Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive533

There are multiple ongoing issues at

is in my mind totally out of proportion and totally unacceptable.

In my opinion the page ought to be protected and probably moved back to its pre-move-war location until the RfC is completed and a new title is decided. Kwami's rudeness, edit warring, and move warring are certainly uncivil and disruptive, and if he repeats this behavior elsewhere it may be a problem. For my part I am officially disengaging from the article (again) to let cooler heads deal with the issues at hand. --Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"America", when used by itself, typically refers to the USA. Anecdotally, I've heard this usage in the news, ranging from the British to Osama Bin Laden. I've never heard the term "U.S. Americans". That would be like saying "American Americans". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute itself notwithstanding, Kwamikagami's behavior in this matter looks pretty bad. Edit warring over good faith edits is very rarely justifiable (

WP:3RR). While I've only interacted with Kwamikagami once before (at Shona language, I believe), I'm rather surprised at this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, "U.S. Americans" was famously used by one Miss Caitlin Upton. Mike R (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here: the name of the article, and including the phrase "US American" in the text.

1. The article is about alternate names for "Americans" (inhabitants of the USA) when one wants to disambiguate them from "Americans" (inhabitants of the Americas). As such, calling it "Names for Americans" is deeply ironic, as people had complained before I moved the article. I don't much care which name is chosen, as long as it does not conflict with the very point of the article. Several adequate suggestions have been made on the talk page.
2. The phrase "US American" has been referenced back to the year 1919 as a disambiguating phrase, including by the American Library Assoc. and texts on cross-cultural studies, though Cúchullain has repeatedly deleted the refs. This is little more than vandalism on his part.

kwami (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonably phrased. And "US Americans" seems to have taken root in English. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read up on what

vandalism really is before you start throwing accusations around (on the administrators' noticeboard, no less). At any rate the only "sources" I deleted were your Google books search and the Wiktionary entry you made up.--Cúchullain ^t/c

15:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've been up all night without sleep, and am exhausted, so if that's the only issue here, then I owe Cúchullain an apology. But as it is, I'm fed up with him. He asked for refs, then argued the ones I provided weren't acceptable because they were primary sources (which are acceptable as long as they aren't interpreted by us), then deleted the link I added at his request because I had collected them on a Wiktionary citations page (they're the same refs regardless of where we put them, in a footnote or a citation page), then deleted them again when I copied some of them into the article in a footnote—that's what I called idiotic: deleting refs after repeatedly calling for me to add them—then deleted them again when I restored that footnote, objecting that I hadn't formatted them properly or provided page numbers—since when do we delete references because they aren't complete? Though none of his refs are formatted properly, and I had provided page numbers or entry names for some, and he deleted them all regardless. And he complains that I'm edit warring? Well, I really need to get to sleep. kwami (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note I did not delete the primary sources you added, the only things I removed were your Wikitionary links and your Google results, which are not reliable sources by anyone's definition. All I did was hide the primary sources until you format them properly [8], which is required by

WP:V. All the refs I added are in fact properly formatted.--Cúchullain ^t/c

16:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you did not delete them (I'm too tired to check), then I apologize for falsely accusing you. All I noticed that twice after you edited the article, the refs had disappeared. I provided title, author, date, in some cases publisher, page number or (in the case of dictionaries) entry name. That is sufficient for any reader to verify the info, so you are still removing references which meet reqs. Most cases without page numbers have the phrase in their very title, except for one case where it was nearly all pages, either way easily verifiable. As for "Google results", a reference is no less reliable because I found it with Google Books—that's all I can imagine you mean, since I never linked to any actual Google results. kwami (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the case. You certainly did attempt to use a Google search as a source[9] and then browbeat us on the talk page for not accepting it as a source. And you certainly did not format your primary sources sufficiently, despite being directed to the policy requiring you to do so, as you can see here. You just gave a random list of titles, none of which have a page number indicating where in the book the usage occurs. Only one has an entry name. The fact that you would fly off the handle like that without even looking to see that I hadn't actually removed your refs speaks a great deal about the way you've been behaving. Your belligerent edit summaries and comments, your pattern of blind reverting good faith edits, and your refusal to follow policy all speak for themselves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I might suggest, would you, Cuchullain, agree to give Kwami the benefit of the doubt that this dispute is being heightened by sleep deprivation for now? If the problem is still present after a few hours off, then you may wish to continue its pursuit- otherwise I'll think you find that you don't care so much anymore. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good call, Mendaliv. I'm sure everyone will benefit from a breather. I'm skeptical that things will improve very much, though, as his edit warring and rude comments have been happening for several days.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Google search: Yes, I did give a link a few days ago; I had assumed since I was discussing the current dispute, that you were talking about the same thing. I don't contest that deletion and didn't remember it till you gave the diff link. And I see that I had jumped to conclusions that you were deleting the refs when you were just commenting them out. My bad for thinking you were being intransigent.

As for commenting out due to verifiability concerns, there were 8 entries, 1 with the page, 2 with the entry, 4 with the phrase in the title. That's 7 out of 8 which are immediately verifiable as containing the phrase; in the 8th (from 1922), I should have cited chapter 14, where it's practically every page. But your response was to remove them all, not just the one. kwami (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Some help or advice please. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't help with systemic bias (a content issue) here. Is there some particular conduct at issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No significant edits to the article lately, nor significant posts to the talk page. And honestly, the response this same request would get at

WP:CSB, but that without more details nothing much is going to happen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 21:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing Gary's concerns are in this comment but that's a dispute as to how to discuss proposed changes to the article to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes... I guess I'm just frustrated. I have been watching the article for a year now and the pro circumcision editors make it very difficult to add anything that caste circumcision in a bad light. I feel they have been driving good editors away. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Then

WP:NPOVN might be the place to escalate a dispute, but as there's no need for admin intervention that I can see, ANI isn't the right place for this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your time. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I sent this to RPP, but it's not really a protection issue. Feel free to browse the history of the user talk page of this indef-blocked user. Would recommend disabling the option to edit own talk page, and would enable auto-blocking for a nice period of time (if possible).

23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the block settings to disable talk page editing, since the privilege was being abused. TNXMan 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed my request at RPP.

Yngvarr (t) (c)

23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Ikip for canvassing

{{Resolved}} Blocking admin recused, no consensus that Ikip had violated canvassing rules, Ikip unblocked. --

talk

) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – Unblocked; see next section.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've blocked talk · contribs) for AFD canvassing, most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops ) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Where was he canvasing at? Aren't you suppose to post a few links to prove your point? Dream Focus 10:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Was it just that one area? Where he mentioned something was at the AFD, at two other articles on characters from the series that were up for deletion as well recently? When delitionists make their rounds, nominating everything from a particular series at once, those involved in one should be made aware of the similar debates, since its basically the same thing usually anyway. In this case character articles from a series were all nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 10:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ikip has long made a practice of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS, and makes a regular practice of linking AFDs to favorable venues. His article talk contributions speak for themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops ) 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC) And another related article was up for AFD three months ago, but other than that only the one article was on AFD. That's not "character articles from a series[..] all nominated for deletion" or "delitionists mak[ing] their rounds". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMiB - as a deletion-minded editor you are not unimpartial and not uninvolved. You shouldn't be the blocking party here. Ikip should be unblocked immediately by you and discussion and consensus achieved. Okay, you didn't comment in this AfD but your views are pretty obvious on the matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC) This attitude is disturbing to me. It gives anyone who villifies their opposition a shield against criticism or censure by that opposition, because obviously that villification is the only reason they'd act, right? Ikip has been warned and warned and warned, by a variety of editors and admins, about various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS, and continues to constantly advertise AFDs, policy discussions, and many other discussions to favorable venues. My stance here has been consistent. The canvassing is a problem. It needs to stop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops ) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Use of such shields amount to attempts to change the subject off the problematic behaviour. In many case it should be view as gaming the system. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Were the rules of WP:canvassing broken? Was it not a Friendly notice, which is allowed? There was Limited posting AND it was Neutral in the announcement, AND Nonpartisan, AND had Open transparency. If you believe someone has violated a rule, then you should discuss it here with others, and let the editor defend himself, before taking such an action. Dream Focus 10:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (ecx2)I'm missing something here. This is the only edit (of two in total by Ikip) to that deletion discussion, which appears to come firmly under the heading of Wikipedia:CANVASS#Friendly_notices (if even that, since WP:CANVASS is more relevant to user talkpage edits than article talkpages). I also see you didn't get round to placing any warning that you'd blocked Ikip, nor did you mention on their talkpage the existence of this thread (I've now rectified that omission). Tonywalton Talk 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I can only do so much at once. I left a note at his talk page regarding the block immediately after blocking, then invited ANI review, then replied to DF at the same time you put a notice on his talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Your edit says nothing about a block. Tonywalton Talk 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think it was going to be unclear that he was blocked, what with the big "You have been blocked!" thing whenever he tries to edit. However people end up feeling about the block, hairsplitting about the wording of a block notice doesn't particularly interest me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't see it as tangential. Blocking someone unilaterally, without any apparent consensus, failing to warn them of it in a polite (or indeed any) manner previously, then taking it here without having the courtesy to mention it to them are what I might call unacceptable behaviour rather than hairsplitting, and do interest me. This is hardly conduct likely to encourage editor to modify their behaviour. I agree with others here; this is not a good block. Tonywalton Talk 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Two issues here. First, this pattern of canvassing isn't new. He's been warned about it both here and on his talk page, most recently over the whole WT:FICT. Second, I was busy considering my first reply here when you linked the ANI thread on his talk page; I didn't even get a chance. I am done discussing the latter point, but invite review of the former. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops ) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Whilst we obviously have major issues with canvassing and votestacking on AfD and the Article Rescue Squadron, this isn't really a good block. Not so much because you're involved, but he hasn't really caused mass disruption. If he'd spammed a lot of editors with a partisan message then fine, block away, but a few editors (even if it's known they'll probably contribute in a certain way) with a "FYI" message? A stiff warning would've been better here. However, AMIB is absolutely right that the disruption emanating from certain quarters of the ARS (which has now moved into projectspace) needs to stop. Black Kite 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Agree with above. Testing the limits of WP:CANVASS is not forbidden, breaking it is. If your only reason for blocking him is that he did not in fact break the rules, then the block was wrong. As this discussion shows, there is no such consensus that his actions were block-worthy and you should have considered proposing a block here rather than just doing it. Even if you are not biased against this editor, your past history and your actions may be seen as such - something you should have avoided by allowing the community to make that decision. There was no need for any rush in blocking ikip and thus there was none for you to do it. Regards SoWhy 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I want to avoid making this into a whole ARS versus the world mess. I still believe in the basic good work of WP:ARS is causing!" nor do I want to see unblocking him used as vindication of misuse of that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops ) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The point is not what you want but how people will react. You have to admit that you were involved with this editor in the past and that you occupy a philosophy on the other end of the spectrum. Both is not forbidden but both will definitely lead to such associations, whether you like it or not. The point is this: If you know about those things and there is no real need for a block to stop current disruption, you should always bring it here before blocking, not afterwards. Even the (unfounded) suspicion that an admin might use his/her tools to sanction an editor who they have difficulties with is very damaging for the trust the community has for their admins. Again, noone is saying you did it because of that but some comments below (like Cameron Scott's) prove that this is definitely how some people will view this and you should have considered this before taking action against ikip. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMIB's issue seems to be with the following diffs [10] [11] [12]. But these were postings related article talk pages, which are acceptable and in fact encouraged by AfD guidelines. Quote: "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." The notifications were neutral, and could have been picked up by editors wanting to help merge just as much as !vote keep. Ikip also informed users on the AfD of his notices [13] as encouraged by guidelines. It seems abundantly clear to me that Ikip should not have been blocked, and certainly not unilaterally by AMIB. the wub "?!" 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I support the block for the reasons given by AMIB. Verbal chat 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No real comment about this particular block (no time to look into it), but I had email about Ikip and canvassing this morning as well as seeing this on my watchlist. Which is just to say that there is at least one other situation going on right now where he's been accused of inappropriately canvassing. This might be worth having a peek at as well, at least according to one of the people who have contacted me with concern about this issue. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) What if the nominator did not inform anybody of the AfD discussion? It is suggested in 2 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support block for inappropriate canvassing, per original arguments and additional citations given. I see someone brought up the "deletionist" bullshit already; so early! seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support the block since some seem to be trying to divert the attention to AMIB's role in the action rather than why it was done. David D. (Talk) 13:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose, so long as we're !voting. 1) WP:AFDHOWTO explicitly states "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.". The ONLY diffs I've yet to see cited, [14] [15] [16] (it seems the blocking admin either cannot or will not provide any of his/her own) consist entirely of "FYI" and a sig. Seems perfectly in-line with stated policy. I also note, with some interest, that there is no block notice on Ikip's page. Is AMIB ashamed of letting non-cabal members of his actions here for some reason...? Snarfies (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I was the one who brought this to a wider noticeboard for review. Give me a break. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Does anybody know already why Ikip has been blocked? Not that it would change anything, but at least it would light up things a bit... --Avant-garde a clue- 2 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC) My main objection is that AMiB has used admin tools in a dispute where he has been an involved party. See Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED - this is not good. AMiB, how do you define that you are an uninvolved admin in this situation? Casliber (talk · contribs ) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC) How am I involved? I've outlined a pattern of problematic behavior, each time ending up in a general warning to Not Do This Again. To my knowledge Ikip hasn't canvassed any discussion I've had a large part of except WP:FICT , where he was canvassing editors who agreed with me that it was a bad idea. The only involvement I have with Ikip that wasn't chiefly in agreement with him is saying "Stop canvassing, dude" and being attacked for it. The idea that attacking an admin who warns you to stop doing something disruptive "involves" them to the degree that they cannot act to stop you from persisting in that disruptive conduct is baffling to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I think Casliber has an obligation to define exactly how he believes A Man In Black is an involved admin. Certainly it wouldn't be reasonable to argue that admins are only permitted to act against editors that share their personal philosophy about exclusionism/inclusionism. I'm not a big fan of this particular block, as I've shared on AMIB's talk page. Not being a fan of this block doesn't mean I think that AMIB has violated WP:INVOLVED, though.—Kww(talk ) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC) This diff merits discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) It seems the definition of whether people think you are involved or not depends on whether they agree with you. AMIB actions were correct, this is gaming and canvassing and should be stopped. This whole involved/univolved thing is tedious. AMIB brought it here for discussion, so attacks against him should stop. Verbal chat 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMIB failed to provide evidence supporting the block. Editors should not have to guess. If AMIB doesn't have time to to a block properly, AMIB shouldn't do it. The notices we guessed were the basis were proper, allowed, or even encouraged. Ikip was not violating WP:CANVASS . AMIB was acting outside community consensus here, and that some editors seem eager to support this block goes to show.... Because concerns were raised about action while involved, AMIB should have immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock, if AMIB wasn't willing to unblock directly. Because there is clearly no consensus for block, and blocks should represent consensus, and because there has been adequate discussion here to make this clear, talk ) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) On the fourth point, isn't that what coming here for review means? I don't much interact with the bureaucracy of blocking. If I need to say so outright, then any admin can reverse my administrative actions if they feel that they are improper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you, AMIB, that makes it very clear, and could avoid further disruption. -- talk ) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC) As for reversing it myself, I'm torn; the opposition is "This was not a good reason to block," the support is "Despite that this user is obnoxious and this just happens to be on the inside of the technical line." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC) You have no obligation to unblock, unless you conclude that the block was in error. Let me suggest that it was, because the actions Ikip took that you considered canvassing were actions that are routinely accepted as proper or even desirable, even if the effect might be some differential participation at the AfD. He wasn't just "on the inside of the technical line," he was doing what is allowed or even suggested. If you unblock, this resolves this whole disruptive dispute, in one stroke. Hence it would be laudable. -- talk ) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose: I've looked at the diff's and I don't see what's the problem with Ikip's notifications. The notices were neutral in content and at related talk pages. Canvassing is allowed and "votestacking" seems to be thrown around a lot without any evidence. Like Casliber, I'm troubled that the admin my not be completely uninvolved in these articles. With that kind of power, AMIB should have deferred to another neutral admin for review or at least solicited comment before taking unilateral action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Improper due to the previous involvement of WP:CANVASS and a block is not an appropriate response in any case as blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Colonel Warden (talk ) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I've criticized Banjeboi for proposing the modification of a template to solicit people directly to a deletion discussion when it was originally intended for something else. I don't recall Ikip even being involved in that discussion. If you mean questioning whether Ikip's canvassing of various discussions strictly to favorable audiences is a good idea, well, you caught me. Damn me for asking for input first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) As an utterly neutral and uninvolved party, I am very troubled by the way this discussion is going about, which is more like a witch-hunt than anything else. I would like to review the unblock and cannot support an unblock until things calm down so that the evidence can be reviewed properly. If you make a claim that an admin is involved, you need to provide diffs first - asking the admin to prove how he is uninvolved first is absolutely unreasonable. Interim support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The possible problem with involvement has been resolved by AMIB through his explicit recusal, so it is moot, leaving only the issue with the block itself. NCMV, your comment criticized the "witch-hunt" against AMIB, but then supported (interim) the block without giving a reason. Given that the stated reason for the block was defective, as there was no canvassing, but only quite proper, even desirable neutral notice to articles under AfD, I'd think you could agree that unblocking is appropriate now. -- talk ) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC) In striking my vote, I neither endorse or oppose the unblock as I am still asking questions to both administrators to satisfy my concerns over how this was handled broadly; this includes questions over the initial block. But this does not detract from you inappropriately closing this in the absence of allowing discussion of the subsequent unblock; I note that the unblocking admin appropriately reverted your closing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support block It's just part of a pattern of behaviour by members of the Article Canvassing Squadron - look at the recent discussion at the project page, it's a political focused inclusionist activist group and should be closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) This is not the kind of support I am looking for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Yes and? You must have mistaken me for some form of robot or drone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Then let me clarify. This accusation has nothing to do with why I blocked Ikip, and I would not want to see him blocked based on this accusation, which I believe is false. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I have to support what Ncmvocalist has said. We should review the block, not who made the block. A decision is either right or wrong, it does not change depending on who made it. Chillum 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMIB is an involved admin deep in the inclusionist/deletionist wars, and involved admins are explicitly forbidden from using their tools. AMIB at this point has no more standing to use his tools to process AFDs, or anything related to them. He needs to respect that, or the next time he's probably on a short train to RFC and then Arbcom. T ) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Exceptional claims require exceptional justification. Either take this to the arbcom to have my admin bit removed over this, or strike it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Like I said, we are reviewing the block, not the admin. Either the block was correct or incorrect, who made it is not going to change that. I will not accept the idea that the same decision can be correct when one person makes it and incorrect when another makes it. Either it is a correct decision or it is not. Chillum 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Hear hear. I agree. Re the ARS: If there are problems with the ARS (and there may be, or with a subset) then that is a separate matter and should be brought up elsewhere. Verbal chat 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Up to now we still don't know the reason for the block. We're still guessing. Therefore we can't discuss the block. --Avant-garde a clue- 2 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Kay, I will elaborate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING. At every opportunity, he advertises any contentious discussion with which he is involved to any sympathetic party (most infamously here, advertising an otherwise-neutral project on hundreds of article talk pages of people with "inclusionist" userboxes), not respecting any requests that he desist save when they are enforced, and following only the letter of the rules. When anyone calls him on this, he goes on the attack, describing them as deletionists or devoted to destroying article content. However, he's aware that soliciting only those who agree with him is wrong (criticizing Ryan4314 for it here ), but continues to walk the line any way he can. I blocked him because I do not feel that Ikip will respect any sanction that is not enforced. I respect that the reason I blocked him in this case may have been within the letter of the rules; the wording of the rules shifts often enough that I'm not always 100% up to date. Nevertheless, I feel that this is a pattern of disruptive behavior that needs addressing. Diffs forthcoming. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) What diffs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ikip That's all we need. How long ago was this blockable canvassing? Also, read my note to Chillum. You as an admin have zero standing or authority to levy this block as one of the deepest "deletionist" partisans on this site, just as anyone deeply involved in the squadron would have zero standing or authority to undo it. You must undo this block and not do such a thing again, or you will not be long for your tools once the Arbitration Committee sees what you're about. All that aside, blocks are preventative. Note: that's preventative for Wikipedia's protection, not your political inclinations. You pretty much missed the goal as far right as you can on this one, for being involved. T ) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Edit conflicting with me trying to edit them in isn't gonna get them here any faster. Also, I'm adding diffs for my assertions; are you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Unblock. There is hardly ANY canvassing here, and cross-posting a note that is just the AFD itself plus the text "FYI" to a tiny handful of talk pages is not canvassing or disruptive to the AFD process, which already has too few people looking at it. I would unblock myself, but I don't think I'm a totally uninvolved editor in regards to Ikip. In regards to inclusionism/deletionism, I'm 100% uninvolved (just look at how many AFDs I've begun and I believe I'm about 66% delete, the last time I looked at the stats). T ) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The more I think about it, I am uninvolved with this editor. We just used to chat back in 2006, and then he literally leaped down my throat and went off on me, on the worst terms imaginable with zero faith in me back then, and then basically said "Welcome back, congratulations," last year. Based on the zero evidence preceeding the block (involvement aside, we do NOT block for long-past or even days-past actions) in Ikip's contributions, I have unblocked. Any uninvolved admin may reblock that's not one of these people in the fights if required. T ) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I think you need to carefully justify the accusations you have made against AMIB. Being an exclusionist doesn't render him impotent when dealing with inclusionist editors, just as being an inclusionist doesn't render one impotent when dealing with exclusionists. If you believe that AMIB is so deeply involved with Ikip that his behaviour is skirting with Arbcom sanctions, I suggest that you provide evidence to support that belief.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Support block - we give far, far too much leeway to those who game the system, and should look particularly dimly upon those who have been warned multiple times before to stop doing it. We should also look extremely dimly upon those who show up to these sorts of discussions only to throw around ad hominem 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' insults--for make no mistake, when one editor calls another either of those things, it is almost always intended as an insult. //roux   15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose block 3 friendly neutral notices, placed exactly where and how they are supposed to be as per guideline, do not constitute canvassing. Had there neen 20 notices, there might be a case. But 3?? No consensus over the 3 edits was asked for or reached. Due process was not followed. Pique over perceptions of past edits or edit history do not justify lack of process in this one instance. Although Ikip might have pushed the guidelines a bit in the past, in this case he did no such thing... only upset an editor who does not agree with his editing style. Bad form. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Rationale for my unblock 1st: Ikib blocked by AMiB on 10:18, April 26, 2009. AMiB for starters has no authority or right to block for anything related to the Article Rescue Squad, Deletionism, or Inclusionism, or anything like that, barring vandalism, as one of the major players on the "Deletionist" side. This would be like User:DGG or another user widely perceived to be on the 'other' side doing likewise. We don't allow politics in the use of admin tools, and I encourage AMiB to never do this sort of thing again, as it's a short road to RFAR and losing his bit. 2nd: Wikipedia space: Nothing for 72+ hours. Article talk: Nothing for 72+ hours. User talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours. Wikipedia talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours. Again, any demonstratably uninvolved admin can freely reverse my unblock, I waive all wheel warriness, etc T ) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) A bit more discussion here. T ) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I'm disappointed that you didn't address any of my comments to Casliber on this subject while still accusing me of being involved, but I respect unblocking due to a lack of a pressing issue to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The first part of your argument is a real stretch, and it's part of the reason why disruptive inclusionists and exclusionists seem to operate under a protective shield. Admins on the same side aren't inclined to block, admins on the opposite side use an extreme interpretation of WP:INVOLVED to justify inaction, and admins uninvolved in the issue at all are so tired of the mess that they don't poke their nose into it. AMIB has not participated in the discussion in question, and seems not to be involved with Ikip except for repeated warnings about canvassing and near-canvassing. Your second argument is that after having been warned by an admin multiple times about behaviour, the editor does it again, and the admin didn't catch it fast enough? I think arguments against the block based on Ikip not having technically violated the canvassing rules warrant discussion, and I can respect those. Arguing that no exclusionist can ever block an inclusionist or vice versa means that we might as well give up and split the project in two.—Kww(talk ) 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Not at all--just report the issues here, and the uninvolved folks can sort it out. The same as anything else. :) T ) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Nice theory ... in practice, they just turn into squabbles that people tune out, like this one: giant squabblefests with one group of admins afraid to act, another group uninclined to act, and everyone so eager to blame it on inclusionism/exclusionism that they don't evaluate the situation and judge whether the underlying behaviour of either party warrants action.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being overly idealistic. T ) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Probably 90% of active admin are uninvolved in fiction, and at least half do other things than participate in deletion/inclusion debates at all. But they're willing to help out in other areas as neutrals, just as I ewill comment here on things i don't otherwise actively work on. I don't primarily hunt down vandals or copyvio or BLP violations (unless I happen to come across them) but if there's a dispute about it, I can look. That's what this board is for. DGG (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) But that's not what happens on this board. Hell, we are on AN/I right now and look what is happening. Admins and editors are sorting neatly into groups based on their preferences and those without preferences are either ignoring the issue or clucking their tongues at what a shame it is to have disputes like this. At what point are we allowed to just say that treating wikipedia like a battleground is OK as long as your area of advocacy is notability of fictional subjects? Because that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No accusation was made, Root. He just said that in practice the model doesn't work. Most of the cases do tend to fall right along the lines that Kww mentioned. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I see no reason to re-impose this block, so endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 'Nuff said I don't think A Man In Black blocked for political reasons or out of bad faith, but perhaps he should have sought community opinion before the fact, rather than after the fact. I don't think Rootology should have been the one to do the unblocking since he is to some extent involved, but I don't think he unblocked in bad faith either. FWIW, I would have unblocked if Ikip had requested unblocking via template. The fact that he didn't is rather odd, but that's neither here nor there. Both admins involved here were a bit quick to hit the buttons, but I don't see any reason to think that either were being quick out of malice or without a belief that they were taking correct action. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Pattern of problematic adminship? This is not the first time A Man In Black has blocked someone with whom he was involved and which garnered the community's scrutiny. See also WP:INVOLVED. After all, don't we as a community occasionally consider desysopping after two bad blocks? We have at least two questionable blocks as well as a long history of edit warring. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed. A block that ended a long-running case of brinksmanship over copyright is a clear example of a a pattern of inappropriate blocks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I've seen nothign wrong with AMiB's actions as an admin, and I've been on the wrong side of it before. Knock it off. One dubious block in which the major opposition is a direct attack on AMiB's 'wikipolitics' is hardly anything, and another lbock which was reviewed is also not enough. ThuranX (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No, desysopping is only handled by Jimbo Wales and Arbcom, and if the administrator elects it, WP:RFAR. MBisanz talk 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) AMIB has a history of edit warring, and then blocking people to get his way. I can't say I'm terribly surprised he would misuse his tools in other venues as well. Jtrainor (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Jtrainor was invited to rehash his six-month-old dispute over copyright with me by Ikip here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Which is irrelevant, as I regularly browse and comment on WP:ANI (as my contrib history will show) and thus would've noticed this eventually anyways. Ikip just sped the process up a bit. Jtrainor (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No. Ikip leaving a note regarding this ANI post on the talk page of an editor favorable to his particular position isn't relevant at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Having likewise been blocked over opinions of content issues during a dispute, I likewise believe that A Man In Black has gone above and beyond his station in certain instances. Perhaps not material for an RFAR, but nevertheless Jtrainor should not be singled out as a unique "problematic" case - this has happened before and to other people. MalikCarr (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) For example, MalikCarr, at the same time and for the same cause as Jtrainor, also here rehashing that same six-month-old dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ikip didn't leave a note on Malik's page, however. Anyways, saying "it's old" is irrelevant when one is attempting to display a pattern of inappropriate behaviour. Jtrainor (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC) In addition to involved or at least questionable blocks of Jtrainor, MalikCarr, and Ikip, at least one other has come under scrutiny as seen at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Edit_War_at_Now_Museum.2C_Now_You_Don.27t_.26_Request_for_review_of_actions. The revert warring mentioned there has actually occurred on SIX articles and not just the one discussed at ANI (I am surprised that hadn't been brought up yet at ANI): [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC) This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The only problem I see here is a bunch of editors with a vendetta. Such witch hunts look worse for the hunters than the so called witches. David D. (Talk) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Care to provide some evidence for that claim? Protonk (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Self evident. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) When fully half of your entire edits to Wikipedia have been reverting content disputes with an admin, and three-quarters of your blocks from that same admin, you tend to take on a rather jaded perspective to the whole project. Incidentally, he's not referring to a dispute six months ago, but rather to a dispute that lasted six months, went through RFC and ARB, and still didn't really produce any firm conclusions. I'd argue that the recourse from that isn't a vendetta, rather simply seeking returns on great inequities. MalikCarr (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Self evident? Are you joking? No really, please provide some evidence for your sweeping claims. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Read the whole thread here. A request for block review is brought here. It is was undone. There was no argument other than an agree to disagree conclusion. That should have been the end of the discussion but the whole thread goes off on mulitple tangents. Focus on the the big picture and keep content dispute to the article talk pages. David D. (Talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I have read the whole thread. I don't see how this condenses to a content dispute and I don't see how going off on "tangents" offers evidence for your accusation that editors/admins here have been motivated by a vendetta. Perhaps you'd like to retract that accusation. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Is the word vendetta your only problem? How about grudge? You really think this whole thread is only about the block in question? David D. (Talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC) My main problem is the fact that editors are intent on abandoning AGF without any great cause to do so. I would hope that if you think AMiB is acting on a vendetta that you provide some evidence--evidence beyond the fact that he has brought Ikip's conduct here before and beyond vague hints at wikistance. I'm also well aware that this thread isn't just about the block in question. That's part of the problem. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Actually I'm still waiting for the diffs that resulted in the block of Ikip in the first place. Did AMiB already provide them? --Avant-garde a clue- 2 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Man, I need a scorecard or something, this thread is turning into allusions to implications to veiled accusations of implied misdoing... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Man, you need to just shut your damn yap and stop replying to every accusation :-). Just sayin. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A question

To get things straight, is there now some sort of more expansive standard for involvement that I don't see in

WP:UNINVOLVED

applied to admins on one side or the other of a wikistance dispute--or more accurately, admins who have been characterized by third parties as being on one side or the other? Because if there is it better be written in policy that has some community consensus and if there isn't we better stop reversing blocks without speaking to the blocking administrator on the basis of this imagined new "recusal" framework.

More to the point, when we find this new raft of administrators who are neutral in every respect on every issue and who also have an interest in wading into these periodic shitstorms, please let me know. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

first step is to ask here, not assume there isn't anybody. DGG (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is noone who is neutral on every issue but that's not needed anyway. You just need an admin who is neutral on the issue at hand and there are plenty of those. As DGG says, ask here before assuming that there is noone. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If I could speak for Protonk, I think his point was that if the standard for being uninvolved comes down to whether the community views you as inclusionist or deletionist, we're in for trouble. Does the community see me as inclusionist or deletionist? I have no idea, nor do I really care. Could you find three editors who see me as deletionist? You bet -- I could probably even give you a list. Could you find three who see me as an inclusionist? Yes, absolutely. But if that means I could never block an editor over misbehavior at AfD, then I doubt you'll find any admin who could.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being clear. I understand that help can and should be found on the admin boards. I'm just wondering why this apparent new standard for neutrality isn't written in policy anywhere. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(just woke up - need coffee but this important) There is no new standard here. We have a policiy on uninvolved and AMiB is way involved as a common player in the trenches at AfD on the opposing side to Ikip. This is patently obvious. Also it is especially important in greyer areas like the neutral wording of three notes to other uses. Rootology summed it up well above after I went to sleep last night. This is in no way a borderline case. Can you imagine if I blocked a deletionist for incivility? People would (rightly) point out my nonimpartial position. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're an inclusionist? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. yep. Unless on misinformation, then no. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Do you send me the membership of the mailing list, then, so I know who I'm too involved to censure?

I generally leave such labeling nonsense to the people who actually care about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops)

In any event.

WP:UNINVOLVED

is about keeping administrators from using the tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute, I thought. I'm not actually in dispute with Ikip over anything, except that his conduct is inappropriate. I don't think I could honestly say that I agree with him on all points, or that I intend to go out drinking with him, but no block I could possibly make (save possibly an indefinite one) would ever silence his advocacy for article inclusion, nor would I want it to, nor would I meaningfully benefit from it.

If you genuinely thought that someone was being uncivil, then yeah, block them, be they deletionist, Republican, or Modovian separatist. Now, if you suspect that your evaluation is tainted by your personal feelings, sure, don't act, but administrators are trusted to use their judgement to evaluate a situation dispassionately.

Aren't they? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But unfortunately an admin's judgment of being impartial can differ from what other users will see in a situation. As Casliber pointed out, this is probably not anything about deletionists vs. inclusionists but about your contributions which include a track record of debates on the opposite side to ikip. If any deletionist had made the block, I doubt we would have most of this discussion, it's just what happens if someone makes an administrative decision when they previously were in a content dispute with the same user. As a rule, I think admins should avoid taking administrative action against users who they were previously involved in a content discussion, even if they are not involved in the dispute which was reason for the action at hand. It would help avoid such accusations, at least a bit. Regards SoWhy 20:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah. AMiB and dispassionate. I certainly wouldn't have thought of that adjective in describing some of your exchanges. OK, you weren't on opposite sides in this particular AfD, but there have been many of these exchanges - I have had them with you myself there. "I don't think I could honestly say that I agree with him on all points" is rather an understatement don't you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's nice that you picked on that aside, but you still haven't ascribed to me an ulterior motive that makes sense. Posit that I'm a complete blackguard, willing to do whatever I can to accomplish...something. It can't be to shut Ikip up, because he's going to be back in two days to argue to keep articles, just like before. It can't be to make him less convicted to prevent articles from deletion, because any persecution will only galvanize him. It can't be to strike some greater blow against article inclusion, since a fair few passionate self-declared inclusionists keep Ikip at arm's length. So whatever it is Villainous AMIB is out to do, he's doing it pretty badly by blocking Ikip and coming to ANI for review.

I'm not so much offended by the accusation of bad faith (I'm not so naïve as to expect that in a sufficiently large group that nobody will see evidence of bad faith) so much as I'm offended by the implicit accusation that I'm a villain and I suck at it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your words not mine (re 'villain'). You are the one who has had some heated exchanges at AfD and has argued to delete in many. I am pointing out that you shouldn't use admin tools in AfD debates with someone on the opposite side. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole uninvolved admin bit is to keep admins from using the tools to gain some sort of advantage. The advantage I gain by blocking Ikip is... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

...temporarily silencing someone of an opposing viewpoint whom you once proposed User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Silencing him from where? (And that was a joke about the silliness of citing clearly ridiculous proposals and essays. Clearly, "Note to self: Buy more stamps" was part of my plan to silence opposition.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. So I'm trying to silence my opposition, based on a three-month-old, now-closed RFC where Ikip agreed with me? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabric hits the nail on the head. The problem with this nebulous, untwritten standard for involvement is that anyone can declare someone too partisan to render a decision. this isn't as simple as (as AMiB puts it) determining whether or not an admin has given him or herself the upper hand in a dispute with the tools. we are inventing some "meta-dispute" between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" whereby any admin who has expressed an opinion about content in any fashion can be ginned up to be party to this "meta-dispute". After someone has announced that said admin is party to the dispute, who are we to argue with them? AMiB has voted to delete things in the past and has (Gasp!) pulled the trigger and deleted things. But in the absence of some actual meta-dispute (note the lack of scare quotes) we have to be convinced that AMiB is so tainted by his prejudice that he will use the tools inappropriately.

so what is it? Is there some dispute on wikipedia that I am party to, despite not having voted in or closed and AfD for months? Where do I fit on the scale? who am I not allowed to block based on their stance? Because I want to know. apparently it is some community standard, long held, that I'm ignorant of. So clue me in. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am convinced AMiBs participation here was wrong and gives the strong appearance of prejudice (regardless of motive). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave aside sundry issues with that declaration and press on my key point. Who may take action? I note that you haven't pressed particularly hard to state that Ikip was on the straight and narrow. Presuming that he wasn't, who is allowed to block? Who is allowed to block and ask for review (as AMiB did here)? Who is allowed to block only after seeking review? Where is all of this written? Protonk (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, my opinion on the action (neutrally worded notes on 3 editor's pages), is that it was in a grey area. I note that alot of deleters will spend more time at AfD than alot of content editors and keepers, but that is a bigger-picture thing. Bakc to process - if I saw an editor which whom I was concerned there might be the perception of me being non-impartial, then I would ask here whether other admins thought it block-worthy. This happens fairly regularly here. If an action is genuinely blockable, other admins will concur and might do it themselves or give me the green light to do so. If it was an absolute no-brainer, eg editor is revelaed to be sock of banned editor, it is not such a big a deal as these grey areas above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"I note that alot of deleters will spend more time at AfD than alot of content editors and keepers, but that is a bigger-picture thing."strikes me as unrelated, but ok. Where is this standard for admin action written down? where, if I were just learning how to be an admin, would I look for guidance on the subject? I just want to answer that. Here I'm deliberately avoiding discussing the presumption that a meta-debate constitutes an involvement just as an actual article debate would. I'll concede that for the sake of argument. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly simple. Have you and I been in content and/or policy disputes and/or DR escalations vs each other? If so, you and I have zero business or right using the tools on each other. There's a reason we have a thousand admins. If one of has been naughty, any one of them similarly uninvolved can take action if required. That's my standard, and I think that of most people.

T

) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but I think it is even simpler. We have a standard for admin involvement at

WP:INVOLVED. If no one here can point to some policy suggesting that the standard is much higher then we don't get to act as though it is. I mean, I agree with you that the ideal state is the invervening admin be neutral in all respects. But I'm not going out on a limb when I say that community practice doesn't being to approach this state as we have applied it here. To pick on two people, Stifle and Fut Perf both have clear, announced views on non-free image use. They have been involved in RfCs, content discussions, deletion debates, deletion reviews and so forth. Under this standard you propose, they would be unable to close an image deletion debate or block someone for uploading copyrighted material. How is that workable? what happens when the only people interested in working the trenches have a POV on the subject? Protonk (talk

) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there will be borderline cases. This isn't borderline. I admit I'm surprised to see it, for I regard AMIB as one of the most level headed among the strong opponents of Ikip's position--AMIB and I have had useful discussions over the issues involved, on my talk p. and elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should dredge up the fact that being a fooist doesn't say anything about behaviour (for example, DGG and Cas are really nice chaps despite the fact I disagree with them sometimes) and being a barist doesn't automatically make you involved. That said, as much as Ikip irritates me, this block was more punitive rather than preventative. As rootology pointed out, he was dormant for two days prior. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, my heart is inclusionist and my head is deletionist, so I am always looking for processes that will help editors to create notable articles. As far as I can assess from my lurking, A Man In Black (talk · contribs) seems to have a mission at the "heart" level that's incompatible with modern views of adminship neutrality. His September 2005 RfA was very light touch compared with the ordeal by fire that today's candidates have to endure, and few of his 2005 supporters seem to be active nowadays. I would feel more comfortable if he went through RfA again, perhaps after a tranche of coaching from Casliber if he is willing. - Pointillist (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist might be on to something. Why not have admins go through the RfA process every couple years (kinda like an election for lack of a better term)...so the RfA isn't a one time only deal. I think that AMIB should go back through RfA and some coaching. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 27, 2009 @ 00:52

@Neutral, see

WP:RFAR is the place to go. Trying to push for outcomes that cannot happen here is a waste of time IMO. Oren0 (talk

) 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't force any admin to do a recall unless there is wide consensus to make recall mandatory for all admins. Good luck on that windwill...

T

) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What Oren0 (talk · contribs) says is technically correct. However, editors' acceptance of admin actions is to some extent voluntary, and for the time being A Man In Black (talk · contribs) is discredited. Bear in mind that current RfA processes ask a lot of searching questions about dispute criteria, neutrality, self-abnegation etc., none of which A Man In Black had to respond to in 2005, so a period of coaching followed by voluntary RfA would help restore his lost credibility. - Pointillist (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this what prompted your strange refactoring of an innocuous comment? Protonk (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, discredited is typically = desysopped, or confirmed bad socking, that sort of thing. I'm chalking this up to a momentary lapse and/or error, myself. Shit happens, we're human.

T

) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Shit Happens" I would normally agree with, but when "shit happens" over and over and over again and it only happens when it is people who disagree with AMIB, it isn't "shit happening" anymore and it is intentional....and something needs to be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 27, 2009 @ 01:49

Assume the presence of a belly-button. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack, regular resysopping would be a massive timesink. Arbcom is the place for review of misuse of admin tools, and I suggest this has been the most underutilised piece in teh admin jigsaw puzzle in recent years. And yes I would recuse from arbitrating on folks I have been in conflict with or semblance of conflict. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have not responded to Protonk's point earlier. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is that? There is no new standard of neutrality. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is that you and root both claim that some standard of neutrality exists which isn't written in INVOLVED. Are we appealing to the spirit of the rules, or an interpretation of the spirit that constrains admin action? Are we appealing to a policy that neither me nor AMiB are aware of? Or, as I suspect, do we have heterogeneous feelings about admin neutrality? Perhaps that heterogeneity makes it hard for us to match our 'feel' for what involvement constitutes and the policy as written. So what is it? Your response makes clear that there isn't a new standard of neutrality, so I should at least know what present policy gives us the inspiration for your interpretation. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, this, and Protonk's most recent response to you before that (above). Would you like me to reword it for you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to close this damn thing way back up there, way above the top edge of my monitor, way above my roof, somewhere in the clouds. I consider Ikip a friend who might sometimes need a little reminder. As to AMIB, okay, suppose he was involved, let's try this inclusionist/deletionist T-shirt on for size, and he saw what he believed was canvassing. What does he do? Remember, canvassing can warp an AfD. I happen to think we should allow canvassing, totally (though not spamming), and then actually follow preponderance of the arguments, with a closing admin perhaps getting a tad irritated at having to wade through useless me-too arguments, which would then naturally stop, but that's not the consensus at the moment. So, given the consensus, canvassing can waste a lot of time, as an AfD gets shut down for damage from canvassing and restarted, just saw that happen a few days ago. It's an emergency, must stop immediately. So he blocks, but, wait, he's involved. Does he unblock? No, he goes to AN and reports what he did, which is exactly what someone with an involvement seeing an emergency should do. He should have immediately disclosed a possible involvement, but, apparently, he didn't think of it that way. He should possibly have recused immediately from opposing unblock, and, in fact, as soon as I commented that he ought to do this, because of the appearance of involvement, if nothing else, he did. AMIB's behavior here was quite proper, and the only error was, I believe, in viewing neutral notices on article Talk pages to be canvassing. And admins get to make mistakes; hopefully, they learn from them. 'Nuff said; where this discussion has raised other issues, they should be sectioned as such and discussed as such, or moved to an appropriate page where some conclusion might be made, or we end up with the bane of Wikipedia discussions: endless rant mixed with useful comment that is wasted because it goes nowhere. None of this should be viewed as disagreement with the myriad opinions expressed above. --
  talk
  ) 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  This is to me an acceptable summary of what happened. I don't feel that I was involved in some larger meta-dispute with Ikip (I cannot see any personal gain I make by blocking him, and nobody was able to show one to me), but I brought it here in the interest of having greater input on my actions (which turned out to have been in error, due to changes in guidelines). As for recusal, where do I sign up for the "I know better than to wheel war guys, seriously" certification? I wouldn't reblock Ikip (or anyone, for that matter) without clear evidence of a compromised admin account or something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disagreement over narrow (acting to gain an advantage in a specific dispute) versus loose (disagreement on a broad topic or general antipathy) interpretation of
  WP:UNINVOLVED is not new. If I remember correctly, a narrow violation is actionable, while a loose one may receive a warning. Of course, editors are free to express their opinions in either case. Flatscan (talk
  ) 03:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have sat out of this argument for several days, in an effort to lessen the peity drama.

I have a definitive answer.

Arbitrators have continued to explain what an "Uninvolved admin" is:

"...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." [23]

Under this defintion, A Man In Black is a very involved editor. Although he did not participate in the AFD in question, he has been deeply involved in policy around deletion and Article Rescue Squadron, in which we have had several heated arguments.

A Man In Black continues to disengeniously claim that he is not involved with me. That is false, and I appreciate he retract this incredibly misleading statment. I can provide edit difference of all the arguments we have been involved in together, if necessary.

talk

) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say this is an

ex-parrot. You've not convinced members of ArbCom that your standards of 'uninvolved' are reasonable.[24] — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1) These "standards" ("...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict.") are not the Ikip's ones: they have been written and subscribed by arbitrators

2) You didn't quote "the arbcom", you just quoted an arbitrator who seems to be saying that the definition given by the arbocm to the term "uninvolved" is "insane".

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And obviously not everyone ascribes to Ikip's interpretation of that line. Ikip's way means any admin who has ever acted on a dispute is therefore involved, which includes anyone doing something as simple as blocking based on 3RR or closing a dispute discussion. Also, I never said "the ArbCom," I said "members of ArbCom" and provided an example. Somehow I knew someone would conflate that quote in just such a manner, but if I didn't quote anything I'd be chided for that too. Either way, this discussion isn't actually producing anything at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely posible that arbitrators think that "trivial" actions do not count as "partecipation" to the dispute, but you can't deduce this from the case you cited because there was nothing trivial in that case.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Notifications at related articles

I started a discussion at WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles. One may note that I used notifications that I posted as the example. Flatscan (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear all,

I have problem with article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darko_Trifunovic since it is clear violation of Wikipedia roles referring BLP and Vandalism. You can see history of the article and you can find that old article were move because of lies and nonsense. It looks like that again same individuals relating to Wikipedia are trying to repeat the same. So need help from someone.Darko 08:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

Reverting your addition of your resume isn't vandalism. All the material on the page is backed up by reliable sources. This is an editorial dispute between yourself and the other editors on the page. I see no need for administrator intervention. yandman 09:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

But since we're here, I see no OTRS # to confirm this identity in any case. Unless I'm missing something, we're working on blind faith? Franamax (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a particularly good biographical article - focusing as it does on the report controversy unbalances its coverage to the point where it verges on

conflict of interest policy) you could work with the other editors on the talk-page to create a fuller, more rounded article? EyeSerene^talk

09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a history of OTRS correspondence with the subject, so I feel it's relatively safe to assume the user making this report is also the subject, for what it's worth. Daniel (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the current state of the article I can understand the OP's concern, but other than a possible speedy (G10) I agree with Yandman that it's probably not a case for admin intervention. I've left a note on the article talk-page anyway (as a fellow editor); setting any other issues aside, it needs considerable expansion to get away from the coatrack impression. EyeSerene^talk 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>The article is not in anyway an attack page. I and several other editors have been working hard to clean up Mr. Trifunovic's concerns with the article and it's sourcing. Recently the article was stubbed and we are slowly building it back up with reliable sources. The problem here is that the subject's primary notability stems from his outspoken denial of the

. That said, the fact that a subject's biography is primarily composed of negative but sourced information is not a valid reason for deletion. Please note that this is about the 5th ANI thread started regarding this article:

• Attacks and potential BLP violation
• Edit warring and BLP issues on Darko Trifunovic
• Darko Trifunovc followup
• Darko Trifunovic
• Darko Trifunovic blanking & vandalism

// Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have my sympathies and admiration - those are some of the hardest articles to write ;) It might be worth considering a name change if sourced bio information can't be found, but I agree that as it stands the article is not a deletion candidate (I mentioned G10 as the only admin action I could remotely imagine might apply, not because I actually believe it qualifies for deletion). EyeSerene^talk 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr Trifunovic has also appealed directly to me on my talkpage with much the same complaints, and I pointed them toward

WP:Office to try to resolve any issues - from this thread it appears that either they did not pursue that option, or that they did but it failed to achieve the desired result. I think we have here a Srebrenica Genocide denial denier. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 20:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Trifunovic and User:Resistk who is in the US but works with Trifunovic have both been forum-shopping this very actively. See Chris' list above.

The fundamental problem is that this person is not happy with being well known for the thing they're well known for. However, there's not a lot we can do about that. Their activities raised a lot of attention, press, etc.

BLP stands as a standard level - we try not to embarrass people who are alive, and need to be careful with those articles. But we also don't as a policy whitewash negative information. He would like to not be famous (imfamous?). We can't change that. We can treat that in a way that's consistent with BLP and notability, etc. And the forum shopping has resulted in a fair number of admins working together to review the article, which is currently much smaller and more benign than it was. But we also need to not let the article subject sweep stuff under the rug.

There's been extensive disruption and some sockpuppeting in play on this. The repeated forum shopping (six times now, inclusive of this, on ANI - plus OTRS, plus monthly blowups on the article talk page for the last year plus) has been tolerated so far in the interests of trying to give the article subject as much space as they need to defend negative claims in the article. However, at some point, even the tolerance for that runs out. Uninvolved admins should perhaps consider the long term patterns.

If the account is blocked, we should probably transclude a section of their talk page in to the article talk page, to let them continue to comment there, but i'm not sure that the wider editing capability has been helpful here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very balanced response, and the situation is not something we can allow to go on indefinitely. I've blocked both Resistk and Trifunovic (for one and two weeks respectively) to give our good-faith editors a break from endlessly going round in circles on the talk-page. If the disruption continues when the blocks expire I'd support indef. If you want to transclude DT's talk-page I'll leave that up to you. Sanctions logged at

WP:ARBMAC; as always, review welcome. EyeSerene^talk

08:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Block request for Wgreaseball2

Take a look at his/her contribs. As far as I can see, it's a vandalism-only account whose user has been warned multiple times. C1k3 (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cannot edit own talk page now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Tariq Nayfeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -> the apparent puppetmaster
TariqNayfehMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
149.68.105.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DeLaughterDO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mtpisaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nuxaggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nuxxagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Prdentiol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vespearez251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Berquuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Quukreb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is a blocked sock allowed to delete the sockpuppet notice from his talk page? [25] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Per

Talk

05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Blanking; Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect). He's still blocked, so why can he remove the confirmed sockpuppetry notice (or edit at all, considering the nature of his block)? Matty (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent point. This guy keeps producing new socks, but doesn't post unblock requests, all he does is delete messages from his talk page. So it would seem appropriate to disable the various socks' abilities to edit their talk pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where the ignore part of

WP:RBI comes in. Kevin (talk

) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard to ignore when he creates new ones every day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored block notice; reblocked to revoke talkpage editing privs. We're done here for the moment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

58.174.107.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is changing the names of Notable Alumni and making other additions to Stuartholme_School. The first couple of times, there was clear vandalism, but now I'm not so sure - some of the names being added may be genuine but there is no way of checking. I'm not going to continue reverting to avoid being sucked into an edit war. Can someone else take a look please? C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter style vandalism has resumed, so I'm taking this to AIV next time it happens. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 07:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone block this stupid thing? This edit [26] was entirely counter-productive. Sure it removed the link to the deleted image on commons but spectacularly failed to notice there was a previous perfectly good image used before leaving the article with no image, and no redlink to the deleted image to alert a HUMAN editor to the problem so they could check the article history. The only reason it was picked up was I had visited the article recently and knew there was a perfectly good freely licensed image there at that point and went digging to see where it had gone.

This is a net NEGATIVE to the project - we shouldn't tolerate edits that degrade the encyclopedia from a bot account that doesn't conform to our naming conventions on bots, isn't mantained on the english wikipedia by anyone and requires running off to commons if there's a problem. Block immediately and permanently. Exxolon (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and disagree with the evaluation. The deleted image is in copyvio, so the bot is doing its job properly. --Caspian blue 00:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No it's NOT. It's making it harder to correct problems where a freely licensed image is replaced by a copyvio. That's then correctly deleted as one but this thing then deletes all references to the change to it so you end up with NO image and NO clue that there was ever one there. Exxolon (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's your thought and why don't you calm down? Bot is bot.--Caspian blue 00:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

An edit that fixes broken syntax is "entirely counter-productive"? The inability of a bot to detect the existence of a suitable alternative image is a "spectacular failure"? A broken page is a better notification of an image problem than an informative edit summary? Hesperian 01:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. Check [27] - this is the version of the page the bot left - no image, no indication there ever was any image, no clues, no nothing. The redlink is better left unremoved - this can alert a HUMAN editor to a problem, they can then check the history and fix the issue. Exxolon (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon, I can understand your frustration, but I don't think there's much alternative. I don't even want to think about writing a bot that would search the history of an article looking for the last time there was a valid image. At the same time, we can't very well have red link images scattered about. Get mad at the person who put the bad image on the article in the first place, and get mad that not enough people are watching the article and familiar enough with it to know that images are available. Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those above who find that this particular bot is doing nothing wrong. However, we have a bot that goes and "rescues" citations from previous versions of a page. How about either making a new bot, or adjusting this bot, to drop a note on the talk page if there was a commons or other still-available image removed from the page and reflected in its history, prior to the more recent copyvio removal? bd2412 T 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redlinks to files are never helpful, as files typically have either cryptic or highly specific names which don't help anything. I see this as a case where the system worked. The bot made an edit removing a bad image link. You, a watchful editor, added a good image in place of its absence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it the first few times people asked for OrphanBot and ImageRemovalBot to restore old images, and there are just too many cases where it's the wrong thing to do (say, an album cover used as the lead image of a biography, or a generic image name where the original has been replaced by something else). It's better to have no image than to have the bot accidentally insert the wrong image. --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: this bot also produces some broken syntax on en-wiki. Recent example: [28]. Gimmetrow 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to ask a template guy, but I think that syntax breaking is the fault of the template not failing gracefully when no image is present. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I was looking into it, and I think it may be a bug in ParserFunctions. There is simply no reason why that if clause should be invoked when the logo argument is blank. Hesperian 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the field contains the character U+200e, the left-to-right mark. Presumably it was inserted by someone's copy-paste when they inserted the image filename. The bot should be able to easily detect that the field after image removal consists only of that character and handle the situation, but to date the operator has not done so. Anomie⚔ 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Anomie is correct as to the cause of that specific bug. The bot operator was informed months ago. Gimmetrow 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah. Ok. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon, I can understand your frustration.... Not me; I have no idea what you're carrying on about. Judging by your edit summary in response to that bot edit, I'd say you need to go have a lie down.[29] Hesperian 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• The bot removes deleted images. Often, however, an image that gets deleted replaced another image, and the bot doesn't restore that other image. The effect of the bot, in many cases, is to hide the removal of good images from articles. I think that's what Exxolon is frustrated about. Gimmetrow 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this version after the bot edit is preferable to this version before. As a bot operator and member of the Bot Approvals Group, I do not believe that a bot can reliably determine whether an acceptable image was recently replaced with a version that was deleted from Commons. I'll go on record saying I'd approve this bot if it were up for approval today to do just what Exxolon is complaining about. On the other hand, the unrelated bug Gimmetrow mentions is legitimate, if relatively minor. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think the unrelated bug is legitimate. Templates should be able to handle empty parameters robustly. Strangely, both the implementation of this template and its documentation suggests that it can handle empty parameters. I think Gimmetrow may have found a ParserFunctions bug. Hesperian 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an empty parameter. There is an invisible unicode character (see above) in the field. Gimmetrow 01:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So to sum up, for those following along at home: Exxolon's original complaint (removing redlinks) is not valid. Gimmetrow's secondary complaint (failing to remove invisible characters when removing images) is valid. It's a subtle bug, and no one holds it against the bot-op that he didn't catch it. However, he's been unresponsive in fixing it once it was brought to his attention, and that's a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

...and per BD2412's comment, someone may want to

request a bot that would attempt to rescue good images that were replaced by bad images. Wknight94 ^talk

02:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't this bot just leave a note on the article talk page to mention what it did? And, preferably, why the image was deleted? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• It could leave a note, I guess. Ask the bot operator on his talk page if he is willing to write and get approval for that change. As for why the image was deleted, who knows? It was commons, so I guess the history there would show a deletion decision or discussion. Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a Bad Idea to have this account flagged as a bot. I agree that its work is generally necessary and improves the immediate appearance of articles, but it would be beneficial if we could actually see easily what it's doing and when it needs to be 'followed-up' on. This would address the legitimate complaint that it can constitute a subtle removal of images. Happy‑melon 09:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have strong objections to me archiving this section? Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you do so, would you run an ad for m:Free Image Search Tool and WikiProject Check Wikipedia's Template with Unicode control characters report? -- User:Docu 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have contacted the bot operator at Commons:User talk:Siebrand#CommonsDelinker problems on the English Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk)

• This matter is why we have Village pump. Archiving is better to save everyone's time.--Caspian blue 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum, for those following along at home: the bug has apparently been fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been receiving hate mails from IP editors regarding my contributions on showbiz-related articles; they're in Tagalog, but the usage of English and Tagalog profanities stuck me, as well as sexual and homosexual remarks against me and User:NrDg. The IPs in question are 121.97.203.166 and 210.4.58.35. His mention of Nrdg and me alludes to User:Gerald Gonzalez, a banned user. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. EyeSerene^talk 12:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Eye of the Lion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User's primary purpose seems to be attacking other editors. He also vandalized the AIV page, deleting this posting before an admin could evaluate it. I put it back there. Posting it here also, for whoever sees it first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing, but if anyone thinks that this is too harsh and sees signs of a potential productive editor emerging, feel free to reduce or remove the block.

Bencherlite^Talk

23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Given his comments post-block, I entirely agree. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the user who was the subject of Lion's attacks, I hardly ever get threats of violence. Maybe my crocodile farm is the deterrent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I could threaten you with a lead pipe if you like. Or would you consider that patronizing? HalfShadow 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead pipe with Miss Scarlett in the secret staircase. Who says I'm Clueless? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Get offa my lawn, y'damned kid! *shakes pipe menacingly* HalfShadow 16:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not half as scary as Herbert from Family Guy running across your lawn ... (

BWilkins ←track

) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

TruthIIPower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user, whose first edit was a month ago, appears to be on a crusade of some kind, specifically to take ownership of abortion-related articles to remove any hint of what he considers to be "bias". That in itself may not be a bad thing, but his constant insults leveled at anyone he disagrees with are getting a tad irritating. It's also been implied that he's a sock [30] but no one has investigated that so far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I should probably mention that this dishonest and insulting summary comes from a guy who's been adding bias to abortion articles so that they support his personal views. I've been working to keep articles in compliance with the neutrality requirement. If that's an "incident", then I'm glad to be guilty. As for incivility, I freely admit that I have been subject to plenty of it. Wouldn't it be great if you came into this with clean hands? TruthIIPower (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not actually made any edits to the article in question (Religion and abortion), and if I've ever edited another abortion article, it must have been a long time ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See also

WP:WQA#TruthIIPower 2. Looie496 (talk

) 04:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Washes hands extra long to make sure they're clean and free of infectious diseases. Was just reading those wikiquette alerts. It's not a good sign when two different WQAs get filed within an editor's first month, and to see this diff[31] after the second WQA had been open for three days is an indication that TruthIIPower isn't catching on. Nor is it edifying to read TruthIIPower's presupposition regarding third party responses to this thread:

To be frank, only if they're stupid and hasty. If they actually read carefully and think about what they're reading, it should be obvious that any apparent aggression on my part is a response to blatant abuse. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[32]

Well what I happen to see at

05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the link. It is, oddly enough, entirely accurate to call it ritual cannibalism. According to Catholicism, they are in some way eating the flesh of Jesus. If it is a breach of civility to state this fact, I suggest you ban me forever. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and courtesy are separate concepts. I devoured portions of a dead animal corpse this evening for dinner, but polite society prefers to call it steak. ;) Durova^Charge! 06:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were to bring up this ritual cannibalism thing for no good reason, then perhaps it would be out of place and therefore discourteous. However, I brought it up when it was entirely relevant, since the issue at hand was whether we can call a wafer a wafer. I'm sorry, but there's just no incivility in that quote, no matter how deeply you search for it. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Saying that

) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you google "transubstantiation cannibalism", you get 12,000 links. Among those links would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation, which brings up the topic and does not dismiss it as absurd. Clearly, this is not original research on my part, and if it's so horribly offensive then perhaps you need to immediately censor Transubstantiation. I repeat; there is no incivity in the statement I made. I know I'm supposed to admit to my sins and act contrite so you can forgive me and leave me alone, but I have an unhealthy amount of integrity, so this is not an option. 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthIIPower (talk • contribs)

Hmm, and do you see anything odd about the context of these conflicts? TruthIIPower (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all do. Dayewalker (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop a hint with a leading question: How do I treat people who treat me reasonably? How do I treat people who outright insult me? How do you account for the difference? Partial credit given, but only if you show your work. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you expect others to welcome your presence and relish the opportunity of collaborating with you, you might do well to make the prospect seem more inviting. I see and appreciate the fact you've made a number of good edits, but I also encourage you to bear in mind that at its core, Wikipedia is and will always be a cooperative endeavor. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Luna Santin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before you take the 'Universe vs me' stance, try to think if your own behaviour is not the root to this 'insult' problem you mention. To me (as an independent observer who has had nothing to do with editing the related articles or even in this discussion so far) it seems as if you are taking every comment addressed to you as an 'insult' and then respond aggressively. You have acted in this manner to even Durova, who has just tried to make things clear. Making sarcastic and heated comments is not going to help you and will not make anyone turn to your views. Chamal ^talk 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a topic ban to the user, which was rejected. No comment yet on the rest of this thread. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This should be no surprise. It was a highly unreasonable offer. If you want to fix things, fix things. I suggest you start by restoring neutrality on Religion and abortion, then permanently blocking Schrandit. Anything else is just playing games. TruthIIPower (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How about I propose a topic ban of the user? If he wants to play

) 08:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That proposal has been rejected, so you'd be wasting your time. I will not accept a topic ban. You can kill me but you can't silence me. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes we can. 1 month for the second paragraph in this edit. yandman 09:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not really. I keep a link to the good and gentle folk at WR on my userpage to remind me that there is always a place less useful than AN/I. No real harm in mentioning it on his user talk page in itself. Protonk (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He was alluding to simply enacting a topic ban without your consent, rather than asking you to abide by one. Protonk (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Amidst all the brouhaha, TP created this little article: [34] I wonder what that was about? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's evidence that a topicban wouldn't completely stop him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The indef-block should slow him down, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanction proposals - Probation

Even through a block,

)) seems to repeatedly demonstrate that little will change. I propose the following sanctions be enacted by the community:

1) Spotfixer is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:TruthIIPower/Community_sanction.

2) Spotfixer is limited to one revert per week per page. This includes page moves.

3) Spotfixer is limited to editing with a single account.

4) Spotfixer is banned from editing Wikipedia.

NOTE: Editors under probation are expected to be especially mindful of both content policies including (but not limited to)

) 11:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified

• Support All. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 3. His editing at
  User:Yandman's one-month block. Close and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk
  ) 11:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to revert the ban if there is consensus to give him another chance (and if he agrees to the conditions). I'm not involved in the editorial dispute, I just didn't like what I saw coming out of his keyboard. yandman 11:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is just as a measure of what he is restricted to, if and when he returns to editing. The status of the block will not change, unless #4 passes whereby its duration will be extended or made indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we add 5) TruthIIPower will ensure all edits, edit summaries, discussions and interactions with Wikipedia editors follow

WP:CIVIL, or else he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:TruthIIPower/Community_sanction

.

(yes, the above could be lumped into "disruption", but incivility was the genesis of the original 2 WQA events, so I believe it needs separate mention) (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very much covered; editors under probation are expected to be especially mindful of both content policies including BLP & NPOV, and interaction policies including CIVIL, NPA, 3RR, EDITWAR and POINT. I'm reluctant to codify this because then there'd be wikilawyering over previous probations not specifying this exhaustive list - but nevertheless, it's in the note section now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:TURNIP

Let's cut to the chase: Spotfixer gained a month's good faith by starting a new account that concealed a substantial block log. Per

18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had

WP:TURNIP, but it seems like a good idea. This shows us Spotfixer isn't interested in getting along with anyone else. Sadly, even people who may agree with him can't support him. Dayewalker (talk

) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true (though I too didn't know it existed as

WP:TURNIP). Ncmvocalist (talk

) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Guess it's a moot point, as Protonk just indeffed Spotfixer. Subtract the drama. Dayewalker (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; that saves us a lot of time - only time I think we would need to bother reviewing is during unblock request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Turnip article helps get to the root of the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as sockpuppet

Luna Santin has confirmed that

) 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit kept referring to TP as "Spot", so he had him pegged fairly quickly. Seems like he could have helped shorten this process by raising suspicions more directly, although maybe he did behind the scenes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My praise goes out to everyone who noticed that. I must confess I am a coward here, I feared that TP would be able to slip away by claiming to be a legitimate seccond account and so I failed to press the matter. My hat is off to Luna Santin,outstanding work sir! - Schrandit (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's indeed better to err on the side of caution when calling someone a sock. But you can always send an e-mail to a trusted admin, privately expressing your concerns. Keep that in mind in case you "spot" another potential sock. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)In regards to Ncm's question, if Spotfixer is not permanently banned (currently only for a month), is it time to discuss the topic ban we were debating above for T2P now applying to the sockmaster account? Or should we wait until after he returns from his block? Dayewalker (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...good point. I assumed the sockmaster was indeffed. As that's not the case, I think we can just continue from where we left off; might as well impose them (if any) while we're here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a deal could be arranged. Let him come back, if he promises to inform WorldNutzDaily that wikipedia is now infested with conservatives. Then maybe they'll leave us alone. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just indeffed the master. No reason to put up with this nonsense again in a month. I'll contact the blocking admin immediately to let him know I modified his block. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think he will mind. But for clarity, endorse extension per Protonk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse block on sockmaster. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse indef on sockmaster. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Indef was done. Good block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, user showed that they were not willing to change, especially when they tried to sock in order to avoid scrutiny(spelling?(this comp doesn't have spell check as you type, but my new one will)).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • We have a checkuser here. What we need is a spellcheckuser. Socks can avoid scrutiny only if they stay away from the "scene of the crime", otherwise they might as well be wearing an "I'm a sock!" tattoo on their foreheads. My socks, for example, are only in knitting, darning, and shoes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I keep a drama sock in the drawer, but he's distinctly apolitical. Other than being somewhat of a royalist out of self-interest. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I had a mischief sock, buuutttt I forgot the password. :) Protonk (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This "user" is not an individual; the IP address belongs to a public school (specifically, John S. Park Elementary School in Las Vegas NV). I have visited this school on prior occasions, in the course of my job. While I bear no personal grudges or ill will toward anyone at the school, I can say from both personal experience and every update I've seen on the relevant talk page that vandalism and non-constructive edits are all we are ever likely to get, from this "account". The vandals (elementary-school children) will never read or heed the warnings, short-term blocks have made (and will continue to make) no difference, and I doubt the school itself will take any action with or through Wikipedia, to stop the vandalism from continuing... if they are even aware it has happened. I know other school IPs in the area have been permanently blocked for ongoing vandalism. Perhaps this should be the next one? Zephyrad (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually we don't block IP addresses permanently. Although we do block them for a while. Once in a blue moon when long blocks have happened, I contact the IT department and ask whether the school administration is aware of the problem. Most of the time they are not aware, and are quite cooperative. Due to various reasons (access time, vandalism type) it may be possible for the faculty and administration to identify the particular individuals involved. It's none of our business as Wikipedians who the children's identities are, of course, but that does open the possibility of a win-win situation.

You see, school pupils often vandalize Wikipedia from libraries. Libraries are filled with books. Rather than punish the entire student body by cutting off Wikipedia access to everyone, the individuals who caused the problem can be tasked with improving an article under teacher supervision. Those children learn valuable research and citation skills while the school solves its problem, and Wikipedia (along with the public) benefits. ;) Durova^Charge! 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to tell me about school pupils and things they do; you're preaching to the choir there. ;-) I'm pretty sure any such student who'd be likely to contribute positively probably already has their own account, or could easily request that one be set up on their behalf. (And doesn't a temporary block "punish the entire student body", to use that same logic?)

I doubt it will be possible to track down the individuals in question (in this school district, the staff is usually busy beyond busy, and probably would not be interested in tracking them down, much less making such an "assignment"), but you're certainly welcome to try contacting the school's IT department, and I'd encourage you to do so. I'm mostly tired of seeing the ongoing vandalism and unheeded warnings. (I will refrain from making personal remarks, regarding what I've seen of the students there. I don't think WP:OR would apply, but all the same.) Zephyrad (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Zephyrad is right. The IP has a pattern of long-term vandalism and few (if any) constructive edits. It's also had a recent six-month block and seems static, so I've soft-blocked for a year. EyeSerene^talk 09:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure which school is meant here? Or is it a charter school?[35] Durova^Charge! 14:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me Durova :P The whois link resolves to "Edison Schools, NY", while the IP talk-page (User talk:12.32.94.66) says "John S. Park Elementary School, Las Vegas NV" - is that what you're pointing out? The talk-page label may be wrong, but there's a long history of vandalism from the IP regardless so I don't feel a long-term block is unjustified. If I've mucked up though please feel free to send trouts my way, and I'll do what I can to fix it. EyeSerene^talk 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No objection to a long term block based upon the vandalism history. It seems no one wants to contact the school administration (which is actually quite easy with school IPs). That can work out well in the long run, but we don't always have the volunteer staff to attempt it. Mainly intended to mention that it's a viable option. Durova^Charge! 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. I hate to confirm your suspicion, but I don't have the time (or incliniation if I'm honest) to do it myself at the moment. I drop in here from time to time as a change-of-pace from copyediting; I find a change of scenery helps while I'm chewing things over ;) I will bear it in mind in future though. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor say "stupid dog" on my user talk page. You may check this out on User talk:Antonytse#Template in Kedah FA. --Antonytse (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave the IP a 4im personal attack warning. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tlmader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the this edit[36]. Probably just simple vandalism, but I thought I'd bring it here to see if anyone thought something should be done (besides a block).--Cube lurker (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Account blocked indefinitely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PAGEADDER keeps adding dumb pages like this[37], and still hasn't learned his lesson, he might need a short-term block —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGuy666 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted his gabba gabba page, warned PAGEADDER. Syrthiss (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if user persists, then take to

WP:AIV. MuZemike

18:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

) 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for the edit warring and personal attacks I made initially, and was blocked for 2 days to think about it - which I did. During those 2 days, I apologized to everyone numerous times, and pledged to work within the system to resolve issues in a civil manner. During those 2 days I began reading the policies and procedures on how to properly overcome disputes. It is my genuine and honest desire to bring resolution to some issues which seem very ambigious, I am genuinely asking for help in these regards.

I am asking in good faith and with genuine honesty:

1. What is the proper way to seek resolution or help over the problem of Dougweller editing, deleting and modifying my discussion posts, which I believe are preventing a civil and neutral discussion of some very sensitive, taboo and controversial subjects?

2. Can someone please help me get accurate understanding of the rules and regulations on linking to hate sites from a hate article? I understand Holocaust Denial is a very sensitive subject, so please tell me how to properly, get resolution over someone deleting a reference link to the Leuchter Report, from the Leuchter Report article.

3. What does this mean, Wikipedia is not a collection of links? Whenever I post some external links in a hate article about the very hate article, I had WilliamH delete the links saying Wikipedia is not a hate collection of links.

4. What is a SPA?

I am asking in good faith, honesty and with genuine purpose for help in these regards. I do not want to fight, I make no personal attacks, I am criticizing certain behaviors that I believe are making open debate difficult in the discussion area. I know this articles are very sensitive subjects, i'm seeking how to work within the system for resolution, which is why I went to these various places asking for help.

Please help me or tell me, how I can reword my language or questions, so they are not adversarial or causing problems.

I apologize for anyones feelings I hurt, in anything I said. I am genuinely want to be a productive member of wikipedia.

Sincerely, Markacohen (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An SPA is a single-purpose account. The accusation is that you're here to make some sort of point or prove some sort of truth. (I haven't gotten involved in this to know what's going on, just clarifying the terms.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping me out here. I genuinely would like to be here for the long run, not just on controversial areas. I have been reading Wikipedia for more years than I can count (love it to death!), and to be part of this project is an honor and a privilege for me. My interest isn't only in Holocaust Denial / Genocide Denial, I have many other interests as well. Although, right now I have gotten into some heated discussion regarding the Holocaust Denial areas and seeking resolution. If the Administrators want, I will voluntarily resign from Wikipedia or simply no longer contribute to areas concerning taboo or controversial subjects. It would make me sad beyond belief if I was banned and banished from Wikipedia. I am humbly asking to please not kick me out of this community, I genuinely believe I can be a valuable asset here once I learn the rules for resolving issues.

Sincerely, Markacohen (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You've accused me today of stopping links to the Leuchter report without mentioning that I was one of 4 editors reverting you, or that there has been a link to it (albeit not to the hate sites you are trying to add) since the 23rd. You've tried to add similar links to Germar Rudolf and complained on the talk page about me and another editor, despite the fact that your rationale is that people need to read what he wrote, and we already link to what he wrote. So all your links would do is add links to hate sites. You say you want to "make sure the proper and accurate keyword(s) Pseudo Science or Pseudo History" but you seem to do nothing about that. Your links are all to hate sites, it is other people who (since you started this) have added links to debunking sites. You get reverted by 4 other editors and won't accept that there is a consensus against you but go around complaing and asking for someone to help, although during your block you were given the link to dispute resolution.

Full disclosure - Markacohen has complained about me at Witiquette Alert [38] because when after being reverted he added the links to the talk page and I removed the 'http://' bits. Everyone involved knew what the links were.

talk

) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just do this like a week ago? //roux   16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Stephan Schulz may be on to something here, but I'll continue to

WP:RS and for other reasons, we are extremely reluctant to include external links to extremist and similarly problematic websites, except where the sites themselves are the subject of the article. Each such link (like any other article text) needs editorial consensus, and the links you want to insert currently have not. You will be taken much more seriously in any discussion about this issue if you dedicate a few months to making useful contributions to entirely uncontroversial subjects, in order to demonstrate that you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia and not a throwaway account with some disruptive agenda.  Sandstein  16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (Note: the preceding comment was added in parallel to those of Dougweller and Roux above, but for some reason there was no edit conflict.  Sandstein 

16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

I'd strongly recommend not to assume good faith anymore. What makes me think that "Mark A Cohen" (why would someone "mark a cohen", actually?) is at best a kind of agent provocateur is his claim Leuchter is an "engineer" ([39]), a claim that has been debunked several times in court and elsewhere and is held up only by fellow Holocaust deniers ([40]). Cheers, --RCS (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been at

WP:EAR for the past few days too. --AndrewHowse (talk

) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI I closed the thread at

talk

) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this discussion closed here? or are we still able to discuss things? After watching Mr. Death on google video, there is no doubt in my mind Fred Leuchter is an engineer. You don't have to have a degree in engineering to be an engineer, it is possible to become an engineer through real life experience. I personally abhor Fred Leuchter. I abhor the message of the Leuchter Report. Just because someone is a Holocaust Denier, it does not make them not an engineer. Fred Leuchter being a bad man doesn't take away the fact he is a skilled engineer in execution technology. Please stop with the personal attacks calling me Agent Provocateur and other insulting personal attacks.

Please stop with the personal attacks and stop trying to change the subject about the lack of substance and merit in your arguments. Can we please consolidate this discussion in one area? so I do not have to go all over the place to follow up?

Markacohen (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The diff brought forward by Stephan Schulz and the inclination to refer to Leuchter as an engineer when he isn't one in this context, even by his own written admission lead me to believe that we are not dealing with a good faith contributor. Furthermore, I have not reverted any of Mark Cohen's links on the basis that they are hate sites, but on the basis that Mark keeps adding them so that the reader can "come to their own opinion" - about a matter which is not a matter of opinion.

This is a flagrant violation of

WP:FRINGE, and a completely nonsensical position if Mark opposes Holocaust denial as he says he does - yet another reason why I'm inclined to believe that User:Markacohen is a SPA/Holocaust denier trying to proliferate Holocaust denial material. I would endorse an indefinite block. WilliamH (talk

) 13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi WilliamH,

The whole basis of me linking to the Leuchter Report, from the

Leuchter Report

articles is because if you are going to properly write an article about the Leuchter Report you should link to the original source. I did so on this basis:

Extremist and fringe sources Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

I am more than happy to have all those hate documents put on www.Archive.org so that we do not promote all those hate sites, which if this would be the best solution to stop the revert wars and the personal attacks against me. I would rather promote neutral sites, then hate sites. However, if there are no Neutral web sites I think it is reasonable under the guidelines I posted above to link to a hate site from an article about that same very hate. I would infinitely prefer we link to a neutral site than a hate site.

What do we do in situations where, there isn't a neutral site to link to, but only a hate site? Even though its legitimate to link to hate sites if the article is about hate, I don't want to upset you, RCS, DougWeller, jpgordon and anyone else who I consider to be on the Light side of the force if you know what I mean.

WilliamH, I want to work with you, not be adversaries. I don't think you realize we are on the same team, we both hate Holocaust Deniers, Haters, Extremists and Racists. However, i think we should put our sensitive and personal feelings aside and work towards making wikipedia neutral and keep our own political biases out of it. Can we burry the hatchet and work together to make Wikipedia an even better place? I forgive you for and anyone else that made personal attacks against me, even if they are sometimes couched.

Lets please try to work together and not fight.

Markacohen (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• More evidence to suggest that we are not dealing with a good faith contributor. WilliamH (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks.

We finally came to consensus on

and found a way to link to the specific and relevant reference without linking to a hate site. You should be happy we came to Consensus, not turn this into an opportunity to make personal attacks. I am a good faith contributor, I worked within the system and we achieved consensus. Today is a great day!

Markacohen (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but will you PLEASE stop making flat out wrong claims? We did not "finally find a way" - the link has been in the article for 4 days, and this has been pointed out to you over and over again. It's just that you suffer from an incredible case of

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I say leave the man alone, I don't agree with that Link being in place on the Leucther Report article but well they want it there and I don't really think that all of them are Neo-Nazis so fine they can have their link and this guy Markachoen isn't doing anything worse than anyone else around.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I always think it's considerate when sockpuppets report themselves at ANI and save us the trouble... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with William–some things do not add up here, and with the sockpuppetry above, I'd support a block. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What's a sock puppet or sock puppetry? Markacohen (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See

WP:SOCK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

someone on my personal page posted I am a sock puppet, im getting tired of the slander and personal attacks against me. What do I need to do to stop the personal attacks against me? And stop the abuse and slanderous finger pointing at me? Markacohen (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, being labelled a "sock" or "sockpuppet" is only a violation of

BWilkins ←track

) 11:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind as to elaborate on what SSI/SSP request to back it up. "SSI or STFU" means, how the process works, and how long she has to file this report before it becomes a personal attack?

Markacohen (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note that User:194x144x90x118 has already been blocked as a sockpuppet on the basis of the account's behaviour in relation to Markacohen's. WilliamH (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain how the user name User:194x144x90x118 is associated with me? I'd really like an explanation to this false accusation. I have a right to know why and what proof my name is being slandered as a sock puppet. I'm really getting tired of these personal insults. Personal attacks: I've been called Agent Provocateur (RCS), SPA (RCS), Posing as a Jew (RCS), Sock Puppet (FisherQueen), and many other insults couched or overt. I would like this uncivilized behavior to stop.

Markacohen (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered you may have actually blocked a real person? Not a poser or someone trying to pretend to be me or sock puppetting? You're meritless and substanceless and proofless accusation towards the oddly named user may have resulted in banning a legitimate person. Banning a legitimate person who committed no crimes is in my opinion a serious abuse of privilege and people IMHO who abuse their high privileges do not deserve them IMHO. IMHO, we expect the people who are given power in position of authority not to make rash thoughtless and careless decisions. Does this make sense? In other words, where is your proof this guy was sock puppetting? Inquiring minds want to know.

Markacohen (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a

checkuser would care to comment? WilliamH (talk

) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reporting as requested. ;-)

Having looked into this, I have not seen any IP evidence that would support Markacohen and 194x144x90x118 being the same person.

James F. (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that James. I wouldn't call 194x144x90x118's behaviour disruptive, although certainly suspicious. WilliamH (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys break down some of these Wikipedia acronyms, slang words and technical terms into laypersons terms? Can someone please explain what IP evidence means? Can someone please explain what hard evidence or facts are being used as the basis for slandering my name and defiling my personal page?

"Suspicious" and "Disruptive"? or more false accusations without substance against other innocent people? That is the question!

I looked at the less than a dozen or so edits / comments this guy made in total. I did not see anything disruptive or suspicious per say by user User: 194x144x90x118 other than it is clear from his comments / contributions this guy is a newbie like me. I did see him debating or commenting in the controversial and taboo articles discussion areas. Are these words "Suspicious" and "Disruptive" meant to be "conspiratorial" political code words for people who don't agree with the sort of emerging group of politically aligned cohorts? Can people have alternative opinions without being labeled with keywords which result in their termination? I humbly ask these question because I can't see anything disruptive or suspicious this user did, the only thing suspicious and disruptive I see is permanently banning this user without any basis of fact, evidence, substance or merit. The only "suspicious" and "disruptive" behavior I see is the defiling of my personal page with Sock Puppet scarlet letters and the slander and personal insults against my name.

I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall, but what I see is a green newbie being terminated because of a "hunch", "suspicion" or "feeling". These actions are a blatant misuse and abuse of power, which is in and of itself suspicious and disruptive behavior if you ask anyone with a sense of fairness and neutrality. Completely unacceptable and abusive behavior against another newbie.

Now, back to the new issue at hand, can I please have the debasing, personally insulting and defiling of my personal page with sock puppet banners removed? As well as an apology for accusing me of being a sock puppet as a "feeling" accusation and slander without merit and substance!

I didn't come here to endlessly War against some kind of entrenched political and emotional sort of sowing circle for a lack of a better word! My G*D is this the pledging process in Wikipedia ? I came here with the genuine purpose of learning how the policies, procedures and rules of wikipedia work and hopefully someday become a learned elder who has made valuable contributions to the content of wikipeda. I make no personal attacks towards anyone in particular, my criticism is towards the disruptive, uncivilized and unproductive behavior directed towards me.

I am humbly asking nicely and politely for the personal insults directed at my account to please be removed and for this drama against me to stop. I hope you would consider my humble request for the personal insults whether couched or direct which have been directed at me to stop. I genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia and work in consensus towards making the controversial and taboo articles more neutral.

Friendliest and humblest of all possible regards

Markacohen (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark, you are free to delete anything you want from your user and talk pages with a couple of exceptions, there's no problem with that. Read this:

Wikipedia:User page

) 05:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear DougWeller,

With veneration and humblest regards, I do have a concern, in the hopes of not instigating any more drama against me.

The problem I'm concerned with is that User:FisherQueen is an admin. Even if User:FisherQueen did potentially abuse her power with baseless accusations and slander, I don't want to get punished for deleting her libel against me on my personal page. Can you assure me I won't be banned for removing the empty and false accusation made by an administrator on my page? I seriously, don't want any more problems and I don't want to agitate any more of her admin or editor friends to harass me. I'm already dealing with a sort of sowing circle for a lack of a better word which hounds me and follows me around looking for every opportunity to insult me. Can you pretty please guarantee I won't be punished for removing the personal attack, factless, substanceless, baseless, libelous, slanderous banner from my personal page? I don't mean to be overly cautious here, but I really would like all this harassment against me to stop and I do not want to give any more excuses to be harassed.

Please assure me! I genuinely would like this war against me to stop, so we can get on with our lives and focus on making the content on Wikipedia more neutral with less emotional feelings and politics.

Thank you for all your help.

Seriously, I look forward to learning and growing my knowledge of wikipedia and I thank all the patient souls out there who genuinely care enough to help a newbie like me become more acquainted with the policies and procedures.

To the editors and admins above, who argued for neutrality on my behalf, I commend you to the highest and bow in respect to your determination and dedication to excellence.

Markacohen (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I echo what Doug says above - you may do as you please (
  within reason) to pages in your userspace. However, be mindful that removing warnings from your talk page is taken as indication that you have acknowledged them. WilliamH (talk
  ) 11:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fisherqueen was in error and has unblocked the account and apologised to both that editor and Markacohen. I now ask MarkaCohen to do what he should have done (see again

WP:AGF

) and apologise for the language used in attacking Fisherqueen.

I will here apologize to everyone.

Markacohen (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone go through this anon IP user's list of edits and tell me if they see the same kind of disruptive bias I think I see? Additional feedback is welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. Hope this feedback is okay. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This alone is uncivil enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth going through Category:Black supremacy and ensure there aren't any BLPs that don't clearly belong in there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the same user just came back at it, but under a different IP: 198.200.181.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Additional eyes may be needed.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[41]

It is a systematic practice by this user.189.27.37.46 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He didn't even call it vandalism. Hardly a matter for administrators. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 12:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the edit summary again, Opinoso called it vandalism. Seems to be a good faith edit. Is it? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on the interpretation of the source, but it appears to be good faith. I've dealt with Opinoso before, and concur with the reporting IP that Opinoso frequently labels edits he disagrees with "vandalism", such as this recent example. That said, Opinoso does revert a lot of vandalism, and appears to me to be a good faith editor himself.—Kww(talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit seems uncontroversial and supported by the source, a newspaper article which looks at least fairly reliable, so I take it as at least made in good faith. I've told Opinoso about this thread and asked him to review the meaning of vandalism on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I saw "Undid" at the start and skipped over that assuming it would just be the standard message given by using the "Undo" function. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He does revert a lot of vandalism. He also does revert anything that does not fit his extremely biased views[42], often calling it vandalism, even when the good faith is evident. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this user Ninguém was blocked several times last months for disruptions in different articles of Wikipedia. He pretended to be leaving Wikipedia, and he even claimed he "did not want to be associated to Wikipedia in any way".[43] [44]

Check his contributions page. He reverted all his edits at Wikipedia, pretending to be leaving. But sometimes he appears here, usually creating more useless discussions on article's talk pages or trying to get some attention on administrator's pages, creating discussion against me.

I don't know why an user who reverted all his edits and said he was leaving is still using Wikipedia's pages for personal attacks. If I were an administrator, I'd block him.

Now he's back, probably using this IP number as a sockpoppet for personal attacks. He uses talk pages of articles as if they were Foruns, selling his personal theories and attacking other users. He has some kind of obssession with Portuguese people, and most of his edits are used to "proove" most Brazilians are of direct Portuguese ancestry. That's because he claims to be of "colonial Portuguese ancestry" himself. Take a look at talk page of article

. His past constributions were enterely dedicated to proove that almost all "white" Brazilians are of "colonial Portuguese" ancestry (because Ninguém himself claimed to be) and that other ethnic groups, such as post-colonial Portuguese, Italians or Germans are a "minority". He's far from being neutral.

He used the page to sell his personal theories, even using tables to show them. I already told him many times this is not the place for that type of discussion, but he keeps with them. I did not call that edit "vandalism" with no reasons. Just check his block logs, he was blocked several times last months, for the same reasons.

I'd like somebody to check this IP number here and confirm that's another Ninguém's sockpoppet. Opinoso (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No need for that. Everybody knows that this IP is mine. I don't need to hide behind anonimity. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, "take a look at [the] talk page of [article]

White Brazilian

" is probably a good idea - provided that the people "taking" that "look" make a real effort to understand the issues there.

As it is, Opinoso and me edit-warred because he supported a completely biased view that the majority of Brazilian Whites descend from immigrants coming here during the "Great Immigration"[45], while I support the mainstream position of demographers - that most White Brazilians descend from the white colonial population[46]. Lately he discovered that he is wrong, and changed the content of the article to admit the truth - that most Brazilian Whites are of colonial descent[47] - but, evidently, doesn't want anyone to know that his former edit war against me was entirely dictated by ignorance and arrogance.

Back to the topic, can some other editor please reinstate the edit, and warn Opinoso not revert good faith edits as vandalism? 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting discussion on Talk Page

[48]

User Opinoso deletes relevant discussion from the Talk Page, because it shows that he has actually no solid knowledge on the subject. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Forum, neither a place for you to sell your personal theories. Moreover, you uses it as a place for personal attacks. If you want to discuss ethnic issues, you should find a Forum, and not Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a back-and-forth that has been going at

White Brazilian and other articles for months now. The IP, who may be a sock, is trying to push a claim that has been rejected by consensus. Opinoso labels it vandalism because it has been inserted and removed well over a dozen times by now. Looie496 (talk

) 15:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages are for discussing the article issues. You cannot remove other people comments there in this way.

The edit evidently has nothing to do with the former edit war. It is Opinoso asserting his ownership over the article. If he doesn't like the edit, or if he doesn't like the editor, he removes the content, regardless of if it is valid or not. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's it Looie496. This subject was already discussed several times, and Ninguém was blocked several times too. All he's trying to do is to revive that discussion once again and to create disruptions. I won't discuss this subject anymore with him and his sockpopets anymore. I'm leaving this problem with the administratoes. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Opinoso. That is not Looie. I am referring to you, Opinoso, removing edits by me from the article, exclusively because they are made by me, even if they are sourced, correct, and in good faith, and calling them vandalism on the top, to further slander me. Go back and reinstate the edit. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First things first, is there any reason you can't log in and edit as User:Ninguém? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Is this an issue? It's not like I'm pretending not to be me. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Logging as an IP tells us where you are. Is that to your advantage? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't making controversial edits, it wouldn't be a worry if you made those edits without logging in. However, there is a claim your edits are controversial and you've been blocked in the past for edit worrying so, yes, some editors may see this as an issue. Is there any reason you can't or don't want to edit as User:Ninguém? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with that. I am in Brasília, my IP is 200.198.196.129. Do you want my personal address, my job address, my CPF?

I am a real person, not a webpersona. I have no interest in hiding, pretending to be other person, etc.

And I do want to discuss this: why is a guy with no particular knowledge about either Brazil or demography, and who clearly uses anonimity - "Opinoso" is not the name of a person - entitled to decide who can and who cannot edit articles on Brazilian demography, supporting fringe views and slandering anyone who disagrees with him? Ninguém (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for logging in. Anonymous editing behind a username is very much allowed here. I suggest you take this dispute to the article talk page(s) and build consensus for your edits there. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So my edits are controversial? They are quite mainstream. Which is by the way proved by the evolution of the article: it used to imply that most White Brazilians descend from immigrants coming during the Great Immigration; now it states the opposite: that most White Brazilians are of colonial origin.

I have been reverted and called a vandal for stating things like,

- the Dutch conquered parts of Brazil (instead of settling there pacifically, as implied in the article; - the Portuguese committed genocide against Native Brazilians; - that Judaism isn't the third most important religions among White Brazilians (which, to the great shame of Wikipedia, the article still maintains); - there are not many people of African descent in the Brazilian North, nor many people of Indigenous descent in the Northeast (the article, to the shame of Wikipedia, still maintains that people of both Indigenous and African descent predominate in both North and Northeast; - a list of very small cities and the percent of whites in each of them does not substitute for a "Demography by Cities and Towns" section; - gee, I have been reverted and called a vandal for the heinous crime of placing the population of these small towns in the article; - correcting the location of Pedras Grandes (Santa Catarina, not Rio Grande do Sul) - serious vandalism, isn't it? -; - placing on the article that the source for the (rather absurd) figure of 18 million people of German descent in Brazil is Dieter Böhnke.

Are those things controversial too? Ninguém (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If anonimous posting is allowed, then it should not be used against editors. I very much resent having my IP called a sock puppet. If I am going to be called a sock puppet each time I edit anonimously, then it would be better that Wikipedia asked for my login as a prerequisite for posting.

In short, either it is allowed, and I shouldn't be called on it - or I can be called on it, and it should not be allowed.

Anyway, registering and posting from an account is equally anonimous. Who is Opinoso? Merely a webpersona. So really there isn't much difference here. Ninguém (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not meant for discussions about content. I didn't say your edits were controversial, I said someone claimed they were controversial. Meanwhile I've told Opinoso not to call good faith edits vandalism. You should be talking about this on the article talk page, drawing input from other editors and editing through consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NPA policy on talk pages state that you can remove the personal attack, but not the entire discussion. I didn't read the removed portion in depth, but there appears to be some arguments on the talk page which are relevant to the discussion. Just because an editor has been booted before for edit warring, does not mean he/she should be banned from the talk page. Only a topic ban would allow this, and it appears like there has been no topic ban.

talk

) 16:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! but as I have complained, Opinoso thinks he is entitled to erase my contributions to the Talk Page - and to ignore them, calling this process "consensus". Can you please tell him that he should, a) refrain from erasing other people's contributions in the Talk Pages, and, b) actually discuss in the Talk Page, instead of ignoring dissent?

And more - why would I be interested in discussing the content with Opinoso? I want people with actual knowledge of Brazilian demography to read the article and make their contributions. Which, as it is, won't happen, because of

) 16:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I understand that this is not the place to discuss whether Pedras Grandes is in Santa Catarina or Rio Grande do Sul. But I hope this is the place to discuss that I have been called a vandal because I corrected the location of the city. Ninguém (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the edit on the Talk Page removed by Opinoso is relevant to the discussion. The problem is, it makes clear that Opinoso believed somthing, edit-warred me to keep the article in line with his belief, got me blocked for stating the opposite, and afterwards reversed his position, showing that his whole edit-war was completely baseless. So it makes him look like he is, an arrogant ignoramus. Apparently he doesn't like it. Ninguém (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now warned Opinoso and I need to warn you, too: Don't make

sockpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk

) 16:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now about the evident violation of

) 17:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also: can I revert Opinoso's undoing of my edit, without further risk of being called a vandal - which by the way I take as a personal attack - or is someone else going to revert it? Ninguém (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the edit because it was wrongly called vandalism in the edit summary. I've already warned Opinoso about

WP:OWN, removing talk page comments and personal attacks. Likewise, I've warned you about making personal attacks, don't do that. Both of you, stop edit warring. You'll likely need input on the talk page from other editors to settle this. Wait for that. Gwen Gale (talk

) 17:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else want to edit those pages; they have a clear owner, and to defy such ownership leads you to be slandered, blocked, etc. "Consensus" there is actually Opinoso's biased (and changing) POV. If you don't mind this state of things, please state it clearly. Otherwise, please, read the discussion, or forward it to someone who is actually interested in it, so that Opinoso's allegations that my edits are "controversial" or "vandalism" can be verified. Ninguém (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If only two editors are active on the page, the usual course to take for dispute resolution would be

propaganda_deeds

17:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to get input, try also asking (in a neutral way, please) for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil. Meanwhile, you've both been warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been done. All I got was Opinoso accusing me of trying to stir trouble between him and other editors. Listen: NOBODY WANTS TO EDIT THOSE PAGES; NOBODY IS UP TO BEING ABUSED BY OPINOSO.

It is a case of violation of

) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What has been done? Have you requested a

propaganda_deeds

17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you already asked for input at

WP:OWN. Gwen Gale (talk

) 17:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I have asked formally for help in the Project Page. I have contacted many of the editors listed there, though, and most didn't even reply. If you look at the history of any Brazil-related article, you will see that there were many active Brazilian editors in the past, most of whom have, in a way or other, clashed with Opinoso, and, coincidence or not, became inactive since then.

The usual reaction I get from people regarding this subject is, "I am not interested, thank you", or "Sorry, I don't understand the subject".

I will now ask formally for help in the Project Page. My crystal ball tells me that I will either get no answer, or just a few "can't be bothered" answers and possibly an abusive anwer by Opinoso. Ninguém (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No further admin action is needed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I noted some very unusual edits made by The history nut talk:

1. Amelia Earhart
2. Albert VII, Archduke of Austria
3. James III of Scotland
4. Erik Wickberg
5. Diego Martínez y Barrio
6. Sonny Liston
7. Ebenezer Sumner Draper

These are very subtle changes in dates that are reverted in most cases but I am puzzled in that the MO also includes legitimate edits. Can an admin check this out? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

This needs attention particularly as some of the articles are BLPs, and in no cases do the date changes seem to have been referenced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned the user that continuing this behavior may result in a block. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the dates that editor was removing were sourced, they should be removed rather than changed unless the changed dates are sourced. Especially for BLP's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed

) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. My friend is now upset at me for getting "caught". He's begging me to reveal the list so that his sockpuppets can be listed. In exchange he says he'll stop vandalizing. Personally, I don't think he will but he doesn't want WP:DENY. After reading it however, it may end his gloating and the ego boost he gets from his sockpuppet page.--

talk

) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can a checkuser help us out here? Retracted, I really doubt people are going to take your word that your friend is suddenly concerned about which people are and are not sockpuppets. Let the people who have been dealing with this deal with it. Can you just drop it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. Your "friend" is vandalising an online encyclopedia. He can keep going for as long as he wants, he'll just end up being blocked for sockpuppetting and vandalism. He's in no position of power to make a deal - if he wants to come back and start contributing constructively then he's more than welcome to once his block expires. If not, we really don't care. Your friend has been blocked. If he wants to come and debate about his block then he can come on here himself. Matty (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mammamia9905 (
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Many mindless edits against Wikipedia rules and guidelines. It's not an edit war as user can't justify any of his edits. Many warnings. Max24 (talk
  ) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs at ANI, but don't know where else to tell Max24 to take it. I agree with Max24 that Mammamia9905 is being disruptive. Apparently edits in anonymous mode as well. Note this sequence, where Mammamia9905 performs 7 serial reverts, undoing Max24's corrections to the charts. Max24 then reinserts them, with detailed sourcing for each correction (parenthetically, something I really like to see on single and album articles). The anon then reverts it all with an edit summary that echos earlier edit summaries by Mammamia9905, asserting that those sources don't exist. Max24 started a cleanup drive on the Mariah Carey albums recently, and Mammamia9905 has been thwarting Max24's edits.—Kww(talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Further note: I've just gone through and reverted the last six edits that Mammamia9905 has made, as they all inserted false figures and certifications that contradicted the sources he claims to have based them on.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• From the style and behavioral practices, I would guess that Mammamia9905 is a reincarnation of blocked sockpuppeteer User:Petergriffin9901. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901/Archive. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely concur. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901 has been opened for anyone that cares to just go ahead and block him. He'll get blocked in about two edits for vandalism on the path he's going on down now, but doing it for block evasion will shorten the time to the inevitable indef block.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mammamia9905 is still making many vandalizing edits, without giving any reliable sources. Not even one. How many warnings must he have before someone will do something about it?.Max24 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. An anon user suspected of being a sockpuppet of the indef blocked user Harvardlaw has been making attacks & threats against me and another user. Can anything more be done to prevent this? Also, please consider creating a 1-month anon block on Dennis DeConcini, the page of a former U.S. Senator, for incremental & inappropriate edits from this same user. Thank you. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits like this are way beyond the pale. I've blocked the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article history I've semi-protected it for awhile owing to wanton and wholly unsourced

soapbox spamming by what looks like an indef blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk

) 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked

WP:QUACK, also on DeConcini. Carlossuarez46 (talk

) 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a range block, say, 68.106.XX.XXX, for a week or so? Also, hoping I get thrown overboard was a little over the top. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It was all way over the edge. Following up, having looked at the contrib histories, I can say this was indeed User:Harvardlaw, let's see if he shows up on another IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it was over the side. Or "beyond the rail". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read beyond the pale. – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

After I hit save, I was afraid someone would catch the happenstance pun :O Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And your fears were right-justified. You got decked. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Francis Schonken [[49]] continues to revert my edits without stipulating any reason whatsoever, merely repeating the same phrase over and over again. I have repeatedly tried to engage with him over why he thinks my edits are wrong. He will only direct me to talk page comments that he made before my contribution was made. The most generous interpretation I can put on his actions is that he thinks the article has to be complete before being changed at all, which is a fundamental misunderstading of WP. I'd appreciate it if someone would enlighten him about WP policy. BillMasen (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I second these concerns. Francis tends to revert any change made to his prose at the republic article, an article that is something of a mess. In the last month four users, including Bill and myself, have made good faith changes, and all have been immediately reverted. I've been trying to overhaul this article for a couple weeks now, but getting even tiny changes in is impossible. Most recent discussion is at Talk:Republic#Working_on_the_rewrite - SimonP (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let's agree on method first, before throwing around all sorts of empty accusations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem: you are simply commanding us to agree with you and calling it "consensus". I have reviewed the extremely paltry arguments you have made, and I find them utterly wanting. If you want agreement, come up with some better reasons for what you are doing. BillMasen (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like content dispute and I don't really see how admin intervention is required at this point. Discuss this on article's talk page and come to a new consensus. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely agree Jauerback. Whilst it is primarily a content issue, I see some conduct issues on the talk page too. In particular, I think Francis Schonken could modify his approach to communicating his perspective. CIreland (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute: Francis has not made any suggestions regarding content or commented on the suggestions of others, except to say that "it needs to be put in the re-write version". For unspecified and inscrutable reasons, the good-faith contributions of half-a-dozen editors does not amount to "consensus" for him.

If you view the talk page, you will see that I and Simon have repeatedly attempted to engage him on what content should be in this article. It seems that we will wait for others to "improve" the article to his particular and obscure satisfaction, and then he will pronounce judgment on whether it is "ok". I agree with CIreland that this is most certainly a conduct dispute, and it will not be resolved until an admin recognises that or Francis actually discusses the content of the article. BillMasen (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Okay, upon looking further, I agree with that. Apparently Francis has a bit of an

ownership issue of this article and appears unwilling to concede that there is a consensus to rework the article other than his "/rewrite", which should probably be ignored altogether at this point. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I warned Francis (albeit a templated warning) about ownership. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I was just about to say that - I agree with Jauerback that Francis has not helped this article and has been a broken record with his views. There's no real simple solution here (or, I'm failing to see one). I think that Bill and Simon should continue to edit the article as they see fit, and if we get more reversion from Francis, we will deal with it at that point.

Tan | 39

14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. If Francis has a problem with the specific change that other users are making, he needs to discuss it on the talk page and not do a revert. If he can build a consensus on the page that agrees his problem, then it can be changed, but not until then. Wholesale reverts are not going to work anymore. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hatted because it's spawning meta-badness. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has the plague
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I just used the mop somewhat against policy, and invite the eyes of as many uninvolved admins to weigh in. This morning I split, against consensus on the article's talk page, Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II should give a clear (or not clear, which is what makes it clear) view of what I did and why. Additionally, I move protected the pages for three days to force people to view the split without blindly reverting me. I was invited to the article by User:Dojarca, who represents one side of the editors in the article dispute. I don't share Dojarca's views, and used my tools not to enforce a content dispute, but to give more space to work to several groups of editors who would rather just bash each other over the head. Once again, if this looks like an egregious abuse of power, I invite any admins to reverse my actions following a discussion here. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) One quick note, and somewhat backing up my reason for move protecting the pages. One editor is simply reverting WP:BOLD on this is that the nature of the dispute largely echoes what is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. It isn't exactly the same, but the central issue is the appearance of consensus by a group of editors out shouting anyone they disagree with. Hiberniantears (talk ) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I would also like to request aticle protection to this or an approximate version of Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II while this thread is active, simply because it makes it difficult to see what I did. Not required by any means, and I won't do it myself, but it might help. Hiberniantears (talk ) 14:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually the article talk ) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, that seems like a waste of time, but you do what you want to do. Looking at the page history, it's hard to form a concrete opinion on this matter. However, I find myself starting to skew towards "probably not a good idea", simply because you have been an involved editor. Splits like this really do need consensus of interested editors, and probably shouldn't be done unilaterally. Tan | 39 14:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Agreed, which is why I need others to look at this. I'm involved only in the sense that I tried to move things with edits, rather than the mop initially, but I don't actually have any real POV on the topic. John Carter could probably give some good insight into my actions as I asked him to enter the article after I was drawn in. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, it seems like you might have strayed into the "shoot first, ask for consensus later" territory. You've probably made some enemies on that page now, but in the interest of collaboration, I would probably restore the original article and then pitch your idea on the talk page. Also, wait for a couple other opinions here, as I've been known to be ridiculously wrong. Tan | 39 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) LOL! I for one tend to value your opinion on things, so no worries. :-) I would like to get the opinion of as many admins or uninvolved editors as possible on this. So far, the only others weighing in are involved in some way with the pages in question. I'll reverse course if other uninvolved editors echo your view. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Restoring article to the state before the move and protection is good idea. And then starting discussion about rename and move. M.K. (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC) If Martintg decides to start an arbcom to desysop Hibernian, I will be introducing evidence of Martintg's own, and others, egregious Dialogue 14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC) This is not a Dispute resolution page, also please do not engage in battleground creation. Thanks, M.K. (talk ) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, WP:BOLD. If that is accurate, I can't see any real objections to the move. John Carter (talk ) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, summary of protection indicates [50] otherwise. Why to protect article if there is an consensus then? I don't want to create drama here, the simple solution was proposed - make version before the move/protection and discuss that parts of article should be moved and there. Simple, M.K. (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I'm guessing because as he indicated in the summary he was anticipating a move war. Considering all the material he had split into a separate article has since been restored, I guess I really have no clue why he might have thought that there might be an edit war. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think the split is the issue, or the reversion, and this should all be discussed on the applicable talk page. The salient issue here is Hiberiantears's protection of the article after his split was reverted. Tan | 39 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Splitting the article may or may not be a good idea, but having worked with similar contentious topics, I agree with Tan and M.K. that splitting against a consensus is not a good idea. Not only does it split the contentious discussions among multiple sites, sometimes the only achievable consensus can be arrived at by covering the issue(s) at dispute comprehensively. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, as noted above, I see no evidence that this was against consensus. Also, it should be noted that there seems to me anyway to have been only one protection, at 13:10 1 May 2009, which was over moving the page, and I don't see any evidence that there was any sort of split reversion before then. Perhaps Tan can indicate where he sees that? John Carter (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I did do this to the original article, but only after I made the move and another editor changed the redirect. The two new articles are not edit protected, just move protected for three days to avoid having this discussion while the articles themselves are moving around. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC) And considering you did that to keep someone from turning a redirect to a redirect to itself, as per here, which is both bizarre and pointless, I have to say that was a fairly reasonable move. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know, but this looks like blackmail to me and it's quite disturbing. "Do start an ArbCom and I WILL s*rew your case with different allegations against yourself!" If there should be real concern about Martintg previous behaviour, it should be addressed, with or without this ArbCom, but for some reason Russavia hasn't taken that path, all we have seen lately are threats what will be happening, if somebody should do something that Russavia seems not to like. Bad spirit, IMHO. Põhja Konn (talk ) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC) One should also take note that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states is basically a non-starter due to refusal to participate by several editor. This is obviously the continuation of stonewalling on the part of several editors. What Hibernian has done is to help enforce, in a way, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles which states: Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. Whether this article would be covered that Arbcom, given its nature, is only a matter of seeking clarification, but the general principles cover ALL articles. Dialogue 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) It seems that a number of editors in the article from Baltic states do not agree with basic Wikipedia's rules such as neutrality and try to push their agenda and protect their 'holy cow' article from third-party editors. It is impossible to reach a neutral consensus in this article. The hard-core propaganda in this article persists for years and nothing changes. Contradicting sources removed and edits reverted. Any meditation is either rejected or ignored. In such circumstates the administator's intervention is inevitable to protect the basic rules of Wikipedia.--Dojarca (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) A fresh example of attempt to remove sources which contradict the article's agenda:[51].--Dojarca (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I remember I had edited the article a few months ago, introducing some Russian historians' opinions, I think the views of Oleg Platonov and also Mikhail Semiryaga. The article had remained stable for many months and seemed generally well-written and sourced. Basically Dojarca started with his apparently years old dispute again and asked an admin, too, the very sysop who now has started a rather sudden moving - splitting process + used his sysop tools, in order to cement his changes. This is not what I would call understandable behaviour, and hence second to M.K's suggestion that those unilateral decisions be undone for the time being. --Miacek (t) 16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Dojarca, you may want to look at Dialogue 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC) As for Russavia's opinion Occupation of the Baltic States is a POV-title; Baltic states and the Soviet Union is an NPOV title which allows for the writing of prose which covers all sides of the argument for and against annexation/incorporation/occupation/etc, whereas the former did not as its very title was POV You are not correct here, I think. E.g. the title Armenian genocide also doesn't 'sound' neutral for many a user, yet renaming it into ostensibly 'npov' title like Armenian-Turkish relations during First World War would not necessarily be an improvement in neutrality, would it?. --Miacek (t) 16:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC) This is not the place to argue this. Russavia, your comments are inflammatory and frankly, nationalistic. Take this to the relevant talk pages. Apparently no one has any real issue with the true issue brought up here of the move protection. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 16:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Nationalistic? I always have a barrel laugh when I am called nationalistic, because I'm an Australian. We are one, and we are many, and from all the lands on earth come...we share a dream, and sing with one voice, but hold on...Russavia's a nationalistic Russ-i-an. Thanks for the laugh Tanthala39. Dialogue 16:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Despite your sarcasm and obvious condescension, I should probably apologize for that - I had saw that you were Australian, and I didn't mean to imply you are Russian or even pro-Russian. What I did mean to say is that your comments (note that I judged your comments, not yourself) - "...most laughable edit summary...", "It is perhaps time that editors realise that "the Western world" does not equal 'the world'" appear to be designed to be inflammatory. Whenever an editor brings out the "perhaps you westerners need to start to realize", things go south quickly. At any rate, sorry for the nationalistic comment, and really, please take further article comments to the relevant talk pages. Tan | 39 17:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Just to weigh in, the unilateral split and protection move appears to be a truly horrible idea. I'm not aware whether this is a gross misappropriation of admin powers, but it appears to be highly counterproductive from a substantive viewpoint regardless. The article has existed for quite some time without serious conflict until this administrator took unilateral action. Moreover, the creation by the same editor of Baltic states and the Soviet Union was flatly nonsensical. As simply one example, the article seriously purports to begin four years after the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, yet it is bizarrely titled "Baltic states and the Soviet Union". This is not just silly, but frankly embarrassing for Wikipedia for an article titled as such beginning in 1944 to exist. I do not view as productive these unilateral actions by an administrator clearly taking a side in a dispute (and a somewhat amusingly historical baffling side at that), and actually a dispute he himself appeared to start a few days ago, coupled with a protection of his own actions.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I left the same message to Hiberniantears. This probably belongs to WP:AE. His action seems to fall under this ArbCom ruling. The ruling was not about admins, but protection of a redirection page without a preliminary discussion and consensus is basically the same. Now the "opposite side" can request an arbitration enforcement without any further discussion. Another problem: Hiberniantears effectively deleted an article without AfD discussion.Biophys (talk ) 18:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Nothing was deleted, the article was simply split, and I protected the original article only after someone messed up the redirect. There will be an AE for this, but out of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC) There clearly was no consensus sought for this unilateral split, I may have suggested the creation of some related articles, but my particular view doesn't override the views of others, i.e. there was no consensus, as talk ) 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I just warned 64.135.12.34 (talk) for a piece of petty vandalism, and noticed that the account has been adding nothing but cruft since 2007. the only thing the user seems to have learned in all that time is to stop after three warnings. I tend towards generous in these matters, but even I'm willing to admit this user is unlikely to contribute anything meaningful in the near future. might be time for a long-term block - something that will at least ensure that he's graduated from high school before he can edit again. --Ludwigs2 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-27/Technology_report: I was blocked though I don't use Tor and I'm registered. Please update MediaWiki:Torblock-blocked. Thanks, Nemo bis (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As it is described in article

) 23:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is basically a content issue over which admins have little influence. I note that
  2009 swine flu outbreak is marked with the current template, and usually we don't mark every subsidiary or background article with the current tag; like every bombing in Iraq doesn't get the Iraq war article or US foreign policy articles tagged "current", just that particular event. I see nothing here for us to do, even were I inclined to. Am I missing something? Carlossuarez46 (talk
  ) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine influenza is the main article for this ourbreak. I give you an example. It is like we divide this ourbreak by month and we make different articles. It does not make sense to jump from one article to another and loose the main article. What if there is another ourbreak in 2010? If there are other artilces out there, that is fine, but this is the main article about Swine flue. If we fail to keep it current, then I don't know what to say.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Still a content issue. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No matter what issue it is, administrator's help can prevent edit warring when users are ignorant and revert with out explanation and do not even respond to messages.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, admins can only step in once the edit-warring or disruptive reverts start. We cannot interfere with legitimate content issues or hypothesized conduct issues; only current conduct issues. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing for an admin to do, let consensus have sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the main article for the outbreak is

) 01:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see a dab at the top of

2009 swine flu outbreak. Gwen Gale (talk

) 01:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A "swine flue" might be part of a fireplace used for roasting pork. "Swine flew" would mean that pigs could fly. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

and "'s wine flew" (=his wine flew) is what happened when he found out his wife had the H1N1 virus. For those who miss the concept: "he was angry/sad that his wife was sick and accidentally dropped his glass of wine"(

BWilkins ←track

) 11:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Science (yes, it was quite obvious to me before your explanation), but in what way is it relevant to this board? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An image I posted to this thread several hours ago may have opened the door to a variety of humor which, regretfully, appeared exceedingly distasteful and unfunny. It was by no means intentional to move things in an inappropriate direction, so I have removed the image. Durova^Charge! 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with your image - there's simply a line that shouldn't be crossed, and it (according to

BWilkins ←track

) 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But an edit war resulted, both here and at my user talk page. Not worth it. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bingo ... I see that now. I guess someone never learned to not revert on someone's "personal" talkpage ... I can see (even with my attempts to assist) why support for their complaint is sinking fast. (

BWilkins ←track

) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you got it at all. Firstly, I was about to thank you as I have realized you are one of the few editors with constructive comments in my whole affair. Being assaulted, complaining and then seeing the whole situation reversed for ridiculous "reasons" can make you somewhat bitter and suspicious towards anything for a short while. I do apologize and hope we can start off on a clean slate.
Now, for Durova (talk · contribs): someone else (not Durova) kept removing my comment from his or her talk page; not only that, they were posting fake vandalism warnings on mine. How am I wrong here (again)? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why another editor should have been removing that comment from Durova's talkpage. I've left a note asking the user. --Onorem♠Dil 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've thanked the other editor for the reversions, which I noticed only while checking the history. Am on the verge of starting a separate thread regarding the 87 IP's conduct. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. When I present a legitimate query as for why you slander me on my talk page, you accuse me of vandalism... and think of starting a crusade against me. What's wrong with this picture, kids? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not needed ... they're showing their conduct quite well already on this page :-) (

BWilkins ←track

) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for not turning the other cheek quietly and submissively for some more can of whoop-ass... 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously fine if you decide to remove the comments from your talkpage, but were the comments actually inappropriate to the point that someone else should? I didn't see anything wrong with the question. --Onorem♠Dil 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ecs) I warned 87 a while ago because they blanked Bwilkin's comment here (which I restored, the his wine flew one above)...which is probaby where the 'fake vandalism warnings' comes from. I can assure the 87 that it was not fake. Whether it is in bad taste or not, thats not the way to handle it. Syrthiss (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why my joke got reverted three times and I got blamed, but when I reverted BWilkins' joke once, I got blamed again? What gives? What is "the way to handle it?" 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, because I am not the arbiter of everything that goes on on en.wiki. My connection to this is a simple act and a simple response. To your other question, the correct way to handle it is to contact the person and tell them of your concern and ask that they themselves remove it. Syrthiss (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

87 IP, you claimed at my user talk that you came over to this thread to share humor. Clearly that effort at humor was ineffective. When Jay Leno tells a joke that falls flat he holds himself responsible for not being funny enough. He's very good at humor. There are individuals in this world who make statements that are offensive, and afterward if people object they claim that it was joking and blame the audience. That isn't actually humor in any legitimate sense; it's a form of masked aggression. If you wish to distinguish yourself from that type of individual, please withdraw your complaints. Durova^Charge! 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

All I did was tell a joke. It was funny to many people when I told it, I laughed when I was told about it, I know for a fact that black people that heard the joke laughed as well. I have never enjoyed racism or any kind of arbitrary offense in my life. I can laugh from racial jokes (if they're funny, of course) as long as they don't propose any kind of real action or demean a race in a serious way. I saw your pic and BWilkins' response and this is what caused me to share the joke. Therefore, I am distinguishing myself from "that type of individual" but I cannot withdraw my complaints since I will not tolerate being called names. I am not a racist and would not like to be called such in front of a large community such as Wikipedia. This is flat out slander and humiliation. I could have called you a racist in denial (this is the only explanation of this kind of unnecessary paranoia) but I know better not to assume anything about anyone until I know it. In my honest opinion, this kind of PC-obsessed paranoia is what mostly nurtures bigotry today. Bottom line: you have offended me and are now refusing to admit it. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Could some uninvolved admins please keep and eye on this editor. They are advising a course of action that could get people killed. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be good to guide him to

WP:RD/S where similar questions have been raised and addressed (sadly, without explicit sources). Abecedare (talk

) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be saying anything anywhere that even resembles medical advice. – ukexpat (talk

) 01:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

POV on Frank Lorenzo Page

The Wikipedia entry on 80's business person Frank Lorenzo is terribly distorted and does not project the objective historical view of this man. Frank Lorenzo is credited as the source figure for the character of Gordon Ghekko in Oliver Stone's film "Wall Street." His impact on the demise of Eastern Airlines and subsequent ban by the U.S. DOT are matters of historical fact. Nevertheless, Mr. Lorenzo's public relations and legal teams have hijacked the Wikipedia site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lorenzo to portray their client as a charitable figure and a respected business magnate. All mention of his questionable business practices have been edited out of the page. When I try to add documented facts, they are removed. The page remains in a state of blissful ignorance to the truth regarding this individual. Please advise how responsible editors might be able to provide an accurate and truthful portrayal of this individual. Thank you for your consideration.Mikewelch7 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Try

WP:COIN for COI issues. – ukexpat (talk

) 02:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also dump all the allegations as to who is cleaning the page. Be very careful of our rules against

outing, as you could find yourself blocked. Second, try you could also try the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or even Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard depending on whether it's content or users that you have more evidence about. All of those would be more effective than here. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiplyperfect

Can somebody take a close look at the contributions of

19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, he knows he's on his last chance. If another admin feels that he's gone too far, I will support any reasonable sanction. Note that this is essentially an

SPA so a block and ban would be roughly synonymous. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

19:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed in this case the editor has been warned a number of times. I do wonder, however, if experienced editors should be more careful when dealing with new SPAs who exhibit troll-like behavior. The potential is high that accounts like this are just socks, or editors here just to pull our leg. But assuming good faith, it may well be a young or inexperienced editor who simply has a fascination for negative Obama trivia and wants to explore that here on Wikipedia. If you have a fascination however unhealthy with antique steam engines or species of extinct insects, and you add a whole bunch of little snippets about that to the encyclopedia, you're welcomed and gently guided to the appropriate style guidelines, content policies, and behavior rules. An editor whose fascination happens to be conservative politics gets much rougher treatment. My fear is that these people may be well meaning, just misguided. Calling them trolls on the talk page, cursing at them, taunting, insulting, etc., may well be a self-fulfilling accusation because it may sour them on the project and fuel any paranoia they may have about Wikipedia being a censorship cabal. Just a thought. We'll probably deal with this question in more depth in the arbcom hearing. Meanwhile, can I ask for some courtesy and decorum even when dealing with trouble? Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor who posts "little snippets" about antique steam engines that are factually incorrect or intended to "pull our leg" would be dealt with in exactly the same way, and rightfully so. Nothing to do with politics or "decorum", everything to do with maintaining the accuracy and reliability of the reference resource we're supposedly building here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the ideal for sure. But (1) we can't presume bad faith - my concern regards the possibility that some are misguided newbies, not intentionally misbehaving, and (2) even in the worst case scenario, it does more harm than good to harangue trolls on an article talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd expect a good faith newbie to react in some way to policy/guideline links and explanations being posted on their user talk page. In this case, the user just seems to keep on going. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User is clearly not here to contribute constructively. Time to show them the door. Mike R (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The user has been adequately warned, and indeed SheffieldSteel bent over backwards to explain the situation. I think we are easily at the point where the next talk page note along the lines of this one will mean an indef block and I would certainly implement that myself. I don't think we need to stress about this because it will be over one way or another shortly, though I do want to echo the gist of what Wikidemon said above about assuming good faith on these articles, hard as that may be at times. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This guy is wasting our time, either he's incapable of "getting it" or simply doesn't want to. The articles are on probation, so it would not be a problem to tell him to find a different set of articles to actually *edit*, you know as he's clearly a good faith contributor (can I get one order of rolling eyes over here?) and that's better than an outright block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose all of you are right, but I must say that I'll be sorry to see him go: I find his regular curt demands for inclusion of this or that (not always comprehensible) evidence of alleged failure by Obama (together with his statements that without such inclusion the article depicts Obama as a "Superman") a fairly reliable source of unintended amusement. I regret that at least once (when I suggested that he might enjoy Wonkette instead of Wikipedia), I didn't entirely avoid expressing this; I'll try harder in the future. Quite how he managed to generate this fucking reaction mystifies me, but I infer that others actually take him seriously. Anyway, if there is a topic ban, I predict that his enthusiasm for toppling the false god that is Obama, combined with his Olympian disregard for the qualms of others, will bring him back as another username -- whereupon he'll be easy to spot, thanks not only to his obsessions but also to his distinctively unidiomatic English. Hoary (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

His antics might be amusing to some, but for most editors his activity wastes time and frustrates efforts to improve

SPA, but his comments are so indecipherable that I'm not even sure what his agenda might be. Thus far, he has been no use to the project whatsoever. Any administrator thinking of banning or blocking may wish to consider checking 166.135.220.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which may or may not have been used by the same editor. -- Scjessey (talk

) 23:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What to do about the editor is a completely different question than the appropriateness of everyone's response on the talk page. The editor's posts to the Obama talk page proposing inappropriate material, forum-style chat mocking Obama, bizarre comments, and a newfound incivility, are all continuing despite a "last warning" and being notified of this discussion. I really can't tell if the person is deliberately trolling or socking, misguided in their concerns, or just acting weird. It seems unlikely that yet another warning would help, though it does not hurt either - we just get one more strange proposal or incivility at worst. It's so over the top that it's just a time waste, not a flash-point that causes a more widespread dispute. Under the circumstances a block certainly would not raise eyebrows. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked the editor for 24 hours after a review of their latest contributions, and before reading this thread. I would just like to say that I don't think a ban would have been functionally any different to a block, as this editor has not edited any non-Obama-related page. Feedback is invited, though, and I wouldn't oppose unblocking in favour of a (longer) ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the length is fine. Whether 1 day or 30, when the block expires the editor will either realize we're serious about the request to stop... or not. Wikidemon (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess not.[52] Any point checking for socks? This is identical behavior to another editor from a few months back. Wikidemon (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not because he's still at it can we get a topic ban and he can then decide if he wants to contribute somewhere else or leave... --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given another warning that seems to have been heeded. I'm inclined to wait and see what happens. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Now seems to be socking

Was blocked by admin earlier today, now seems to be socking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, you may need to consider blocking 166.135.220.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well. It appears to be the same guy. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User indef blocked

I indeffed Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs) for continuing to add inappropriate and trolling material to Talk:Barack Obama despite the prior block and a final warning. I have since also blocked Highlycomposite (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock (that registered only 2 mins after Multiplyperfect posted me to Fuck Off on his talk page) who's first and only contribution was another inappropriate comment on the same article. Mfield (Oi!) 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've locked his talk page down for good measure.

96

23:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter (talk · contribs) is growing somewhat prickly in the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) article. This is much the same sort of argument that was brought to light a few weeks ago, and the arguments are essentially the same. After it was decided that opinions as to inclusion or exclusion of certain info in the article, most of us decided to participate in mediation to get a neutral voice into the discussion, and help solve the issue. I am not going to go into it, as its a content issue.

After Edokter decided to participate in the mediation, he expressed his opinion (along with the rest of us). However, his opinions, which included singling me out for specific personal attacks, started again, increasing in intensity until it boiled over a little while ago. Despite the fact that mediation and discussion is ongoing in article talk, Edokter suddenly and unilaterally decided that discussion over and has repeatedly added the same information into the article, complete with veiled threats in the edit summaries of these additions. Again, I am not discussing the content of these edits, but it bears mentioning in addition to seeking to end-run the mediation without anything approximating a consensus, the information he is adding doesn't match the citations.

This has happened a few times before, and at least once before in this article that I am aware of. I am unsure how to proceed, as Edokter's tone in the discussion has gone from unpleasant to hostile. If he doesn't want to mediate, he shouldn't sign up for it.

Lastly, I am reporting this here because Edokter has a history of blocking those editors with whom he disagrees with in article discussion. I'd prefer to not be subjected to that again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Page has been protected for 1 week. I don't have a comment on the behavioral issues. Would you mind posting a few diffs which exemplify the behavior (I've read the two you linked)? Also, have you informed him of this thread? Protonk (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, moments after posting here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, figured I would ask. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

History of blocking? Incivility? Really... Put the evidence on the table or shut up! Let's see what is happening here. Arcayne has an opinion, and needs 1,208,465 posts to meake his position clear, even though is is going completely against consensus. Yet he keeps beating the dead horse and declares all other opinions 'against policy'... at least his interpretation of it.

This is a content dispute, and the mediator hasn't chimed in yet, yet Arcayne removes the infomrmation anyway. Pot, meet kettle. Arcayne, you need to stop it. I invite all available administrators to go to Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica), see the entire discussion, then finally see the complete and utter nonsense that Arcayne has been poisoning the talk page with. And deal with it this time! Seriously folks, had I been an uninvolved party, I would have blocked Arcayne indeed. I want closure now. — Edokter • Talk • 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you blocked me over a content dispute you were actively involved in with me less than 6 months ago, and were universally lambasted. Are you saying you do not recall? Have you already forgotten that this exact same uncivil, attacking behavior less than 3 weeks ago fueled the last ANI complaint? In the very same article. Did you forget that you threw a tantrum over edits not going your way and sent the article for AfD? And this is just your interaction with me.

This complaint is not over a content dispute. I am interacting with others who disagree, and yet they haven't decided to get muddy, yet you have. Twice in this article alone. This is behavior I have seen in you in at least three different articles, and not just directed at me. I am no angel, but I've been polite, professional and civil here. You haven't.

You decided you were done discussing, and said so. After you made your third revert, adding information that was specifically the subject of the mediation. Since the mediator - as you said - hasn't chimed in, you were fully aware that the edits were disruptive. We block editors for that sort of crap, Edokter. That you are an admin and doing this is disturbing. That you have to be told this repeatedly is more so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And my basic complaint is you beating a dead horse. You are unable to concede. You are acting against consensus. Looking at the talk page, you take up 80%, simply because you refuse to acknowledge other viewpoints and try to force the issue, using remarks like "you as an admin should know", mis-applying policies and utilizing edit-warring and system-gaming to force the issue. No, Arcayne, this is indeed purely a behaviour issue, and it is your behaviour that is being discussed. You have a history (and a block log to show for it) of disruptive editing and tirteless discussions against consensus, and this one is no different. — Edokter • Talk • 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And, as has been pointed out before, there is no consensus for that which you seek to add. This is why we sought a mediation. And I wouldn't be too quick to point to my block log; you added to it in an abuse of your tools and were chastised here for it, and calls for your de-sysopping were set aside with the explicit caveats that if there was a reccurrence of this behavior, removing the mop might have to be discussed. You've clearly shown that you are willing to use your admin tools to seek an upper hand in a discussion (evidenced by the proposed article ban below). The difference between an editor and an admin is that if an editor has a problem with another user, they have to come here and explain the problem to others, who decide what to do. An admin can simply block/ban the editor they are angry at. Block logs cannot be scrubbed of bad blocks, so an admin needs to exercise better restraint than you have in this matter. That is why I keep pointing out that "you are an admin, and should know this". You should know, and clearly do not.

Part of the problem is that the mediator initiated discussion in article talk as opposed to a page set up for the mediation. That, and the fact that the mediator hasn't weighed in for a number of days might mean that the mediator is inexperienced. Admin eyes might be helpful, both as a calmative as well as acting as de facto mediators to the issue. The more the merrier.

I have not contributed to the article discussion, as I am waiting for the mediator to weigh in. My reverting of material added by Edokter was an attempt to stem an end-run of the mediation. Since reporting here, I have not offered any discussion- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Article ban for Arcayne

You are hereby banned from Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica). Any edit you make will immediately be reverted. This ban will not be lifted until another admin has fully reviewed your behaviour on that article and posted his assesment here; Or you step back from the dead horse and concede to consensus, apologize to all involved and get on with your life.

To ohter admins; The lack of response is disappointing, and it is forcing me to seek other people's involvement. I will not accept any blanket unbanning if that person has not evaluated Arcayne's behaviour first. It is time to remove the only force that has prevented this article from inproving (it could have been featured by now). — Edokter • Talk • 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hereby"? Good lord, Edokter, you are evidently an involved party here. This "article ban" is quite obviously null and void, unless there should be a consensus by uninvolved admins first. Trying to push this through on your own whim is itself serious admin misconduct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Then tell me... what do I have to do to get another admin to evaluate the situation? I have to take some action to get others involved. I cannot do this by myself. The silence by other admins is quite shocking too... So I simply have no choice. — Edokter • Talk • 11:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

go and ask one on their talk page?  rdunnPLIB  11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell me... What sort of fool do you have to be to do precisely what the other party said you might, and use your sysop privileges in a dispute in which you are the other party? How many hours has it been since Arcayne first posted? How many days since mediation was first started? Do you know something about the encyclopedia having an input cut-off date in the next month or so? Are you not prepared to allow othere sysops to review the situation and agree what actions should be taken? What are you thinking in demanding that no admin may "reverse" your unilateral and partisan ban without conducting the review that you were too impatient to wait for before acting? Without looking into any part of the content dispute, I should say that you have justified Arcaynes original comment here beyond question - you are demonstrably unable to separate your editing and your adminning. I think, at the very least, you should strike through your first two paragraphs in this section, and wait until your fellow contributors have had time to review and comment on the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the fool that has been trapped in one of Arcayne's carefully set up traps. His sole intention is to get me to loose it and then yell "See? I'm right!" This issue has been brought to ANI many time, either by me or Arcayne. Each time met by a deafening silence. I HAVE to force the issue because up until now, not a singe admin has taken any steps toward even evaluating the issue. So any comment here that start with "Well, I haven't looked at the situation yet, but..." is also automatically null and void. And as soon as I strike my ban, it will only be a signal to other admins that "things have died down again, move along..." Well, not this time. The ONLY way to resolve this is for another admin to actively investigate the situation and post a review. Seriously, I have been left here to dry, and I can simply not imagine any other way to have another neutral admin involved. Justified or not, this has been ignored long enough. Thsink what you will. You are welcome to reverse the ban, but I demand that an uninvolved admin look into the whole situation. I am really disappointed at the lack of interest by other admins to even try and resolve this. — Edokter • Talk • 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the above dispute, but haven't commented recently since I thought the mediator had matters in hand. The ban declaration above should be struck out; it has no community support and its impropriety is quite clear after the most trivial reading of

WP:UNINVOLVED. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

13:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I hereby propose that Arcayne be banned from Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) for a period of six months. The reason is that he is the sole disruptive force on that article. He refuses to concede to consensus, blocking any improvement to the article by way of edit-warring and generally continuing to beat the dead horse, which include requesting mediation for the sole purpose of dragging the issue. I surely hope for a lot of comments, because any lack thereof will default to no opposition. — Edokter • Talk • 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I oppose such a ban. There actually isn't a consensus for the information currently being debated, and I am most certainly not the only one who is opting for the point of view which created a deadlock. That deadlock created the need for the mediation. Since then, the four users - two on one side of the issue and two on the other - have spent inordinate amounts of time rehashing the same issue, and no one is budging. At that point, I suggested repeatedly that we all stop talking and wait for the mediator to weigh in. That seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

I am certainly not seeking to be disruptive, though if disagreeing with Edokter on inclusion matters equals disruptive, then both myself and another user are guilty of that. Three different users have argued against that which Edokter wishes to add (to whit, some names of robots), which, in a group of four would seem to constitute a consensus of sorts. Another matter is also being mediated, which Edokter has largely avoided discussing.

I think that the larger part of the problem appears to be a more specific issue with Edokter towards myself - I certainly don't seek him out (why would I want to?). We share many of the same topic interests (Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, etc.) but little in the way of editing style. I like discussion. Edokter has shown he doesn't, preferring quick action and fait accompli. Both are valid styles, though the first takes longer to find an enduring consensus, and the latter creates a lot more dramahz before getting to a consensus.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should interpret a lack of response as tacit support for a ban proposal. A better interpretation, I think, would be apathy and/or conflict fatigue. For what it's worth, I don't think a ban is the right solution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Both persons are long-term, established editors who simply ought to know better. There comes a time in many of these disputes where one party needs to simply pause, realize that the other is not a troublemaker or a kook violating
  WP:FRINGE (or whatever the policy is called), & because that means there is a reasonable chance the other may actually be right pick one of the other 2.8 million articles to work on. -- llywrch (talk
  ) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. Edokter, the best path for you would not be to immediately confirm Arcayne's allegations by announcing a unilaterial topic ban. why don't you just step away from this dispute? Also, for what it is worth, I oppose the topic ban. Again, no comment on the merit of the allegations made, but I don't think that you should be proposing one and I certainly don't want silence confused for consent in this case. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of article talkpage and mediation

I hope I never have to regret the 15 minutes of my life reviewing the article talkpage... From my review of the pages, it appears that Arcayne is insisting upon a stringent interpretation of WP:OR on two matters, over which there has been an edit war. Edoktor and another editor are arguing on a looser interpretation of WP:OR, or WP:RS as applied to this matter. I see no resolution to this content dispute. I note that mediation has been initiated, and that again there appears to be no resolution. I have asked the mediator ErikTheBikeMan to respond here regarding how he views the present situation regarding the mediation - has it stalled/concluded.
In awaiting for the mediators response, I would comment that my conclusions is that Arcayne's actions are in good faith and in keeping with his interpretation of Wikipedia's policies - and that he should not be banned from the article (pending ETBM's response, at the least). I am more concerned with Edokter's actions, although I believe them also to be in good faith as regards the content dispute. I see processes in place for the resolution of the content dispute, yet they deciding to act before that case is resolved or noted as stalled. I also see increasing belligerence between the parties, but until the comment linked to by Arcayne in his initial comment regarding this matter no indication that the dispute was not going to be resolved in an appropriate manner.
Unless there are examples of Edokter mixing editing disputes with improper sysop actions as regards other editors, I do not see that there needs to be a RfC or RfAR on Edoktor's retaining the bit - it is understood that there is a history between the two editors which should not detract from the rest of their contributions to the encylopedia.
Lastly, if any other admin or editor wants to review the matter and post their views then please do - the more opinions the more sound will be any conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, the core of the probelm is left out, namely that of consensus, no matter how narrow. It there are two editors who are in favor of inclusion, and one against, it should be clear what should happen. Arcayne has a history of ignoring consensus in his firm belief that his interpretation of policy supersedes any consensus. That is what we shoulld be focussing on. More comments welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One person saying the sky is blue is not negated by two others who think it is grey/green - nor, such is WP, the other way round; WP is not a !vote or a democracy, but a project built around references and policy. I am willing to wait for the mediator to comment upon the state of that process before considering how to progress the dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If and when the mediator will actually mediate, I am most interested to hear what he has to say. This is a matter on interpretation of policy, both having merits, in which case the one that leads to improving the article should be adopted. I believe Arcayne's interpretation is not valid. — Edokter • Talk • 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that is why being a disputant and using the bit in that dispute is to be separated - you may be right, but it isn't your call to decide upon that. Hopefully my request to the mediator will provide some imputus in the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but two are in favor of exclusion, and two are in favor of inclusion in one part of the mediation. In another point, three are in favor of exclusion, so far as the specific point of Edokter's desired inclusions. I'm not seeing this consensus Edokter is keeps claiming. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And as for previous occasions of using the bit like a hammer, there is the ANI from March. I think there are others, but most of you admins have had a lot more contact than I have had with him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is another case in which you are involved. I don't think that a review of Edokter's general sysop conduct is going to happen, so it may be best to concentrate on resolving this particular matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree with it, but I will concede that more evidence is necessary to undertake such. If (and hopefully not when) that happens again, I trust that such would be on the table for serious discussion. I think we all agree that admins, while being editors with extra tools, unwittingly set the tone for Wikipedia, and the bad behavior of one affects all admins. If we want to maintain the quality of admins that we have in place, I think we need to be willing to consider the idea of reaffirmation of the bit. Treating adminship like an appointment for life seems short-sighted and clique-ish; perhaps periodic re-evaluations by their peers would be a better path.

Again, my motivation for posting here was not to get Edokter de-sysopped, but rather to point out some bad behavior that was escalating out of control, and to protect myself from admin-type retribution from an admin who wasn't above using the bit to gain the upper hand in an argument. As we can see from above, it wasn't an unwise step to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• The mediator has not edited in over two days, and I am now too involved to be considered a neutral party - please can some other editors/admins look over this matter and see if there is a legitimate content dispute that might be taken to an RfC if there is no mediation soon, or if any party needs to be sanctioned in regard to this matter. It isn't fair to either side that this needs to wait for someone to log back in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens' comments

I am one of the other two editors involved, who happens to agree with Edokter's position, but not his conduct. Arguing with Arcayne can be frustrating, but as others have observed above, it's not reasonable to portray him as acting in a disruptive or vandalistic manner. We just have an impasse, where a mediator or six would be welcome, on whether the inclusion of three separate bits of information (real world robot models seen in the epilogue, a line that seems identical to a poem line, and a spaceship model that appears to have been used elsewhere) hinge on the interpretation of

.

I do not endorse either Arcayne or Edokter's alteration of the article (which had been previously page protected) during the dispute, nor do I think either has been acting impeccable with respect to politeness. I will fault both of them for not notifying me of this thread--I just happened to be browsing ANI and discovered it. However it falls to Edokter, as another admin, to act for the duration of the dispute as if he had no bit, had never been selected by the community at AfD, and was just another editor. I think the principle that some things are and should be attributable to primary sources is an important part of what makes Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, and that's why I've stayed involved--certainly not for the drama. Again, mediation would be most welcome, and I cannot fathom why a topic ban of Arcayne would benefit the encyclopedia: I don't want him to go away so I can "win", I want my interpretation of

) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the calm and considered input above. If there is no response from the mediator in another day or two, perhaps filing a content RfC will be the way to go? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you felt slighted by the non-notice, JClemens; I didn't notify you because it wasn't a content dispute, and your behavior had been calm and professional. For my part, I don't feel I was rude, uncivil or attack-y; certainly not to the extent that came from Edokter. I would think that mediation with perhaps another mediator might lead to a better, more durable consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How to proceed?

This issue is not resolved unless an active, uninvolved mediator steps in. I do not know whay LessHeard vanU considers himself involved; I had some hope he would continue. If there is no other, I will start a conduct RfC on Arcayne. — Edokter • Talk • 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very bad idea, a RfC on the content issue would be a better one. If there is a conduct RfC then all parties conduct will need be looked at - including those who may have used advanced permissions inappropriately, whereas a content RfC would look at the specific arguments and make a judgement that all parties should then adhere to (which then removes the antagonism).

I cannot mediate because I think Arcayne is correct, and I don't think his refusal to move from his interpretation of policy is uncivil or the manner in which he has addressed editors whose arguments is based on "willya just look at the goddam episode an' tell me it aint so" (none of the current parties has taken that route, I should add) is unjustified and I would likely participate to argue his case. I cannot divorce my interpretation of policy to mediate impartially, I'm afraid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to get another mediator. Do we just re-file at mediation, or is there someone here with experience and a Big Bag o' Clever willing to step in and assume the job already begun? - Either way is fine with me.

And it occurred to me that all parties pretty much know their arguments pretty clearly, so we could archive the talk page subsections on the topic this far, and reboot the discussion (cutting and pasting here and there) in the actual mediation page. This keeps the article discussion page relatively free of the walls of text. Thoughts?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This editor was injuncted for one year from editing Baronets, Arbuthnot articles and Ireland and UK political articles. There has been particular history between him and me. Presumably his time is up today because (1) he has been doing a countdown using road signs and (2) he is back to his old irritating tricks. For example renaming articles created by me such as Sir Benjamin Slade, 7th Baronet Benjamin Slade. Sir Ben is actually known as Ben, but Ben Slade already exists. I request that all today’s edits be reverted and that the articles ban / injunction be extended. It worked very well. For good measure I would add this edit [53]. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• If by "irritating tricks" (nice personal attack btw) you mean following wikipedia guidelines then yeah! Please read the MOS with respect to this issue - you have been purposefully ignoring the MOS to suit your own ends to add honourifics. I have simply corrected the titles in line with MOS. Not only are my edits in line with MOS (see point #4) but the Peerage Project (of which you are a member) also outline how these articles should be titled! Isnt there a bit of a Conflict of Interest here - especially as you yourself are a Baronet.
• If Benjamin Slade's common name is Ben Slade then why is there no mention of that in the article - Nor is there any link to the other article for the other Ben Slade are editors supposed to be mindreaders?
• Any comment on the 50 or so other article titles I have changed today?
• If anyone needs an eye keeping on them its you - you have purposefully flauted the rules to suit your own end for a long time. It ends today!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oh please, give it a rest - both of you. Vintagekits, I'd suggest, if there is not already a consensus for the naming of these articles then you need to get one before mass moving all these articles and if there is one, I'd personally suggest that a note on the article talk page citing this and suggesting a central discussion if there is opposition before making the moves would be a useful way to avoid unnecessary tensions. Although this a clear content dispute, there is more then a little appearance (if nothing else) of your edits targeting Kittybrewster's contributions and, if this is going to spiral into boring drama and disruption, it will be a matter of hours or at most days before the restrictions are reimposed on you by community consensus. I strongly urge you to show common sense and restraint because I'm sure I'm not the only admin who is bored rigid by your petty squabbling and I don't think we will be tolerant of any intentionally disruptive or belligerent actions on your part.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  10:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have you even read what I wrote? There are plenty of centralised discussions going back years and there is a specific note in the naming conventions with respect to this (I've linked to this in my reply) - I see no reason to open yet another when the criteria is quite clear with respect the to the issue. --Vintagekits (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(side note: have some concern about when you added the link - it was not there when some people read the original reply) (

BWilkins ←track

) 10:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added well before the reply (approximately 10 minutes).--Vintagekits (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, you must have known that the moves would cause tension and you acted in the full knowledge that you would be stirring up trouble with an editor who you had previously been banned from interacting with. While I saw that you indicated that there was a consensus, I didn't check that this was the case and have long taken the view that one editors consensus is another editors open discussion - remember that consensus can change. Even when there is a clear consensus and you are doing the right thing the sensible thing to do in a case like this would be to cite the consensus on the article talk page and invite discussion of the proposed moves before the moves take place. This is called working collaboratively and is what we do round here. You know exactly what you are doing and you now know that your actions have been noted. You should now have a clear understanding of what will happen if you continue to act in a way that exacerbates the tensions round here and that leads to avoidable drama.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

11:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"you acted in the full knowledge that you would be stirring up trouble" - so you are now a mind reader are you? Tell me if I am editing in accordance with wikipedia guidelines or not? Why would you suggest that I ignore name conventions to appease any potential editors? Are you trying to trap me into some suprious block by saying "you should now have a clear understanding of what will happen if you continue to act in a way that exacerbates the tensions round here". Unless you can tell me exactly what I am doing wrong then I fail to see why I should stop editing in line with wikipedia guidelines - that seems an extremely strange request.

Havent you considered that it is Kitty that is causing the diruption? What exactly have I done? Why is he upset with what I am doing? Havent you noticed that he has just lobbed a grenade into a fox hole and done a runner - thats what I call distruption.

I can clearly see what side you are on!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are having a laugh aren't you?

Spartaz ^Humbug!

12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly am not.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it certainly looks that way to me but since we are having a much more useful discussion on your talk page why don't we keep the discussion between us there for the moment.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I really had thought that VK had taken on board the spirit of his final-final-final chance, and that having edited without trouble for a year, he would continue to stay out of trouble when his probation expired.

However, when my attention was drawn to this, I checked the revision history of his talk page and found that for over a fortnight he has been running set of a countdown signs to the end of his probation, and that edit summaries are explicit about his disruptive intent:

• [54] — "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!"
• [55] — "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!"
• [56] — "unlucky for some!"

That sort of threatening and aggressive approach is completely at odds with the principle of collaborative editing. In the discussions a year ago leading up to his unblocking, Vk explicitly disavowed an interest in this area, and stressed how he wanted to concentrate of non-contentious subjects. Those promises seem to have been set aside now. :(

The substantive issue here is simple. Yes, the MOS (at

members of national parliaments are automatically presumed notable), and othrs of the same family had notable positions in the military, in finance, or in other area. My interest is in MPs, and I have long since lost count of the number of such families where one notable person turns out to be similarly named to many others. In some cases, a 1st baronet may merely the first title-holder after several generations of notability (these families often controlled parliamentary seats for generations before gaining a baronetcy).

For those reasons, a lot of care is needed in article naming to disambiguate these people, and using the title is an unambiguous way of naming a particular member of that family. A look at the 19th century parliamentary constituencies shows dozens of cases like this, and I and others put a lot of time into disambiguating them all.

Vintagekits has never had any substantive interest in developing this are of wikipedia, which is fine: we can all work on the areas which interest us. The problem is that he has now resumed his old habit of aggressively and threateningly wading into this field and using a narrow interpretation of the MOS to cause disruption by sabotaging these disambiguation efforts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Here is the Terms of VK's probation, which explicitly excluded him from this area. Since he has resumed disrupting this area immediately on its expiration, I suggest that the probation should be reapplied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Long on waffle - short on substance! The only reason you got invloved here is because Kitty canvased you - now if that is not a case of disruption then I dont know what is.

Those diffs that you listed as being "threatening and aggressive" - what exactly are they threatening to

"Vintagekits has never had any substantive interest in developing this are (sic) of wikipedia" - you mean except for creating this!!!

The probation is over BHG, The editing restrictions are over! - deal with it and deal with me. Your bullying and distruptive approach wont work anymore. I've wised up to your tricks and I wont be rising to the bait. I have no intesion causing distruption - you and Kitty are causing the distruption here not me.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I currently oppose this option as I am trying to talk this through with VK on their talk page. They stopped the moves when I asked nicely and we are having a very constructive conversation on their user talk page.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to the suggestion by BHG. VK has edited in line with the MOS, surprise surprise KB is not happy with VK tell us something we don't know this is a major storm in a teacup. BigDunc^Talk 12:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you BD, I am raging that I am the one that has edited within guidelines yet there is an attempt to focus of the "distruption" on me. I am supposed to get concensus for something which is already in the MOS instead of the other way around. This is Majorly Bonkers!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No its called working collaboratively and it means that sometimes you need to go the long way round a problem to promote harmony rather then just bulldozering stuff through because you happen to be right. Right is a very movable feast on wikipedia so its always worthwhile taking a little extra time to smooth the path - especially when you are a high profile editor of whom there are strong contrasting opinions held by multiple factions. Since I think we now have a non-disruptive way forward I'm going to close this discussion and mark it as resolved.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

12:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This section was marked as resolved, but I don't think it is.

Spartaz, please take a again look at Vk's edit summaries ("dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!") as he ran his countdown clock. What was all that about if not a clear intention to threaten and disrupt?

Is this really acceptable conduct for an editor facing the expiry of their probation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as you and Spartaz were asking me to stop moving the titles and to discuss it I do. Then I try and discuss it with BHG and she ignores it and moves that pages back. Remind me who is supposed to be being distruption.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I saw that, I feel VK has approached this a bit like a bull in a china shop but I have noticed in the past that they do tend to listen to reasonable arguments and VK did have strong policy based reasons for their actions. I realise that you disagree with my position but VK has agreed to hold fire with the moves and discuss, so I really don't see the point of immediately bringing down the ban hammer again. I'm not a banner and blocker and prefer to find ways to get editors working together rather then working at cross purposes and I had hoped that that was what we had now. My understanding is that VK is going to seek a consensus on moving the articles according to the MOS and a local consensus at some wikiproject at that wikiproject's talk page and I urge you to concentrate on debating the issue there rather then prolonging the drama by reverting all of VKs edits. IIRC we have no deadline and there will shortly be a consensus either confirming your position or VK's so what is the point of moving them all back when they will all shortly have fixed locations or be moved through consensus. I can see that you are frustrated and unhappy but now that VK has stopped moving and has raised a discussion just moving the articles back is a bit like throwing petrol on the flames. Wouldn't it be better to just discuss the merits of the naming rather then prolonging the needless drama?
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well since you stopped moving and agreed to discuss there is no disruption on your part right now.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also point Spartaz towards his talk page, where he's been making lovely comments like "god, this is what I'm working with?" in regards to other editors. Ironholds (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah come on BHG you really are trying to stir things up. What happend to

WP:BRD is it now be bold and then moan to ani. You really are very sensitive souls if any of VK's comments are annoying you. BigDunc^Talk

13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? Have you seen MHG's talkpage? She is "sensitive" for being annoyed by comments referring to her "bullshit" and "moronic logic"? Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

meh!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I agree that the behavior of involved parties warrants observation. Usage of intimidate or just plain rude comments damages neural point of view in a content dispute, and as such should not be allowed. I suggest a handful of admins keep an eye on this situation(sorry not me, I have to work) and that it be handled on the appropriate talk page through debate. I don't think anything actionable has occurred yet, but I get the feeling it may.

13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile BHG continues to move articles and refuses to discuss the issue - is someone going to do anything about this now. This truely is disruption!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

At one level, there is a content dispute here. But I challenge anyone to look at VK's record in this area or at his behaviour today and stand by the notion that his aim here is to improve the content of wikipedia.::As stated on my talk page, I see no reason why I should be required to engage in discussion with an editor whose incivility is legendary, who has approached this issue with a series of threats and abuse which began even while he was still on probation. I have tried discussing these issues with Vk before, and it always involves a barrage of threats and abuse from him.

Essentially, this is matter of a long-term disruptive editor whose countdown to the expiry of his probation used threatening edit summaries, and who set to on expiry of the probation to reopen an old round of disruption.

Why on earth should other editors be required to engage with this sort of behaviour from an editor who has such a long history of threats, abuse and disruption? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that sounds great and cruxify me for me past deeds if you wish but the proof is in the pudding.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment First of all and to avoid any assumption, let me say that noone has alerted me; however some of the articles affected by the moves are on my watchlist and I believe some were even initially started by me. Vintagekits, while I agree that all of your moves were along the guideline you have stated above, I consider the intention to move 100s of articles [57] and the partly completion of it, only hours after your ban over this topic had expired, rather awkwardly then constructive. I think you won't deny that such big interventions should be discussed before or at least performed very carefully - especially if the performing User was involved in "skirmishs" regarding the topic before.
  ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• How many times has this issue been discussed? What is left to discuss? I suggest you have a word with BHG quickly because she is currently pouring petrol on a fire and I am trying hard to keep my lip bitten.
• Its amazing how Kitty has started all this (with a messege on here and one on BHG's page) and then moonwalked out of here. Well done Kitty!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This dispute demonstrates there is clearly something left to discuss.

Chillum

13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No it doesnt, this has purely been an attack from KB and BHG to try and avoid the MOS being applied to articles about Baronets.

This proves that. BHG and KB are not interested in discussing the issue they are interested in creating hassle. I have tried to discuss the substantive issue at hand but that has been ignored. Unless someone can come up with a very good reason then I am going to go back to ensuring that all articles on wikipedia adhere to name convention guidlelines.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, your are amazingly persistent in your efforts to invert the blame.

There was no hassle whasoever until you saw the end of your probation looming, began your countdown clock with clear statements of your intent to cause trouble ("dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!" ... and then as soon as your probation expired you set about a mass campaign of moves without regard to the needs for disambiguation.

I am now engaged in the long process of repairing the damage caused by the resumption of your vendetta. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep showing those edit summaries as if it proves something or means something. They have nothing, zero, zip, nada, nil, nought, zilch to do with the issue here. Your actions here have shown that you are the root of the disruption. By continuing to change article titles of against MOS despite all that has gone on here to try and stop me from doing it then you are showing utter contempt for me, other editors, wikipedia and its guidelines and are editing in a highly disruptive manner and pouring petrol on flames. On the advice on an admin here I have tried to engage with you in a rational discussion which you have refused to do so prefering to continue to escalate the issue. I will let others judge your actions - suffice to say that if I pulled the same stunt then I would be banned. One rule for one and another from others!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me!" and "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama" are your idea of "rational discussion", then the dictionaries need to be rewritten. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you can take little snippets out of context and present this however you feel - however, I would prefer that other put it in context and mad their own minds up as to your behaviour today. See here and here.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly; lets look at more than just snippets. Take the first post you made to BHG's talkpage; exactly how can "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama. " be taken out of context? Ironholds (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read it I was not referring BHG directly but to everyone involed - including myself.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the policy behind it, this has now progressed from a content dispute. Whether or not Vintagekit's changes were according to policy is a content dispute that has no place here is one thing. The fact that these changes came straight after getting off probation for the same sort of thing, and Vintagekit's persistent incivility when dealing with it, makes this sort of thing utterly inappropriate. Vintagekits: calm down, stop using rude language, start showing a bit of respect and the content section of this dispute can continue elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not following that at all. VK stopped moving the articles when asked nicely, engaged in a spirited discussion with me and then agreed to seek a wider consensus before making further moves - even though their moves are backed by policy and apparently there is already an existing consensus on this supporting the moves. I believe they have already opened up the discussion. I don't condone the countdown but I do applaud VK's willingness to compromise their approach to reduce the tension. Bar their spirited responses VK has stopped moving articles and is seeking a consensus. Good for them I say as it shows lots of good faith in the collaborative principle. I personally don't think BHG is being helpful moving the articles back in the face of an ongoing discussion about their naming but the important thing here is the discussion. Everyone should now stop stoking the flames and just get back to discussing the proposed moves calmly or whatever else they were doing before this blew up. I started my involving convinced that VK was going to get blocked and/or topic banned very quickly over this (possibly even by me and I'm not a blocker or banner by preference) but I have been pleasantly surprised that they can adapt and listen. I actually think they are right here and the articles need to be moved per the MOS and local consensus by the local wikiproject but this is a matter for discussion and this is now taking place so can everyone please now drop this and move on since that's a content matter and not relevant to ANI
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Exactly; a content matter. The way Vintagekit conducted himself during this may be worthy of further discussion, however. Ironholds (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me give an example why the moves are/were very unconstructive, cause/d much unnecessary work and mess, and have/had to be considered before: basically justified by the guideline User:Vintagekits moved Sir Thomas Barrett-Lennard, 1st Baronet to Thomas Barrett-Lennard. However the location of the article had a reason, since the baronet had a son, a politician with the same name and as a MP notable on its own, but didn't inheritered the baronetcy. Caused by the aforementioned move all links thought to the son indicate now to the father - what could have been avoided. (On one side one can assume good faith, but on the other side User:Vintagekits is a experienced editor with sufficient knowledge of the topic to except such results.)
    ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Spartaz, I'm sorry, but it looks like you didn't read my comment above about the huge ambiguity problems involving baronets.

Vintagekits set about doing these moves because he hates titles, a sentiment he has expressed many times in the past. He appears to have gone about this by just making any moves that worked, without checking whether there was actually an issue of ambiguity, and ignoring the fact that using titles for disambiguation is explicitly approved by the MOS.

I am now trying to undo the damage, but it's important to note that all these disambiguation problems are covered by the MOS, that Vintagekits has had them punted out to him many times before, but that he still set off on this rampage.

Take for example this move of Sir William Acland, 2nd Baronet. There are scores of notable Aclands, and there were two William Acland baronets. It would only have taken a moment to check that, but Vk's splattergun renaming didn't involve any such checks.

Or take this edit, converting a dab page to a redirect, despite the fact that two of the redlinked articles refer to notable people, which I was able to unearth with a little googling.

I am going through the list of his contribs to unravel the rest of the damage, but those two examples illustrate neatly how VK isn't trying to uphold the MOS, he is trying to remove titles where technically possible.

Your suggestion to "get back to discusing the proposed moves" ignores the effect of this sort of rampage. It requires other editors to devote huge chunks of time to digging out the evidence of ambiguity for each article, because Vk set about this process without doing any checking of his own. Not just that, but when challenged he claimed that the dab pages were "created to merely circumvent MOS", and that the only way to demonstrate notability was to ""create an article about them".

Wikipdia is a work in progress, and there are many articles which could be created in notable people, and no doubt will be eventually. But in the meantime wikilinking avoids misleading links only by disambiguating redlinks. Many editors (including me) spend a lot of time unravelling these redlinks, and VK's efforts seem set to undermine those efforts rather than assist them.

Finally, the MOS is not, as you mistakenly say, a "policy". It is a guideline, and it explicitly says at the top "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." It also says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable"

Vk's threatening and aggressive use of the MOS as a justification for splattergun renaming without checking the consequences flies in the face of that Arbcom guidance. That's why this is a conduct issue, not a content dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for my "threatening and aggressive use of the MOS". You are a joker.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, the move of

Benea (talk

) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And here is yet another example. Vintagekits moved [Sir Ralph Verney, 1st Baronet]] to

WP:BIO

. I have now reverted Vk's moved and created the dab page which was needed.

(ec)And what of Sir

Benea (talk

) 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that we have been over all this with Vk many many times before, and he persists in calling disambiguation "disruptive". Given all the evidence here of how many of his moves today have created the same problems as his previous vendettas, why is he walking away from this episode with a pat on the back rather than at the very least a warning? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I havent been at all disruptive today, even if you keep saying it over and over and over again doesnt make it true you know. Its been shown that you are the one that has been deliberately disrutpive and provokative. I changed the Article titles in accordance with the guideance outlined in both the Peerage Project and in the naming conventions. If some of the dozen and dozens that I changed could have been handled better then fair enough I take that on board but the vast majority of the ones that I changed the article to where either direct redirects to the article or the more simple name of the article was never even created ever! You came here to try and get me to stop and after an administrator asked me to stop and engage in discussion I did do. When I trying to rationally discuss the issue with you you refused to do so and enflamed the situation by changing the article titles back and used misleading and provokative edit summaries to try and get a reaction from me - that failed and will continue to fail. You are a disgrace to your adminship and should be stripped of it today. Your actions with regards this issue have been nothing short of bullying and disgust me.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? You've been rude, foul-mouthed and uncooperative. When people brought up your behaviour, rather than seeking an attempt at resolution you accused them of being disruptive and seem to be treating this as a big joke. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

rude, foul-mouthed and uncooperative?? Thats my last post on the subject the judge me (and others) on the facts rather than the hyerbole!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's back to the old vintage of Vintagekits, isn't it? As soon as your probation is over, the gloves are off again.

You post a series of threats, then you engage in a splurge of edits which you knew would be disruptibe because ypou made no effort to check for the disambiguation issues which had been explained you at great length in one of your previous such vendettas. When your failure to consider ambiuguity was pointed out, you respoinded with more threats and abuse and accused others (me and Benea) of being disruptive for picking up on the disambiguation issues which you had ignored made no effort to check for before your page moves.

And now you continue to play the victim by claiming that you are being bullied. This is an old, old trick of yours, Vk, one that I have see many times: you plan a wikidrama, hurl abuse, accuse everyone else of being disruptive, ignore all the disruption caused to content by your antics, and then say that you only want rational discussion and how disgusted you are that others recognise the game. Four editors have posted here with ecxamples of how disruptive your scattergun renaming has been. How many more do you want?

For a year on probation, you demonstrated that you are quite capable of editing constructively, and avoiding dramas, if you want to. You not only chose to instantly resume your old ways when the probation ended, your even started your aggressive intent quite clearly in the edit summaries of the counrdown on your talk page. You knew what you were doing, and you clearly planned this.

Your final blast of chutzpah is that after "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me!" and "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama" you then complain that you are the victim of "bullying". Pull the other one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Since this editor obviously can't edit this area collaboratively and constructively with other editors simply reapply the injunction and and make it PERMANENT. Problem solved. Exxolon (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

VK, revisiting this area in this rather ham-fisted way is just not productive either to this particular project or wikipedia in general. You've done good work elsewhere but here you keep jumping in with no reference to the damage you may do in telling who the heck is who, which in turn knocks on to several thousand other pages even with just a few edits. Making work for others to sort out the subsequent mess is not good in any way shape or form and needs to be avoided in future. - Galloglass 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree; an editor whose probation has expired should be more than normally sensitive to the issues that led to the imposition of probation in the first place. The countdown to the end of probation appears to me to be unduly

ham-fisted indeed. Time to move on, I would counsel. Rodhullandemu

23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that VK and BHG find another forum to blame each other in(read not Wikipedia). I also suggest that admins keep an eye on the situation and take action if needed. This back and forth "your fault", "no your fault" is not a productive use of this or any other page on Wikipedia. I suggest you both let it go and move on.

Chillum

01:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem that VK is will remain a problem until the sanction is made permanent and indefinite. It is not punitive; it is preventive. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding the possible deletion of

) 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be about a company based in Morroco that invests in property, business and so on. It is innocuous. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Deleted (CSD A7) as I write ...

It was about a small private investment fund, including information like its alleged bank account number and what types of securities it holds.

I deleted it - completely not notable, probably contains information which should be private, etc.

This account seems to be here for reasons completely unrelated to building an encyclopedia and is doing things we outright prohibit in userspace. I am going to indefblock and delete the userpage. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say NAMIRI S.A. is entirely non-notable. The organization was the investment holding company of a highly notable former Moroccan financier, industrialist, government minister and ambassador, Driss Debbagh. Through NAMIRI he controlled the Banque Commerciale du Maroc until his death in 1986. I’m not sure, though, that NAMIRI’s notability is other than inherited. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You should try using Google translate; it's quite good. HalfShadow 23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Or Category:User fr to find wiki users that can speak French.--chaser - t 00:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The content was the company kind of legal status that only accountants and lawyers might have been interested in reading it. Askari Mark, the former Banque Commerciale du Maroc was controlled by the giant ONA Group. This is certainly a non-notable company which apparently belonged to the user's father (info from his fr-wiki userpage and Driss Debbagh article). By the way, why is he blocked? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some eyes here on this dicussion? This is an ongoing debate mainly pursued by this one user, who is clearly good faith, but we could use some more opinions for a firm consensus as these articles are so important at the moment and visible.

Also, please consider watchlisting these to help out for a while: [58] The main outbreak tracking table] and the [59] main swine flu outbreak article]. Thanks.

) 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is more than one user agreeing with me, and I have had to stop looking up and presenting information on my own because of round-robin style, petty attacks by editors who have a strong stake in the article. Flipper9 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:NoCal100

Stop it, everyone just please STOP this. This is worse than a kindergarten sandbox. On the one hand, people who are highly involved in contentious areas, such as the I/P arena, are going to have the same articles watchlisted, and talk pages of editors with whom they interact watchlisted. It is very easy to see when something new that piques your interest pops up on the screen, and if you happen to strongly disagree with the editor, you may make your opinions known quickly. That is not wikihounding; that is the natural result of differing editors having overlapping areas of interest. On the other hand, popping in and tagging a brand new article without trying to engage in discourse on the talk page isn't the most civil thing either. You all have to take four steps back, realize that the other party may, just may, have a point, and learn to work together instead of continuing the vicious cycle of having contentious articles posted, reverted, protected, blocked, and then having everyone run to AN, ANI, AE, RfC, and RfAR on a regular basis. At this point, it is becoming a tempting thought to topic ban about 25 people from the I/P arena for six months or so and see if the rest of the project can bring some level-headedness back.

In a nutshell, no one in the conversation below is either as clean as the driven snow or guilty as sin. Stop wasting your own efforts quid-pro-quoing with each other, apply even HALF of that energy into some form of RESPECTFUL collaboration, and wikipedia would be a MUCH better place. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bickering collapsed

If this should go to AE, I apologize, but I think this is a more general issue and not just about ARBPIA. NoCal100 ( Ramot. He has been warned about this in the past, and the latest warning at an AE complaint was "if any further edit warring and/or disruption occurs which can be linked to following contrib histories, then we can safely assume that such behaviour will be blockable." Will somebody do something about this repeated harassment? Nableezy (talk ) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) If I had to put my money somewhere I would bet that Nocal is concerned that the same POV violations are occurring over a number of related articles, something that is excluded from WP:HOUND. I don't know if NoCal's POV concerns are valid, but the validity of his concerns should be discussed at the article's talkpages, where he has joined or initiated discussions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I thought BlackKite was very clear in his admonition though "if any further edit warring and/or disruption occurs which can be linked to following contrib histories, then we can safely assume that such behaviour will be blockable." Can you explain where you are reading an exemption in that for what NoCal100 has been doing? Tiamuttalk 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Beyond that, what exactly are the articles he followed Lapsed Pacifist to related to that he has edited before? Nableezy (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Having mentioned BlackKite by name, I informed him of this post on his talk page. If he's in, perhaps he'll pop by to clarify. Tiamuttalk 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) The original post has some factual mistakes. From the relevant histories it looks like it was Lapsed Pacifist (who has quite a solid resume) who followed Nocal to wp:hound problem here, but the focus is on the wrong editor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC) If NoCal can explain how he got to any of those articles I would be interested in seeing it. All of these are articles that NoCal had never edited before, may not have even known of their existence, but LP makes an edit and he shows up. Tiamut starts a new article, he shows up. I am going to keep quiet now, as I really am interested in seeing whether or not he can explain how he got to any one of these articles besides by following those two. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, even if true, NoCal100 still followed me to Ramot, which has been on my watchlist for about a year I think. Anyway, that was certainly wikihounding. So the charge still stands. And he's the one with the final warning from Black Kite. Whether Lapsed Pacifist has ever received such a warning is beyond my ken. Tiamuttalk 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC) But Brew is correct, Ramot and LP happened after IRMS, my mistake. Doesnt explain any of the other articles. Nableezy (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I also see that NoCal edited Lydda Death March they both seem to have the same hounding probability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I've had Lydda Death March which I had created hours earlier and slapped it with a POV tag. There's not only wikihounding going on here, but edit-warring and disruptive editing without sufficient participation in talk until after people warn him that he is pushing it. Note he's already been warned by Elonka against edit-warring without discussion on his talk page as well. Its odd to me that no one sees this behaviour as disruptive. Tiamuttalk 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I fully believe you that you had Ramot on your watchlist. After all you are heavily involved in I-P articles. To that end, I would similarly fully believe that Nocal had Lydda Death March on his watchlist. The incident was notable and controversial and NoCal is also heavily involved in I-P articles. I currently have 1,700 articles on my watchlist and a substantial number of them are redlinks. They're on my watchlist so that I can see them whey they are created.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) He watchlisted Lydda Death March before it was created? I've had redlinks in my watchlist, but as a result of an article having been deleted. Seems an odd set of words to put together to add to ones watchlist. Nableezy (talk ) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I have a bunch of uncreated articles on my watchlist (including my name which might get created any day (I'm just kidding, I'm a big loser)). Gaza War for one. The "March" was a notable incident; nothing weird about an I-P editor having it on his or her watchlist.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: The 3 articles that Nableezy mentioned are indeed related and it was one topic, I have been working through some issues with LP and have engaged extensively on talk pages. If anyone cares to note, these pages are in fact pending mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corrib Gas. Looking at this situation, it would seem that none of the involved parties are without some guilt, LP & NoCal following each other to different pages or vice versa and Nableezy brings his dispute with NoCal to LP. GainLine ♠♥ 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) They are related to each other, but not to what NoCal had been editing prior to this. And I dont have a dispute with NoCal, matter of fact his antics amuse me more than anything. Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: It seems to me that this is essentially par for the course on I-P articles, and maybe contentious articles elsewhere on WP. Someone starts, or heavily edits, an article about Israel-Palestine or related issues, and a swarm of detractors and supporters arise. "Wikihounding?" Sure, on all sides. But nothing is done, because it simply isn't considered that great a "wikicrime." I'd love it if it were, but it isn't. IronDuke 21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry Duke, read my comment above. Its a bit more than that. Tiamuttalk 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I reread them, still not quite sure what you are referring to. More than that in what sense? IronDuke 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Come one Iron Duke. Elonka warned him under ARBPIA not to edit war without discussing months ago, she said if he continued in the future he would be blocked. Well, he did it at Ramot over the last two days, and he did not participate in talk until after I warned him about edit-warring. Right after that, he follows me to WP:AE (which wasn't the first time either). When are the ARBPIA sanctions going to be taken seriously around here? Tiamuttalk 21:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Nocal edited that article before you did, and before LP did. LP clearly followed NC to that article, and made 2 reverts w/o any talk page discussion - as did you. To come here and complain of hounding after such behavior takes a bit of chutzpah, which is exceeded only by the behavior of the editor filing this complaint. This editor has apparently been following NC for weeks now, after the 2 have edit warred on an a number of articles [83]. He followed NC to Lydda Death March and reverted him there /w/index.php?title=Exodus_from_Lydda&diff=prev&oldid=287065277 today], and went as far as to urge LP to complain about NC at an admin board. One has to wonder how he even saw NC's edits to Willie Corduff, Corrib gas controversy, Integrated Risk Management Services and Pobal Chill Chomáin, or NC's 3rr filings against him ([84], [85] if he wasn't following NC's contribs himself. In short, no shortage of blame to go around here, as User:GainLine says. The old adage "people who live in glass houses..." certainly applies here. Canadian Monkey (talk )

• Right. As mentioned in the collapsed section, I did issue a warning to NoCal100 that any further editing that could be defined under hounding as following certain editors to articles where they had not edited before would clearly qualify for a block. If anyone can make sense of the above conversation and show me clearly that such has happened, then I will issue a block. However, the situation appears somewhat confused at the moment. Black Kite 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  is that limited to evidence against NoCal100, or applicable to editors in general? Because there's some very clear evidence that the editor who filed this complaint has himself been hounding NoCal100 : [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92] Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're actually going to present that 'evidence', Exodus from Lydda was brought up on both brewcrewers and NoCals talkpage by Tiamut, both of which are in my watchlist, Charities has been discussed already in a previous thread, Mt Hebron was brought up in a 3RR complaint by NoCal against Nickhh who was rather furious at the gaming displayed to add nonsense to articles, so I corrected an issue there, and NoCal's delusions on my talk page mean exactly what? Care to say how you got to the Lydda page? But as to the request from BlackKite, which I was going to leave alone as Avi requested until I saw this, it seems pretty simple to me. Tiamut makes a series of edits to

Ramot from 3:57 to 4:07 this past morning [93] [94] [95] [96]. NoCal then edits a newly created article, which if you look at Tiamut's contribution history at the time of these edits had been what she had primarily been working on. He then shows up at that article at 4:12. The Lapsed Pacifist edits you could look at the histories, but I dont know if he had some other reason for finding those articles. Here, his whole purpose was to follow another editor to antagonize her. Nableezy (talk

) 00:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So you admit to having my talk page on your watchlist (for what purpose, exactly?), to following my contributions to 3RR in order to go to the article in question and revert me there, , and still have the gall to complain about other people? You seem to be under the illusion that its not hounding if you have some way of following another editor's edits that does not involve looking directly at their contribution history - which is simply not the case. As BlackKite notes above - hounding is "following certain editors to articles where they had not edited before" you have done that to at least 4 articles where I have edited, and this behavior has been going on for several weeks now. The real kicker in your "evidence" above is that you start it with listing Tiamut's series of edits to

Ramot from 3:57 to 4:07, somehow forgetting that this series of edits started here, with a revert of my edit within 10 minutes of me making it, on an article she had never edited before. NoCal100 (talk

) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, stop trying to throw each other under the wiki bus. Having groups of editors, from different perspectives, involved in closely overlapping areas, all making use of watchlists, is going to result in the same editors editing the same articles in close chronology. Of COURSE somebody is first, that doesn't make the second person necessarily hounding. I think blocks here of any kind would be overkill. I'd rather see a "time-out" anyway. A nice two-week vacation from I/P articles to let the emotions and adrenalin run down a bit. -- Avi (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that a bit more. When a bunch of people on two sides all start pushing buttons, uninvolved admins may step in and block everyone involved to prevent the dispute from continuing to escalate.

Knock it off and

assume good faith about each other's contributions. Community patience is about to expire, after which the recommended short voluntarily holidays to relax the situation will become mandatory. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avi and GWH above. If this doesn't stop, I am inclined to issue "bang their heads together" blocks of equal length to both parties. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if people took the time to actually examine the situation closely, they would be able to identify who is actually engaging in disruptive behaviours and who is not. I understand the reticence to do so. We are here to edit an encyclopedia after all.

The kicker is that those of us who actually want to build content are generally frustrated in those efforts by others who seem less interested in building articles, than they are in defending their own POV. If you check out the article history and the talk page history of mutliple articles and look through some of the diffs, you can see which editors are which. But it would take hours. I don't blame you all for not wanting to get involved. Those of us who have edited in the area for years and who do build content have learned how to get around it by finding quiet spaces to edit in until others come crashing through in waves to make a whole lot of noise with very little substance.

That is what I find so frustrating about your comments above actually. When I created

Lydda Death March

it was one of those quiet spaces. Its nom for DYK sailed through with no problems and it was aleady queued to appear before the NoCal100 showed up to slap it with a POV tag. I find the claim that he had it on his watchlist to be not credible. Particularly since he has argued on the talk page that the name is biased and not in wide use.

Anyway, I don't expect anything to happen here at all. Partially because I've seen this happen a million times before and there is never a definitive result because a) no one has the time or inclination to look into it deeply b) people are afraid of being labelled partisans, so when they do take a decision to block someone, they often block a person on the "other" side just to be "fair". Even if there is no comparison between the behaviours being exhibited. Just a reflection of the power imbalance in the real world too I guess. I hope this statement doesn't get me blocked. Cheers and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a group of editors who edit exclusively (or close to exclusively) Israel/Palestine dispute articles. Tiamut has created a series of articles in this area, such as

Lydda Death March and Judaization of Jerusalem

, that some other editors think have NPOV problems. The way it plays out is that, when editors who think that these articles are POV and begin to make changes, the editors who think the article is already NPOV go on defensive mode; and, because they have discovered that circling the wagons is seldom a sufficient defense, they go on the attack against the unwelcome editors that they regard as intruders. This AN/I thread is a case in point.

Since

WP:V changes is contrary to the WP policy of NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk

) 13:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prevent good faith editors with a POV that differs from mine from editing. I have repeatedly asked people whose POV differs from my own to actually edit the articles they have taken issue with, as I think that would be a vast improvement over the tendency to indugle in circular, nonsensical IDONTLIKEIT arguments on the talk page. Unfortunately, very few of those engaging in such behaviours have been willing to do that. Too bad really, since I would appreciate having good faith additions representing other POVs to enrich the article. The more information the better. Tiamuttalk 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The problem is that in disputed areas, such as these Israel/Palestine articles, neither side can be trusted to objectively to decide what is, or is not, POV. Both sides fully believe their own edits are NPOV, and that the other side's edits are POV. So your labeling of editors opposing you as POV may be less than fully objective; not to mention the apparent failure to assume good faith in your labeling all attempts to add balancing content as not being made in good faith, as POV, and indulging "in circular, nonsensical IDONTLIKEIT arguments". That is the reason WP:NPOV says

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

I understand that you fully believe that you are right and the other side (the side you describe as indulging "in circular, nonsensical IDONTLIKEIT arguments") is POV. To the extent you are successful in blocking additions to your articles, by those who you characterize as making POV edits, you are succeeding in contravening WP core policy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, with all due respect, the issue is not POV editing, so much as it is disruptive editing. I am compiling an evidence page on the subject to better clarify the problems in this regard that have beset the

Lydda Death March article. See User:Tiamut/DE for the draft in progress. Tiamut^talk

16:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is POV. When an editor, for example NoCal100, makes an edit that may be contrary to your editing goals, the edit is soon reverted. If the problem had not been POV, but some other problem, for instance, inadiquate sourcing by an inexperienced editor, it is the WP intent that the editor should be helped. No one would claim that an energetic effort to make sure the edit does not get into the article is helping inexperienced editors. What we actually see is something more like a defending team trying to block an opposing team from scoring a goal (ie succeed in getting an edit into the article). This is not the WP ideal of good editing, but it has become the 'normal' process in the writing of Israel/Palestine articles. I do not see how anyone could defend that sort of editing as anything but contravening WP core NPOV policy, and WP views on collegiality. Your saying that "I am compiling an evidence page on the subject" makes it appear that you have every intent on pursuing the soccer match model of editing to the end. I wish WP articles were edited differently. I wish Israel/Palestine articles would just describe the conflict, not model the conflict. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

i could take you more seriously here malcolm if you were taking responsibility for your own "soccer match" behavior rather than acting as if you have shiny clean hands. _{striking unnecessary comment} whether or not an article is pov is not subjective, it is testable by looking to the number and prominence of such items in reliable sources. someone's opinion that it is pov isn't enough; prove it. research. add and improve it. i've only been here a few months but, sadly, i was initiated by some bad examples and have had to seek out respectable editors to emulate. tiamut is one of those editors. she is not a pov warrior, though she has every rl reason to do so. look at the dicussion on the page in question, and the quality of her edits and arguments. this discussion should be taking place on a user talk page, though, so i'll stop there.untwirl(talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut has made it clear (when she says "I am compiling an evidence page") that she wants to add NoCal100's scalp to her belt. There is edit warring from both sides, but when has Tiamut collected 'evidence' to get someone on her side blocked? She is approaching this as a completely partisan fight. Of course she is a very intelligent and talented editor who I admire a lot. And she certainly does not edit war, but she sometimes does seem to pursue selective editing goals more energetically than might be good for a truly balanced articles. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that either, and WP assumes editors will all have a POV. Where the problem comes is in the attempt to eliminate editors with an opposing POV. What more effective way of wiki-warring over article content could there be? It the opposing editors are blocked, there is nothing further to worry about. But WP needs both sides (to achieve balanced articles) even as Tiamut apparently tries to achieve a contrary goal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, I am not collecting scalps, and take offense at the accusation. If you review

Lydda Death March) instead of working on building content. I have to do this because I don't want to see the article defaced by a POV tag when it appears as a DYK. Is that so awful of me really? Tiamut^talk

19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, wiki-scalps. What you seem disinclined to admit is that all involved are adding content to the Israel/Palestine articles based on POV. Sure it is sourced. But sourcing does not eliminate the effects that POV has on editing choices. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish Israel/Palestine articles would just describe the conflict, not model the conflict too Malcolm Schoscha. In order to do that, we need to view battleground type edits seriously. I urge everyone to review the "evidence" page. I've been honest about my role in this too. If people feel I should be blocked for edit-warring, I will humbly accept my penalty. I've tried my best to edit in good faith and I think my edits reflect that. But if the community thinks otherwise, I accept my fate. Tiamut^talk 17:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why blocking you, or anyone else involved, would improve the editing situation. The fact is that the editing of these articles is played as a winner take all wiki-conflict; and all the blocks that have been given out up to now have not done a thing to change that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right about one thing. The blocks that have been imposed so far have done nothing to change it. Perhaps we need more. Perhaps we need another approach. Tiamut^talk 18:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

List of aircraft engines

Persistently get te error page when saving edits, with this message:

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_aircraft_engines&action=submit, from 208.80.154.133 via cp1054 frontend ([10.2.2.25]:80), Varnish XID 2795339174 Forwarded for: 138.199.76.236, 208.80.154.133 Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:34:28 GMT

Can you help?--Petebutt (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)