered it. That's enough now. Sarah 12:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose I was unaware of this discussion, or I would have been here sooner. This last month Carol has been trying to work whilst other people have been going through deleting most of her contributions. In the last few days it has reached the point where someone is reverting every mainspace edit she makes. I'm not exaggerating. Every mainspace edit Carol makes is reverted virtually immediately, citing an apparent need for it to be fact-checked. Evidently she is being held to a editorial standard that very few Wikipedians come close to meeting. She has been harassed and stalked all over the site, and you people wonder why she responds badly; why she thinks, and says, that the RFC is a pile of faeces. No-one, including me, has defended her, because the copyvios really do need cleaning up; that is important, unrewarding, under-appreciated work. So she has had to deal with this in isolation.

You know what this reminds me of? The Australian media has today been running the story of a convicted paedophile who had been released but was facing new charges, and whose case was abandoned because he couldn't get a fair trial. It turns out that certain rabid media outlets had hounded this guy from town to town, repeatedly publishing his whereabouts, driving him underground, creating fertile conditions for him to reoffend; and when charged with a new offence, they beat the story up, publishing details of his criminal record prior of the trial, and had generally walking as close to the contempt-of-court line as they possibly could without getting charged themselves. So the judge abandons the case, and the same rabid media outlets that caused the problem have a field day carrying on about how wrong it is that he has got off.

I see something similar going on here. A group of aggressive editors, draped in the self-righteousness of fact-checking and copyvio-cleaning, hounding someone all over the site, never giving them a moment's peace, creating perfect conditions for her to lash out. And when her admirable restraint slips and she lashes out just a little bit, we bay for her blood.

Hesperian 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

what's your answer for an editor, who in their own words think that we shouldn't worry about copyvios until we get sued? That attitude is so wrong and frankly downright dangerous (morally and legally) I don't where to start. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, please don't think I made this block based solely on the comments of a few editors. As I said in the CarolSpears thread higher up this page, I've been watching this for a while now, on and off, and am pretty familiar with how things have developed over time. I'm also about as uninvolved as it gets, never having interacted on any meaningful level with her, you, or any of the other editors in this thread, before. I rarely issue blocks, and when I do I try really hard to make sure I get it right... and am very open to correction. However, her talk page replies pointed out by Durova above, and her unblock request, are typical of the type of non-communication she indulges in - misdirection, deflection, and refusal to face up to the consequences of her actions. I'm genuinely saddened that I felt I had to act to protect both the encyclopedia and those editors that make us what we are, because she has invested a lot in this place and is undoubtedly upset, but Wikipedia just isn't the right place for everyone. EyeSerene^talk 12:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse EyeSerene's view of the situation. Carol's edits were massively problematic, and needed a huge amount of attention to fix. But we accept that people can make genuine mistakes, and we don't block them for them.

Once it became clear that Carol had made a large number of problematic edits, it was an entirely reasonable course of action to investigate all her edits, which is what is being done. There is no knee-jerk "revert in case" attitude. Each edit is being checked, and reverted only if it is problematic. To try and paint this as stalking is to seriously misrepresent the situation.

Hesperian talks about admirable restraint. No, I don't see that. I see Carol operating in two modes. She either ignores people and continues to edit without heeding advice on the problems she has created, or abuses them for daring to question her edits.

This is no rush to a community ban. Many editors have done their utmost to guide Carol, but they have been soundly rebuffed.

What else would Hesperian have us do about an editor who refuses point blank to accept our policies? Mayalld (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld, you have erred in saying "each edit is being checked, and reverted only if it is problematic." Carol's edits have been presumed incorrect and reverted pending checking.[99][100][101][102][103] Hesperian 13:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I wouldn't have done it that way, although I can understand doing so (even if I think it was the wrong thing to do), given that Carol was pressing on with problematic edits even as others were trying to fix them. Mayalld (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I earnestly ask you to reconsider your advice to Carol maybe throw yourself into Commons etc for a while unless you are willing to actively mentor her there--and preferably assist with the massive cleanup. A good place to begin would be with images she attributes to An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British Possessions, which happens to be public domain for reasons wholly unrelated to her PD rationale (she had attributed authorship to a US government agency that did not come into existence until 22 years after the book was published). The volume is over 700 pages long and although it's available online she never attributes page numbers; so far we aren't sure that the uploads even came from there. That represents one tiny fraction of the problem; it will probably be necessary to mass-delete large portions of Carol's contributions. If you help with confirmations and mentorship then the scope of those mass deletions may be smaller. Please join us in this tedious and thankless task. Durova^Charge! 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol's contributions to Commons currently consist of the restoration of (mostly Ferdinand Bauer) botanical illustrations from a U.S. scan of an 1811 volume of Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. This is unobjectionable, and where she does her best work. As I have said elsewhere recently, I do not mentor people because I do not see myself as upholding a standard of behaviour that others should aspire to; and Carol would never accept a mentor anyhow. To the extent that she will accept a friend, I will help.

Um... if AifotnUSCatBP is in the public domain but her rationales are wrong, wouldn't fixing those rationales be a low priority job? Why is that a good place to begin? And why does this imply that it will be necessary to mass-delete large portions of Carol's contributions? There have never been any problems with Carol's attributions; even the copyvios were attributed. So why are you unwilling to take Carol's word for it when she says she sourced them from that book? Is the absense of page numbers that big a problem? If Carol's attributions are not in question, and this work is in the public domain, then isn't the task reduced to the trivial matter of retagging them with the right rationale?

Hesperian 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If that were all her contributions consisted of then of course there would be no problem. Her links to U.S. government websites are generally either broken or link to pages that do not support her claim of public domain status: often enough the material does turn out to be public domain in a willy-nilly fashion--if one has the patience to thread through a maze of blind alleys. The concern is that a substantial portion of her public domain claims may be groundless because she does not appear to understand what constitutes public domain or how to document it. For instance, it appears that she presumes all work funded by U.S. government grant is public domain--although that's actually a case-by-case matter determined by the funding agreement--and lifts images from personal blogs on that basis. It drops my jaw to see you encourage a prolific copyright violator to become more active at another WMF project while shrugging off responsibility for the result: cleanup and hassle aside, there is a nontrivial legal risk to the Foundation here. Durova^Charge! 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, when you put it that way, it drops my jaw too. :-( Hesperian 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of support for Hesperian. There are two issues that come up here, and it is terribly easy to confuse the two. Almost all editors have focused on one, except for Hesperian, who focused on the other (originally). They really are independent issues. One is the behavior of the subject editor, which, without investigating it myself, from the breadth of comment from other editors, I would strongly assume was outrageous, blockworthy, and even banworthy, though a ban should not happen, in my opinion, without the banned person having some opportunity to defend and justify her actions. (Block is clearly appropriate, though. Indeed, block is a kindness, if the condition of the second issue is true.) The second issue is harassment. Was it harassment? On its face, we have an editor who is making massive numbers of problematic edits, in spite, I presume, of warning. There are members of the community who will respond to such by watching her contributions, and, indeed, the contributions then are sometimes subject to a higher standard, which is unfair, perhaps, but also probably unavoidable. It's difficult to tell the difference between that and harassment or wikistalking. One of the editors commenting here, approving the block, has complained about wikistalking based on far less. My suggestion is that whenever an editor starts to follow another around, reverting contributions as may have happened here, that such massive reversion, without community involvement, is a form of edit warring, only based on an individual rather than an article or topic. And no individual should do that without community support. (3RR rules?) So, just as we expect an administrator to come here when faced with a COI or edit warring to resist an action, any user who does more than occasional reversion for a single editor should not continue without community involvement. The other editor I mention, were I reverting him more than occasionally based on watching his contributions, without involving the community (and not just sympathetic editors), I should be warned and, if I continue, blocked. But the picture changes if the community has become involved and my opinion or actions have been approved. Then I become merely a servant of the community, taking on a particular project; but, in fact, at that point, this work should be unnecessary, the user would have been warned and blocked. Any editor making substantial numbers of properly revertable edits is disruptive. Specifically, what I could do would be to (1) warn the user myself and then, if the user continues, (2) bring the matter here (if it is not already brought by someone else, such as the editor I'm reverting). The only difference in rights and responsibilities between regular editors and administrators is the buttons. An admin can, if uninvolved, block without consultation, which will come afterwards if the user complains, requesting unblock. If the admin is involved or becomes involved, the admin becomes like an ordinary editor. My point is that we all have quasi-administrative powers, but we depend upon a servant to actually push the buttons. A voluntary servant who is otherwise just like us. Hesperian had a point, which I've attempted to address, instead of addressing the other point, which the community seems united on.--Abd (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read through the extensive history of this case (3 separate ANI cases, and an RFC/U), it is clear that this was not, at any point an edit war between Carol and another editor. Once it became clear that there was a problem, it was brought out into the open, and many editors attempted to resolve things, including attempts to engage with Carol, which were soundly rebuffed. Let me be clear, and say that I do not believe that Carol's edits were remotely blockable in the first instance. What is blockable, and the reasons that I support the block are;

1. Refusal to engage in a civil fashion with editors who were trying to clean up her mess
2. Persistent Wikilawyering ("oh, but I didn't actually say the word")
3. Tenditious editing, by persisting in the edits that had been pointed out as problematic.
4. Plain and demonstrable refusal to accept WP policy

I don't like it coming to this (it means that all the effort I and other put into trying to help Carol was wasted), but I am convinced that there is no alternative. Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "stalking" consisted of reverting 5 or 6 plant articles, not all of her articles that she had edited during the time. Please, as much inaccuracy as Carol has included in all of her articles, and as she is now apparently issuing wishes for those who disagree with her to die,[104] I'm not sure that editors should be working under the assumption that Carol has accurately represented any situation. Simply check the edit histories of the articles she edited during this time, and the articles of hers that I reverted. --Blechnic (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a bright line distinction: wikistalking (a term I hate) consists of tracking and interfering with an editor's regular contributions--such as CS's disruption of my featured content work; by contrast, legitimate cleanup occurs where there are clear and demonstrable policy violations that occur over multiple pages. Copyvio, plagiarism, and misuse of sources are serious matters: we are obligated to correct them. All reasonable efforts were made to communicate with both the editor who created the problems and with the community. One does not simply count reversions to determine whether history-reading is blameworthy: one asks the reason. The people who reverted CS had the best of reasons and were proactive about supplying both evidence and rationales. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. My comments about wikistalking were not intended to imply, in any way, that she had been wikistalked. I simply addressed the issue, and suggested a bright-line, simple definition of wikistalking which is merely an interpretation of WP:3RR. What this would mean was that an editor would not go beyond 3RR for a user, in a single day, without at least announcing that they are doing so to AN/I. But it's just an idea, and that would not define wikistalking any more than 3RR defines edit warring. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I have simply reverted because of the how incredibly wrong her edits have been, and because I don't have time to check them. In addition people are now only checking her plagiarisms. Please read the article on the Liabeae, p. 3 of the primary reference, and Carol's conclusions from it. Carol wrote that the mountains of East Africa are like the Alps based on a source she had that said the mountains of northwestern Africa are like the Alps. I don't have time to check every edit she makes, and she has been offered a mentor to work with to get them correctly done.

It is no help to Wikipedia if we have articles saying the mountains of East Africa are related to the Alps because people want an editor who doesn't care if east is west or vice versa to continue editing.

If she works with a mentor, if she establishes she can edit accurately, if she can not put false information in articles, then by all means, she can edit. But that is not what is happening. I'm astonished you want misinformation in articles to protect Carol's right to edit, and I looked at some of your articles. You seem to be writing very well, researching accurately and very informatively, the precise opposite of Carol. You also seem to be communicating clearly with other editors, another opposite. I don't understand what is the alternative to Carol, who won't work with other editors, who has her facts wrong, who misses things like the hundreds of major articles on two species, and just assumes if they're the same genera, even if they are on different continents, facts can be interchanged between the two.

I don't have time to check every edit of Carol's, and almost every edit I have checked has been bad, has included bad links, has included factually wrong information, really wrong information, has included matters of convenience to Carol, "both mountain ranges are in Africa, so anything said about one is true about the other," "both species are the same genus, so anything said about an insect pest of one applies to the other." There are a lot of people correcting her already created problems; but these articles are only be checked for plagiarisms, not for accuracy. The task is huge, asking her to take a break while others clean her mess is reasonable. Asking her to learn to use facts accurately is reasonable. --Blechnic (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, Hesperian, I have to ask where you draw this assertion of admirable restraint. In March you blocked her because she followed an editor to a single article to disrupt his work; for more than half a year she has been following me across two projects, disrupting featured picture nominations I'd spent up to 30 hours preparing. She's been harassing newcomers to FPC merely because they supported my work. I endured all that for a very long time without making any formal complaint. Only when it became clear that she was also a serial plagiarist with deeply problematic contributions to nearly everything she touched did I seek remedy. CarolSpears has not been restrained at all; she's made many unfounded accusations that my featured content candidacies are corrupt and even hinted that I trade sexual favors for votes. If that constitutes admirable restraint, I'd hate to see anything that merits your reprimand. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My "admirable restraint" comment should be interpreted only in the context of the RfC, which she ignored for as long as possible, commented only when threatened over it, and then said "what rhymes with species" rather than "this is a pile of shit". I have not defended her behaviour here - for those who like to draw closer parallels than necessary between allusion and reality, she was the paedophile in my "outrageous allusion" above. I have seen what she has said about you at Commons, Durova, and I believe she should have been blocked for it at the time. I have seen countless failures on Carol's part to show reasonable (let alone admirable) restraint. But I am still not happy with the way she has been treated these last two weeks. Do you comprehend how it must feel to have your entire corpus of contributions deconstructed and forensically analysed, while all your new contributions are reverted, all the while 12-year-old administrators are flousing you with threats and unrequested advice? And in the midst of that she gets indeffed for saying "what rhymes with species?" (Okay, that's not really the reason - EyeSerene has articulated the reason quite well - but that one statement does seem to have been the tipping point that made the difference between last week's no consensus and this week's consensus to ban).

Anyhow, the community has spoken, I'm clearly out of touch with community sentiment, and there's nothing further I can do here. My apologies to Shoemaker, Blechnic and Durova — I really do appreciate your willingness to take on such horrible work, work that I myself declined, and I am uncomfortable having been so critical of you over it. The problem for me is when I look at this last month from Carol's POV, I can only conclude that she has been most terribly harassed, and I can't shake the sense of how that must feel.

Hesperian 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(UNDENTIf her “entire corpus of contributions” is wrong, consider how Wikipedia readers of her articles must feel when they think they’ve gotten useful information. I think that when you're showing up number one on search engines you bear some responsibility to at least try for accuracy. --Blechnic (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Despite the colourful hyperbole above and outrageous allusion to people hounding a pedophile, if Carol is in a hole full of "feces" it is entirely a hole of her own digging. If the copyvios were not bad enough, it's now apparent that a whole bunch of her edits are wrong. And not just a little wrong. Wildly, hopelessly, ludicrously incorrect. She is making this encyclopedia worse, not better, and much harder for other editors to edit and for people generally to trust. So endorse block. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban Even being indef blocked hasn't made Carol waver from her conviction that our policies don't matter Mayalld (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, well. I ask her to engage the community by responding to her RFC and this is what happens? I have to admit, after seeing her "riddle" on her RFC, I was pretty close to proposing a community ban myself on the grounds that she was unapologetic about her behavior. I can only conclude that we had a female version of Primetime brewing here. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Anyone who believes copyvios and plagarism is alright is a detriment to this project. Her attitude suggests she will not change. Resolute 13:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse The block prevents further danger to Wikipedia's legal standing and reputation, neither of which needs any extra danger. Good block. _{1 != 2} 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse too comments above and the editor's comments shown on her talk page [105] seem to confirm this is a good move, sorry to have to agree to this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Carol, if you are reading this, I find it interesting that you are capable of writing -- within a couple of minutes -- paragraphs of invective about the wickedness of administrators and ignorance of various people, without copying and pasting those paragraphs from other web sites, or having others write them for you. Why don't you try to write material for the encyclopedia in your own words, rather than copying and pasting from other web sites? That's the problem here. You clearly have the ability to write but you don't do it. Antandrus (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• The handwriting was on the wall before. Continued bad behavior is not acceptable. Not everyone is capable of being a Wikipedia editor. Hesperian's objections are long on emotional hand-waving, but quite lacking in reasons why she's the kind of editor we want around here. Endorse ban. Friday (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't quite endorse a ban (though I won't be unblocking), mainly because this combines conduct and content problems. I sympathise with Hesperian's comment regarding how the conduct has been affected by the recent close attention, but as shown at the RfC (and Durova's section in particular), these are long-standing conduct problems. Looking at the content problems, I don't think anyone here should be endorsing a ban on that basis until they have gone and checked the sources themselves - I do believe Blechnic is pointing out genuine problems, but we need to be sure that more people have gone and verified these problems. Ideally, Carol would attempt to rebut what Blechnic and others have said. Indeed, defending and explaining the content of her edits (if she can) is probably the only way back, though the one possibility would be a topic ban from plant articles combined with mentorship, but at this stage the community has probably had enough. On a more general note, I'm not sure whether the community normally hands out bans based on good-faith content problems. The only case I remember where the content was so clearly problematic without actually being vandalism (or something close to vandalism), was the Sadi Carnot and PHG cases. Those ended up at arbitration, and at least the latter case was confirmed by careful examination by another set of editors (ie. the arbitrators). I would be more comfortable if another set of editors independently reviewed Carol's edits and confirmed they are as bad as we are being told. Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • By all means, Carcharoth. Please help review her edits. Durova^Charge! 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I should have seen that one coming. :-) <throws away plan of work for the afternoon> Is there a convenient place to start? Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a long list at the RFC talk page, and that's just the articles she created. Nearly everything she expands that's been checked has turned out to have problems too. But if you really want me to kiss your feet, please review her Commons work. It looks like she may be pulling copyrighted photographs off private blogs and sticking PD tags onto them because the photographer happened to have had a government grant. Sometimes, by terms of the grant, that type of work turns out to be public domain and sometimes it isn't. You could write to the National Science Foundation and double check, if you think it's worth the trouble. Durova^Charge! 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It's quicker to just e-mail the scientist. If the pictures are not PD he/she may be willing to send Wikipedia a release. At my work if we produce something partially supported by a grant we freely release the images upon request. --Blechnic (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
          • When you can get contact information...(the obvious has already been tried). Durova^Charge! 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The plant names are making my head spin. I think I will have to try helping out at Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Oh, and The votes are from unreal people who did not exist before Thanksgiving 2007. Enigma ^message 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I existed before then. Is there anything else to discuss here? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ignorable Endorse. I played Unreal for a while, but it didn't support co-op well, and I never really got into the whole "Unreal Tournament" thing, so I wouldn't describe myself as much of an Unreal person. Hence my comment on this block may be ignored. It looks like there was an ongoing problem with this editor despite mentorship, so the block is perhaps the best way to prevent future disruption. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I am of the opinion that admins should be used so very sparingly as to need maybe two. It is an unfortunate condition that there should be so many needed here on this ANI page. I try to avoid any situation where I might need an admin to step in for me. I hope that indicates how seriously I take Carol Spears' contributions that do not improve the encyclopedia, and in fact, work against it. I stated before that copy violations, plagiarism, and now I'm including deliberately including misleading and false information into articles—should be comparable to posting someone's personal information or threatening them with harm. Nothing should diminish the quality of the encyclopedia. --Moni3 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask the question: Is there any admin who is willing to unblock? Will wait a little, but I think we have a community ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reluctant endorse I hate to see an indefinite community ban of an editor who makes good-faith contributions but gets things wrong. I favor progressive discipline, in which a shorter block is used, then progressively longer ones, unless it is for threats, blatant repeated vandalism and the like. The practice of cut and paste copyvios is unacceptable, and the unwillingness to conform to the policies and guidelines established by the community, or to take seriously RFC tip the balance toward endorsement. I confess that I once created an article about a fish, American plaice when I noticed that there was no article about the species, and I know virtually nothing about taxonomy. But I noted that fact on the discussion page and asked others more knowledgable to verify my infotable, since my sources did not give the info in the form it is shown in Wikipedia. That is the sort of willingness to be corrected that Carol should have adopted. Edison (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I've not come across this user before but having read the RfC, I'm actually rather surprised she wasn't blocked earlier. I must admit that I'm rather puzzled about how this situation arose in the first place; Carol seems to be sincere about wanting to contribute but doesn't seem to fall into the usual categories of a POV-pusher adding biased info or a vandal adding bogus info. But if she doesn't seem to want to follow basic rules about plagiarism and copyright, then I'm afraid we have to block her to protect the project from the risk that presents. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Ban please - I'm amazed it's gotten this far. How can one defend or trust someone who has added copyrighted or utterly wrong information with every scrutinized edit? Grandmasterka 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an exagerration to say that her every edit is a copyright violation or factually incorrect. See, even, the RFC. (There is however a definite pattern of making statements that are not valid inferences from the source material.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban or indefinite block per Resolute. The copyright violation history is a serious issue and not one to be taken lightly. RFerreira (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban - user shows no remorse and thinks that copyvios are acceptable until the WMF is sued for them. This has gone on long enough and having this user actively edit is a potential liability that we cannot afford. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I reluctantly endorse the block, but would serve notice that I would be willing to unblock CarolSpears (with the consensus of the community) upon being satisfied that there are mentors capable of fulfilling that role, and that CarolSpears agrees to such mentorship - which would necessarily include addressing the matters brought up here and previously. My impression is that this means that CarolSpears is not banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite (not permanent) block -- Hopefully a few of us can keep an eye on her talk page in the hopes that she'll calm down, speak plainly, and try to work with people to overcome the problems, but for the time being she's just making more work for others as opposed to helping others with their work. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Indefinite block for now. Defiance in the face of much evidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have to confess, making this block did bother me slightly. However, having slept on it (hmm...) and this morning seen Carol's ongoing lack of constructive engagement ([106]), I think we should be very cautious about unblocking her any time soon. I'm not calling for a formal community ban, as I don't think it's necessary, and serves no purpose that is not served by an indefblock virtually no-one is prepared to undo (other than to add the final insult to the injury). It greatly concerns me that, even after all this drama and the extreme censure of so many respected editors, Carol has apparently failed to recognise that this is one of those 'crossroad' moments, where she needs to stop playing word games and get serious. We needed to hear a sincere apology, a recognition of the dangerous legal and academic position she put Wikipedia in, an offer to help undo the damage, and/or perhaps a promise to stop editing in the mainspace until she had worked with a mentor to gain an understanding of how to follow our policies. None of this has happened. It's a real shame to see such enthusiasm, intelligence, and technical ability (her image restorations are excellent) go to waste due to ego. <sigh> EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  The two recurring questions I have when reading about these incidents would be addressed to the incredibly patient admins who are reluctant to block unrepentent, defiant editors - "Why are you messing with this guy?" - and to those corresponding unrepentent, defiant editors - "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" The latter is a question that someone could pose to the editor in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Veiled threats now? [107] I have to say that this editor appears to be unwilling or unable to work within the framework of this project. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And the unrepentent, defiant editor's answer to the question "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" is "Not badly enough to change my ways." Permanent block Indefinite block which is already in effect anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

People change, even if they personally swear up and down that they won't. For now, with no admin willing to unblock, she is effectively banned. But I'd prefer to refer to it as simply "indef block," which is accurate, and the only thing that has happened here is that it is no longer a single administrator who made that decision. There is one problem I see with a ban. Editors who are banned sometimes come back with different behavior, making only useful contributions, but then someone notices some linking characteristic, she is checkusered and the new account is blocked for "evading a ban." Without a ban, the new account would be judged on its own merits. Sometimes indef block, with no unblocking admin appearing, is called a "community ban," but a default ban that could disappear at any moment if an admin appears who changes the situation is different from a community ban that has been properly considered, which should be an adversarial process requiring a lot more fuss than a simple defacto ban based on a brief discussion here. Basic standard: only put the minimum community effort necessary into a process, don't try to permanently decide situations without broad involvement (and most editors don't watch AN/I, and issues here are too transient to reliably attract necessary comment for a more permanent solution.) As it stands, it is all moot. She's blocked, the project is protected, let's not "legislate" -- i.e., decide on ban. We *have* an effective ban, already. --Abd (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting all caught up in terminology here. Carol is indefinitely blocked. If it becomes apparent after a reasonable time that no admin will unblock, a community ban exists. A community ban isn't some sort of next step up that we have to move to from an indefinite block, merely a way of noting that the issue has reached a conclusion for the time being, and that the conclusion was that the user should remain blocked. Mayalld (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block: This user is more drama than is needed. seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It might be best to close this thread, unless anyone has anything important to add, or opposes the block: At this point, I suspect this thread isn't going to serve any purpose other than to upset Carol further. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur My one faint hope for turning this around was that we might see some sign of a change in attitude once the gravity of the situation had sunk in, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I don't doubt a few of us will keep tabs on her talk page - I know I will - and are prepared to reconsider if circumstances warrant, but I don't think prolonging this is serving any useful purpose. EyeSerene^talk 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur And, please consider blocking her talk page if she continues with the death wishes for other editors. --Blechnic (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I think protecting her talk page would be an overreaction to the rather vague comments she's posted, and considering she's not banned, she may wish to get in touch at some point. It will be watched and if she becomes genuinely abusive, it could be protected, but I don't think circumstances warrant that at this point. EyeSerene^talk 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Just to be clear, what I said was, "consider blocking/protecting her talk page if she cotinues," not let's protect it now based on the two death wishes. In other words, I believe I said what you just corrected me to, my point being, it should be noted in this discussion for archival purposes what her response to this is, and monitored for further like responses, that's all. --Blechnic (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I do apologise, I'd misinterpreted your post as calling for protection now. However, you're quite right; we're in complete agreement. Feel free to point and throw stuff ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I think "Go forth and die" is not any kind of threat, but a bowdlerised version of a phrase commonly seen in its abbreviated form F.O.A.D. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur, Sheffield. She's parroting a Metalocalypse episode (badly, badly out of context, I might add) in order to say "FOD", but its not a death threat. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Block/talk page protection sanity check

Something tells me this user may become a thorn in my side... anyway, 68.149.139.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has otherwise often attempted to edit in good faith, vandalized the article on Dion Phaneuf on June 17. I reverted and left a standard L1 warning template. This was his response. I didn't see it at the time, but noticed those comments today when I again reverted his vandalism at Dion Phaneuf's article. Given the comments clearly violate WP:BLP, and the re-inserted vandalism, I dropped an L4im template on his talk page. His response was to restore his comments on his talk page, and left some odd vandalism on my user page. Thus, I blocked him. this was his response. I reverted and warned him I'd protect his talk page if he persisted. He did, I reverted again, and protected his talk page for the same 24 hours I blocked him. IMO, the block was fairly straight forward. Just doublechecking on the talk page protection. Resolute 02:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You posted the wrong diff at the start of this - it had me confused for a while. Perhaps you meant this? Other than that, it all seems sane enough - I'm not sure that it was going to play out any differently. The IP tried to paint themselves as gay-friendly, but the initial comment just wasn't. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He is blocked again because he immediately went back to his attacks soon as the block lifted. -Djsasso (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)