Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Humaliwalay

Can I have some other editors have a look at the actions of Humaliwalay (talk · contribs), He first came to my attention when he bulked tagged a number of articles with tags he had copied from other articles with out explaining his rational (see warning here, he then cam to my attention again when he removed a source from Shi'a Islam in Pakistan with this claiming that "claim as it's highly dubious and citation is not reliable and refuted by multiple authentic and reliable sources." the source was Library of Congress Country Studies, I suggested that if he felt the source was not good then he should take it to WP:RS/N (see here).

He has continued to remove the Library of Congress Country Studies, and to refer to attempts to reinstate it as vandalism.

Also of concerns is the article Criticism of Sunni Islam which I felt has some issue that need addressing and tagged it {{expert}}, {{pov-check}} and {{synthesis}}(with this edit) and commented on the talk page, to which Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) reverted with "all references are proper" - see here.

One final point is that Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) has applied for the Reviewer right @ Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Codf1977 (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Notified Humaliwalay here

Please refer actions of Codf1977 for his repeated disruption of articles, geting into discussions and leaving it without reaching a consensus after multiple Warnings, this user even removes warnings from his talk page and is engaged in business of threatening and accusing, repeated request and Warnings have been deleted by this user like this [1] and this [2] from his talk page. All edits of this user are more or less based on no logical reasoning and without notifying the reason on talk page. This user is engaged in all these behavior leave no signs of discussion on talk page and then threatens to block me rather than discussing politely.

This user accuses others for lack of knowledge and when asked to justify quits discussion and deletes all discussed matter like this one [3]

Please review my request and take an action.

- Humaliwalay (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So how come Toddy1 also warned you about you calling other users edits vandalism here. Codf1977 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay: It is perfectly acceptable for users to remove warnings from their own talk page. Especially so in this case, where you obviously misuse the term vandalism in a content dispute. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Toddy was engaged in discussion with me , user did not warn me as such, it was just a discussion which was agreed by me. Humaliwalay (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you could elaborate? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama - Please refer the entire discussion again and then derive at the conclusion who uses inappropriately the term vandalism so often. Humaliwalay (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have and it is the same conclusion. You are the only one that have used the term "vandalism" in this dispute, specifically in the two "warnings" that you gave Codf1977. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid to mention but have to that your continuous biased judgment and siding with Codf1977 forced me to think if you are a sock-puppet of this user as you can see I provided you the link here [4] in which Codf1977 clearly used word vandalism first then I replied of not doing so and then discussion was on. Hope you visit that link and have review now. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your wanton use of allegations like this one in content disputes does not exactly help your case. Normally removing maintenance templates, without correcting the problem they are pointing out, is considered vandalism, however this stems from a content dispute and seems to be part of a larger scale edit war in the article. The dispute seems to be over the reliability of the Library of Congress Country Studies. But the conclusion at the RS/N-discussion seems to be that it is a reliable source, although since it disagrees with other reliable sources it should be so stated in the article. Thus it seems the dispute in this particular case is over. I am a bit worried about your readiness to categorise content disputes as vandalism and your allegations about sock-puppetry when editors does not take your side in a particular dispute. It might be a good idea in the future, if you again end up in these kind of situations, that you step away from the keyboard when tempers flare up, take a breather and relax before writing your answer. I assure you it will do wonders in resolving tense situations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you keep composing lengthy messages with no sense at all not a good Editor's and reader's etiquette, and I am not dependent on you to side with me. The only thing which does matter here is your biased judgment, so you please practice you advice and relax for some time so that your mind rejuvenates and refreshes and it will do wonders then. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this is an editor beyond reach. As he seems unwilling engage in constructive criticism or even admit having at least partly erred in this case, there seems to be nothing more to do here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama I welcome criticisms and Solutions, if rendered in polite and unoffensive way. However when it was noticed that you sided with an Editor who generalizes others on basis of Sect so it was not appreciated. You are welcome to proceed ahead with discussion in neutrality. Just have a look at the history of AllahLovesYou's edits no matter whether they are sectarian based or not matter is most of the place references are distorted with those ones cited. But if still you don't understand I am afraid I can't help it. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to begin, Humaliwalay, do you understand that placing tags like this one are incorrect? I'd like to discuss that particular issue before proceeding to the other incidents here. -- Atama頭 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

user:TechnoFaye user page - possible image violation?

Does her user page violate our guideline (scroll down to the second image)? I left her a message on her talk page and she responded to me that she rectified the problem.

I rectified the problem by removing the [| third pic] (a collage), which DID violate a policy/guideline I knew nothing about. If you have further problems, tell me and I'll address them. TechnoFaye Kane 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We are dealing with a guideline, not a policy, and this is I suppose subjective, thus, a gray area perhaps? I would appreciate another opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh, just delete the whole page methinks, far too inappropriate, and not relevant to Wikipedia - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. There is nothing wrong with the image; even going by the ridiculous and puritanical guideline, the intent here is clearly to act as a visual depiction of the editor and not as gratuitously "sexually provocative". 2. The material on the editor's userpage concerning non-consensual sex is inflammatory, and it would be irresponsible for us as a project to continue to host it as presented, even in userspace as one individual's opinions. Skomorokh 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(user notified) To be perfectly honest, I can't actually make out the second image. But agree with point number two, and have deleted the page for now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I am damned by God with the loathsome disease of autism, and that means I am INCAPABLE of detecting social impropriety "automatically". I MUST rely on published standards. That's the main reason I do Wikipedia, because it's rule-based, and (supoposedly), people's opinions are transparent here. If you'd care to ask, as so many others have, "How can someone so smart be so stupid?", the answer is: I JUST AM. IT'S NOT A CHOICE. I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER AND IT SCREWS UP MY LIFE.

2) When Rubinstein told me that this image on my user page violated WP guidelines:

File:Fayekanepics1.jpg <--- DON'T ARBITRARILY DELETE THIS FILE AGAIN WITH NO REQ FOR SPEEDY DELETION OR EXPLANATION WHILE IT IS THE TOPIC OF A DISCUSSION HERE AT ANB!!

I read the guideline, observed that he was correct, and removed the image immediately . I even apologized to him graciously, politely, and self-effacingly. If you don't like something I added to my page a few hours ago, then tell me what and why, and if you're correct, I'll delete or modify that too. Do NOT wholesale-delete an entire user's page without giving the user a chance to either defend the page or correct the problem, or worse, without even telling them you have a problem with it.

And PARTICULARLY do not do that with a user who has a biological disability that prevents them from having the heuristics normal people use and call "common sense". If WP were a workplace, this would be an EEOC issue I'd take to HR. The ad-hoc, contradictory social rules you normals make are not "common" to me; they are very difficult and complex, and that is specifically because they do not make "sense".

3) I restored my user page with hacker magic. I'd point out that I have "toned it down" since apparantly I talk too muchg about sex. At least, that's my best-guess estimate. I can't know for sure because no one has told me what's wrong with the text. Tell me what on it violates which policy and if you are not lying to me as so many other people do because they think it's funny, I will alter it to be consistent with policy.

file:Fayepic2.jpg Now as far, as the other image is concerned, I respectfully chose to defend this one. a) it is not even remotely obscene. Not that there'd be anything WRONG with that. b) where and how I live is an integral part of who I am, and I refer to it on my user page. The pic is relevant. c) It is critical in preventing something I am plagued with without the pic, which is people angrily informing me that I'm fake, an internet hoax, a man, multiple people, someone's master's thesis, a sociology research project (and once, even an AI program). I have NO IDEA why people can't accept me for how I am. But when they see my pic, they realize that I'm just a person. d) The guideline states: "activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories." I have well over 1,000 edits and have done more than edit, I was a very active participant in the arbitration of the R/I article (the cabal version of the arbitration).

TechnoFaye Kane 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed both the pictures to links. We all do not need to see the content if we do not want to. Please only link them, instead of transcluding them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, no problem! Another issue now: someone just DELETED the first pic from wikimedia, without an speedy RFD, even though IT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION. Don't you admins police each other? Or do you just let the other admins do whatever the hell they want to any user without discussing it first, saying why, or even telling anybody they're doing i? I am restoring it (as a link). TechnoFaye Kane 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked for the deletion, because the image was clearly out of Common's and Wikipedia's scope. There is no purpose what-so-ever to have a picture of you on your bed naked with the text whip me under it. Wikipedia is not a free web host. A picture of your face would be fine; it would show us you're a person, but a pornographic image, with text to boot that demonstrates it is porno, is completely outside of this project's scope.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. A cursory look at TechnoFaye's contributions seem to indicate at a minimum, questionable edits insofar as their constructiveness, and at worst, a pattern of rather disruptive editing. Particularly these: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].   Thorncrag  05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Faye. While I appreciate that your autism may make it difficult for you to comply to social norms, this does not mean that we are going to effectivly let you run wild. As you say we have many policies which make it easier to detect "social impropriety", however, you claimed to have read through the USERPAGE guideline, and still can not see how your userpage violates it? Very well, I'll try to make it more clear. Your user page (before "toning down") seemed to support the idea of tortured and rape (support of grossly improper behaviors) and still seems to advocate rape. It's also completely unrelated to Wikipedia (excessive unrelated content), really your userpage should only be about things directly related to Wikipedia. Your entire userpage (except maybe the email address) seems inappropriate to me, which is why I deleted the whole thing (as well as to get it out of the history). Rubinstein actually pointed you towards the policy page, which also mentions that text can be a problem too, not just the image. I notice that you have restored your userpage, and have re-deleted it, I told you on your talk page not to restore it, and you seem to have ignored me, if you continue to restore inappropriate content, the userpage may be protected or you may be blocked, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Has this user ever added any referenced content? Looking at the edits above this looks like a lot of simple vandalism. Are we sure this is not just someone playing a joke on Wikipedia? Testing how much the community is willing to put up with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading through Thorn's diffs, I'm starting to think this person is not editing here in good-faith.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any referenced content that has been added by this user. Thus a minimum of a warning is required. BTW this is not the writing of someone who isautistic. Autism leads to an extreme indepth focus usually on a single topic. This user edits many different and unrelated pages with no great detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly the first thing I thought of when the user claimed autism was that this was a repeat of User:Sven70   Thorncrag  05:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Faye, as you have unilaterially restored(re: re-uploaded) the image, after I have clearly told you it violates WP:NOT, I have again asked for it to be deleted. Do not restore it. Under discussion or not, there is no reason for it to stay. I would suggest you not upload it again. Take this as a warning, that I will report you to the commons admins if you do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Any further violation should result in a ban of some duration.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They've been blocked indef on commons. They say that there were no warnings or logs of why the images were deleted, despite the clear message box at the top of the page stating 04:55, 6 September 2010 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Fayekanepics.jpg" ‎ (Commons is not an amateur porn site) (global usage; delinker log).

Hopefully they'll take it to heart now, that the image is not allowed, and refrain from re-uploading it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting development

Here, Faye not only deletes my above post, but they call an admin a coward for deleting their userpage, and refactor another user's post. I'm quickly losing any good-faith I have with this user. If they do it again, I would suggest a block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I reckon that was an edit conflict (not a good excuse anyway). Nevertheless, I made the mistake of making a check of this user's so-called "blog", and parlayed that it might shed some light on their mentality, and I was, let's just say, enlightened. While usually loathed to hold off-wiki activities against someone when it comes to their editing, coupled with this user's editing history, it seems patently obvious to me now that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.   Thorncrag  05:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

An edit conflict doesn't explain how they edited someone else's post to remove an at.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was informed the above was actually the result of the owner of the post doing the editing. So I guess it was an edit conflict.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(I replied to the part of that deleted message directed at me here) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that with the selective links Thorncrag posted above, and the irrelevant comment here about her blog, Thorncrag is letting his personal distaste for TechnoFaye influence his judgement. It's fairly absurd that she is being punished for violating vague rules and expressing unpopular opinions. I realize Faye tends to push things to the limit, but I would recommend that people focus on actual rules she has violated, and not let this whole mess get muddled because of your revulsion at her opinions about rape and race-based intelligence.—Chowbok ☠ 07:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with a "Wikipedia is not therapy" situation here. And the idea that WP is rules-based is an artifact of well-meaning but misguided fringe philosophy influencing WP's early policy-makers. (They are great people but had some funny ideas, just like all of us do). WP operates by good judgment and editors who try to make it operate by rules get into endless drama and conflict.

Faye, my best advice if you want to keep editing Wikipedia is to cultivate a neutral, fact-based writing style (including in talk and project pages); avoid personality displays or bringing your personal life into Wikipedia in any way; and avoid topics and areas (in article as well as project space) that tend to attract conflict between users. Art, science, and technology tend to be peaceful subjects and are (with exceptions) usually good choices. Anything connceted to religious or political tensions in the outside world (including scientific subjects with political implications, like "Race and intelligence" which you have been involved with) is probably not a good choice. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's either a crazy person or an eleborate troll. The self-professed beliefs make the following clear: 1. User is not capable of improving content in any important area and is likely to degrade it. 2. The pro-rape activism and general demeanor is so creepy that this editor is likely to drive away other more competent editors. 3. At some point, someone who babbles about the comparitive brain sizes of "black" vs. "white" embroyos needs to be tossed out on their ear. Doing the right thing here "shouldn't" be hard, but somehow it is for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I’ve seen TechnoFaye make some useful contributions, although not recently. (Although I also haven’t been paying attention recently.) When she was involved in the race and intelligence article this spring, she added some content to it that was well-sourced, but also kind of opinionated. The content that she added had to be cleaned up by other editors in order to make it satisfy NPOV policy, but several of the sources she added to that article are still part of it.

I agree that she can be abrasive, but I’m definitely able to assume good faith about her. What her behavior looks like to me is the result of a lot of ignorance about what sort of behavior is expected from her here, combined with some amount of laziness about looking up policies before someone tells her that she’s violating one of them. I also agree with Chowbok that we should be focusing on actual policies she’s violated, rather than her opinions. If this is the first time she’s gotten in trouble for putting an inappropriate image here, I think a warning would be sufficient. As far as I know, this would be the first time she’s been blocked or warned by an admin for anything in over three years. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide diffs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bali Ultimate (strongly favouring the latter hypothesis). Recommend indef ban. --JN466 16:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm reluctantly with JN466. Not everyone is capable of being a productive editor. The community does not need to tolerate people who do not, or cannot, work collaboratively, no matter what reason is put forward for that collegial failure. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY, and we are not required to permit people to disrupt the project just because they have a valid medical excuse (or claim to).

Captain, it's not an issue of good faith: A good-faith disruption is every bit as disruptive as a bad-faith disruption. The only difference is that most good-faith people eventually learn how not to be disruptive. There's no reason to expect this disruption to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Woah, Indeff ban? its still a bit early, She is unfamiliar with our rules and has misjudged them which is typical Austistic behavior. I dont see anything here that is irredemable in this user yet. (questionable behavior to be sure but not to the point of banning)Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to fallen into a "AGF trap" per some googling searching at a JN466 suggestion I am inclined to think we should probably pass the information she has provided to VA Law enforcement. This individual is sick and needs help that wikipedia can not assist with.Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on. Now you're just being ridiculous. —Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chow I tried to AGF especially being autistic myself, This person already has some notoriety on line for this type of behavior this appear to be just one instance on a wider trend of this person's disruption. If some one is doing this disruption for fun as a hoax thats cause for concern, if we take everything she has said at face value thats also cause for concern Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While I have no point of reference as the userpage has been deleted, I did have a look through her image uploads, and, via some searching, her blog. I will say that I find nothing particularly offensive about her image uploads. One is a very fuzzy one (apparently of herself) barely showing a nipple. The other is a collage that mostly seems to have pictures of her face, with a couple "nudie" photos that may be considered offensive. What I have not seen are any polite requests asking her to edit the photos, or to warn that they may be deleted if she does not revise them. And then there is a bar graph she created based on research apparently from a scholarly journal. Finally, her personal life (most notably her blog), whether or not she chooses to share details of it in public, is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia and has no bearing on her edits or whether or not she should be blocked. It is also nobody's business to file reports with law enforcement! What law has she broken? Writing a blog that shares her apparent enjoyment of bog-standard S&M activities? Her edit history does not indicate, to me, this this is a person here to damage the encyclopedia or play games, but someone simply volunteering their time as they see fit. There is no vandalism. I see nothing destructive or malicious, and I see a lot of bad faith being assumed of her. I really wish people would attempt to discuss and explain their issues to other users before immediately going to AN/I and creating a lot of drama. In any case, I do not think WP:COMPETENCY applies, as nobody has really taken the time to tell her specifically which photos she should not upload, and what she should and should not place on her userpage. She has shown plenty of willingness to make modifications if people will simply ask her politely and explain which rules she is breaking. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not basing my arguement on what she said off-wiki. I am basing off the pattern I see a pattern off-wiki that we are only the latest to fall for. Block her and hide this Thread per WP:DENY. Her edit are questionable not to mention she has already danced with ARBCOM? Now a substaitial block log? I see less and less worth keeping. If she is willing to got to WP:MENTOR we might hold out some hope. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This makes me think of lonelygirl15 as a point of reference. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. What on earth has she done that makes you say she should be arrested?—Chowbok ☠ 22:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoah, I see now where you get confused my statement above. contacting VA law as more for Health and safety purpose of this individual. A} she is appears to be mentally ill enough to need some help. B} If she is in the area she is in a tent the way she makes it sound then mostly likely she rigged up something that is not up to code and is likely siphoning off the grid in a less than safe way. Now that is assuming everything she says is true. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I don't think she's in that cave anymore. And none of this is relevant to the issue anyway.—Chowbok ☠ 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, I am not reading to in depth about this person only off the now deleted page, why Some of her views are revolting to me that is not the issue to me. The issue to me is this person's statements if they are true.... raise concerns to me about the safety of the editor in question. These combined statement are not a kink and some weird things to say but rather eivdence of severe mental problems. The same way if some one posted they were talking about killing themselve I think here we should be concerned about the health and safety of this person's habitation and mental state. The health safety of those around here campsite also is valid question due to the possibility of forest fire from the aforementioned electrial issues. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

it would be really helpful if people would actually stop and think, then look at this user's edit history, then consider whether overall this user is editing constructively or is just editing disruptively overall, instead of lingering on content issues. As a completely un-involved editor, I took a look over the first two pages of this user's contributions and saw nothing solidly constructive, but instead mostly disruption. I have never heard of the topics of race-based intelligence, nor this other pro-rape business. While admittedly naive to these and other topics the user frequents, they strike me very much as either fringe or downright hoaxacious. The users personal web site only buttresses what I and other reasonable editors have come to discern as an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing (that is, using Wikipedia as an extension to their own activities). Seems to me there may be, at best a real competency issue here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a personal web blog, nor therapy, and not a place to socialize and this user has a history of violating those rules. A block log substantiates this hypothesis. Perhaps an administrator can just issue a strong final warning and we can all move on.   Thorncrag  21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea that there are race-based differences in intelligence, while certainly controversial, is hardly "fringe". There are many legitimate scientists arguing that there is, in fact, something to that. It really sounds to me that people are ganging up on Faye due to her advocacy of an unpopular, but hardly unsupported, theory. It's also hardly fair to judge an editor who has been here for several years on only the "first two pages" of contributions. She's been here several years, it's not too much to ask that people to go back more than a few weeks in her history before making a judgement.—Chowbok ☠ 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And again, Thorncrag isn't even trying to hide that this is based largely on his personal revulsion at opinions she holds, hardly a legitimate reason to ask for a block, much less a permanent ban (!) or, as somebody else suggested, that she be turned over to the police (?!).—Chowbok ☠ 22:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me Chowbok, but you are not even reading my posts. My concern is founded upon the user's disruptive editing history, but buttressed by the user's other activities. I beg you to please stop and think before continuing to post your seemingly wild assertions.   Thorncrag  22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Way to not address anything I said. If I'm arguing with you, how could I not be reading what you wrote? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. By your own admission you only looked at her last couple pages of contributions. There have been lots of points of time when I would hate to have been judged on that. You have an obligation to look at more than two pages of contributions of a long-time editor before arguing she be banned. And I'll bet if everything was exactly the same except that she was arguing that there isn't a race component to intelligence, you would not be taking such a hard line.—Chowbok ☠ 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Plus you keep bringing up her blog, which shouldn't even be under consideration. It's hard to believe you're being even remotely objective about this.—Chowbok ☠ 22:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I do apologize if I gave the impression that I only looked at the recent edit history, I did look further. I was only trying to explain how I produced the series of diffs that I posted above which you seem to think was so unjust and prejudicial.   Thorncrag  22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to believe you are being objective yourself, Chow, given your history with this user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"My history with this user" before this ANI, in its entirety: 1) I complained to an admin about an inappropriate personal comment she made; 2) I told her I liked her setup in a cave. You can judge if that makes me hopelessly compromised.—Chowbok ☠ 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It definitely makes you involved, and you shouldn't be saying the opposite of others when you are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• From having spent a bit of time looking into this off-site, along with others, I am absolutely positive that Faye Kane is a sockpuppet persona, and here for other purposes than building an encyclopedia. It is an interesting story, but I have neither the desire, nor the option, of outing the puppeteer here. As far as WP is concerned, the editor should be treated as a troll. --JN466 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I really dont think so, "Faye Kane" with or without "Homeless Bumstress""into google and you'll see how elaborate this would be for someone just to sock here. this person has profiles across the web spouting similiar stuff. If its a sock is a dang elaborate one. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean a sock of another WP editor. I mean an online persona created by someone interested in creative writing, online identities, and a whole lot of other things besides. --JN466 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That I can believe, so can we end this now this now? Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with other people that this person is not really helpful on Wikipedia (as one of the identified edits [13] shows). We need an encyclopedia which is not written by clearly crazy people. I would recommend a ban. II | (t - c) 05:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would strongly object to a "no crazy people" rule on Wikipedia. There's no reason crazy people can't be valuable contributors. See William Chester Minor.—Chowbok ☠ 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • What do you think of the above edit, where less than a month ago she added "but all the men would die with a big smile on their face like the guy in that TV ad for fraudulant herbal viagra" to the gamma-ray burst article? II | (t - c) 07:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree that edit was pretty ridiculous. But has an admin actually warned her about this? I still think there’s a good chance she’s genuinely unaware there’s a danger of her being blocked or banned if she continues this sort of thing, and she ought to be given a chance to reform her behavior first. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IF one needs telling that that edit is not appropriate then there bigger issues here, based on the various edits come constructive, some not. this editor is clearly aware of what we expect from people here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A summary

Okay, to summarize the points that have been made here about TechnoFaye:

1. She thinks women want to be raped.
2. She thinks there is a link between race and intelligence.
3. She's homeless.
4. She's crazy.

Can somebody please tell me how any of these are violations of Wikipedia policies?—Chowbok ☠ 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. WP:FRINGE
2. WP:NPOV
3. WP:SOCIAL... and if the user really is homeless how is she editing Wikipedia?
4. WP:COMPETENCE

...just for starters.

Now would you please stop waving your red herring arguments, and address the substance of the issue, which is the user's disruptive editing history NOT the personal challenges the user alleges?   Thorncrag  00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE only applies to the mainspace, she does not own a home or pay rent, she stays with friends (what does that have to do with WP:SOCIAL?) WP:COMPETENCE is not a policy. Therefore, only WP:NPOV remains. LiteralKa (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I love how you're the one bringing up all this personal information about her, like talking about her blog, and I'm the one going off-topic. Fine, whatever. I think a couple of the edits you link to were inappropriate of her, and she should be warned about them. Some of them were legitimate arguments and you're wrong to describe them as disruptive. I don't see any of it as block-worthy, much less ban-worthy. Does that address "the substance of the issue" however you're defining it currently?

Your links are inappropriate. Race-based IQ difference theories are not fringe, although they are a minority opinion, and just because you're clearly not familiar with the latest research in the area doesn't make it fringe. I don't see an NPOV violation in your links above, as the arguments she's making are on talk pages, not in article space (her inappropriate edits in article space are a matter of tone, not POV). WP:SOCIAL? Well, she probably did have too much personal stuff on her page, but that seems like a pretty arbitrarily-enforced rule, and I feel confident that she wouldn't be having problems if she had less controversial views. But yeah, she should trim that down. She did ask what would be appropriate and what wouldn't above, and nobody responded, which is unfair. Maybe somebody could just edit her page to something acceptable instead of just deleting the whole thing next time. WP:COMPETENCE is not even a policy.—Chowbok ☠ 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faye isn’t homeless anymore. Her blog entries from before a few months ago talk about her living in the cave, but some of her more recent entries (I’m not sure if they’re still accessible, since they were at [14], which doesn’t exist anymore) say that she’s now living with a psychologist named Tony Roberts.

Race and intelligence also isn’t completely a “fringe” topic, although there are definitely fringe theories about it. As an example of a non-fringe commentary about this topic, it was one of the main subjects of a report published by the American Psychological Association in 1995. Among other things, their report states that there’s a difference of around 1 standard deviation between the average IQs of blacks and whites, and that nobody knows what’s causing it. I don’t think the American Psychological Association could be considered “fringe” by any standard.

Now, I suppose one could claim that Faye has been advocating fringe theories about race and intelligence, although that hasn’t yet been demonstrated. But if this topic is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it, there’s nothing wrong with her having been involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick thought, not really in reply to anything, if this was a man supporting rape, and every time a female editor tried to speak to him he accused them of attempting to butter him up for sex, wouldn't we have dealt with it a while ago? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Per this edit I would say she doesn't really seem to have much interest in addressing the concerns raised here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago I raised some concerns about TechnoFaye. The discussions are found in this WQA archive and this ANI archive. Interestingly I was ridiculed by a number of editors for raising concerns about the user. I began to have doubts myself. I started to wonder whether I had my head screwed on correctly since many in the community didn't seem to think there was anything problematic with the user. The user then posted this comment on my page with a link to her blog in which she refers to me as her "simian friend", among a number of other unpleasantries . I have previously expressed my opinion that sometimes Wikipedia seems too tolerant of problematic editors. These editors take advantage of this tolerance by continuing with their pattern of abuse. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Wapondaponda, you were "ridiculed by a number of editors" for your shopping around a made-up charge against me which 6 different admins thought was ridiculous to the point of literally laughing in your face. And let's make sure to show everyone here at wikipedia what I say on my blog, even though doing that is a direct violation of WP policy. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tony Roberts with whom Faye is allegedly staying also says he is a "high-functioning autistic", "fascinated with the arts as means of knowing and becoming and with the creation and maintenance of identity under conditions of media saturation", writing "experimental fiction that occupies the boundary between qualitative research and literature." About his writing, he has said, I at times like to think of myself as a writer. On those rare occasions when I write something decent, I am writing in the spirit of Thompson, inserting myself fully into the situation, making myself a character, laughing at myself and kidding the life out of the people around me. Here the same Dr. Roberts argues that it is necessary to erect straw men that make people aware of others' and their own bigoted attitudes. And so forth. This is all laudable, interesting and very well, and Faye will no doubt continue on her blog forever, insisting that she is who she is, and that we are bigoted assholes, because that is the game that is being played here, but use Occam's razor, and ask yourself whether what is happening around this user account actually serves Wikipedia. --JN466 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Faye is Dr. Roberts" again. `Somehow this escaped the dozens of regulars at my blog who've known me for five years, including several who have spoken to both of us and two who have met both of us. I have posted pix of him and pix of me. If I take a picture of me standing next to him, would that help? Probably not, no. Not to arrogant people who insist in the face of evidence things that aren't true. You wanna talk about Occam's razor? SOMEONE, a woman, posted naked pictures of herself including when she was homeless. At very least, some woman lived in a tent in the woods and is currently a friend of Tony Roberts. Why does she have to BE tony roberts? On facebook, you'll see that he has a friend who's met me. She needs to be in on this conspiracy too, and so do the other two people I live with who are also on facebook. What's wrong with the homeless woman being Faye? What's wrong with me just being me? Am I SO weird that I can't even exist? And WTF does any of this, including who I live with, have to do with Wikipedia? Yet this kind of bull shit is being used to BAN ME PERMANENTLY.

This is not just a demonstration of the abuse of power, it's also a demonstration of the banality of evil and how people only abuse power when no one's looking. That is, you'd NEVER ban someone and give as a reason "she's homeless" if you thought Jimbo was looking over your shoulder. But in the crowded, fast-paced ANI, nobody really pays attention to injustice, so fuck this crazy Faye chick, let's just wiki-assassinate her, and the hell with it.

You wanna know where I got my crazy idea that blacks have average lower IQs than Asians and whites? FROM A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON RACE AND INTELLIGENCE. I never knew it until then, and I looked up the ref used in the article. It turns out that the statement that blacks have lower average IQs comes from a report published by the American Psychological Association. Yet along with being homeless, that "crazy belief" is being given here by WP admins as a reason to throw me out of wikipedia.

I haven't been responding to this sham, rigged, preordained-conclusion process much, but before you ban me for being homeless, my political opinions, who I live with, and things I say outside wikipedia; you need to read my reply to this whole thing here. I put it someplace where I can intersperse your statements here with my comments in yellow, and where you can't just delete it on a whim, like you have so much else I've had to say. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The account that says all women want to be brutally raped, that all women are lying when they say the don't want to be raped; that says the brains of black fetuses at two weeks old are smaller than white fetuses; that isn't so much interested in the question of race and intelligence as in spewing a bunch of pseudo-scientific garbage "proving" black inferiority; that treats wikipedia as a cross-between an x-rated myspace and a social experiment Because of my user page? That's the only place in wikipedia where I talk about my sexual activity. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) is... actually controlled by a racist white guy who likes to troll and play games on the internet? Woulda thunka it.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WELL THUNK HARDER, BALI; I GOT THAT PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GARBAGE THIS REPORT BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, and I never once said, ANYWHERE that anyone was "inferior", nor do I believe it. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faye, firstly, your way of responding to comments (i.e. starting in a seemingly random place and then cutting others comments up and surrounding them), makes it rather difficult to reply to you, please see WP:INDENT for a neater way to respond. Also, shouting (bold + uppercase) makes it rather painful to read through your messages, please tone them down a bit. Anyway, you seem to be under the impression you've already been banned, and are accusing us of having unfairly banned you, since you're not banned this doesn't really make much sense. You don't really seem to be understanding the reasons why it's being suggested you be blocked, I don't think anybody is saying that you being homeless would be a reason, except maybe Chowbok, who seems to be misunderstanding as well. You are very clearly either misrepresenting, or misunderstanding us, the only reason your other post was removed is because it was removing other users posts itself (as well as attacking another user). If you want to re-add it properly without the personal attacks, I doubt there would be objections. Also, don't use the fact that most of your social-activity as in the userspace as a defence, since even the userspace is not meant to be used for socialising, or pretty much anything unrelated to Wikipedia, as you should understand if you'd read WP:USERPAGE. Wikipedia is not a social site, and it's certainly not the right place to be looking for people to have rape you, because you seem to be using it for this purpose, it's being suggested you should perhaps be blocked, unless you actually accept Wikipedia is not the place to bring your sex-life. If you kept it off Wikipedia I doubt any of us would be the least bit interested in blocking you for it. Also, your common vandalism to articles, is again something it's been suggested needs to be dealt with, something you've so far ignored, instead you seem to make up the reasons people are saying you should be blocked, and then respond to those (admittedly poor) reasons. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, someone can write on their user-page that they are the reincarnation of Siddarcha Guatama himself, back to bring enlightenment to all, filled with good karma and the ability to edit with utter detachment and equanimity. All we can say is, "okay, but when it comes down to it all you really have to do is comply with our policies and be a good collaborator." Someone can say they are a professor at a small private university, and have doctorates in theology and canon law and you know what? Our only response ought to be, "okay, but when it comes down to it all you really have to do is comply with our policies and be a good collaborator." Based on my editing patterns and what I have written on my user page you can make some reasonable inferences about my intersts, but if you think you know who I really am or what my real expertise is in, you are fools. I can say anything I want to on my user page and when it comes to dropping clues about hwo I really am honestly, it is not that hard to came people. No one should ever have believed Essjay's claims about himself. Did he comply with policy? To the extent that any of his edits were verifiable, did h deserve respect as a knowledgable editor? Did he work in a collegial way? If so, he should have been respected for that. There are other editors - Tim Vickers, DGG, who tell us who they are. I have tremendous respect for them, but not because of who they say they are on their user pages - if I believed their user pages I am just a mark, a sucker. The point is not that user pages are always lies. In any good con some people win. It is why people keep going back to the slots at Vegas. Of course some people are who you believe they are. But the fact remains: I respect DGG and Tim because of the wuality of their edits.

TechnoFaye's user page makes claims about herself. Often times when she (or he) edits, she makes claims about herself. So what? We have no way of knowing whether she is telling the truth about herself, whether those are photos of her, etc. None of it matters.

When I called attention to her user page I was NOT inviting ANYONE to judge her personally. My only question was, to what extend was the user-page complying with our userpage guidelines, and also given that they are guidelines and not policy (and also that our first policy is to ignore all policies) should we really be concerned about her userpage.

TechnoFaye could be an autistic nuclear engineer. He could be a priest who likes having a secret. She could be a psychiatrist combining a hobby with an experiment. He could be a famous free-lance writer with a PhD and three MAs who realy really realy does not want anyone to be able to guess who he really is. We do not know, we cannot know, and we shouldn't want to know. I just raised a question about the applicability of our guidelines to the user page. Some of you have looked at her recent edits and believe that there are other concerns. Whatever. But you will get nowhere if you make any assumptions that you know anything about her. TechnoFaye has been editing here a long time. S/he knows how everyone else edits and s/he knows our policies and guidelines. She is not a newbie, so we can assume that she has the knowledge of how Wikipedia works that we expect. As far as i see the only task is to use our policies and guidelines as points of reference to judge whether she is a valuable contributor or a disruptive editor. But you have to decide this based on her actions at WP not her identity.

I called attention to her userpage NOT because it is at all revealing about who she really is, but simply because it is an action at WP and thus reflects on the encyclopedia. That is all we should care about: actions at the encyclopedia and their contribution to or detraction from the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points, SLR. We should only be concerned about use pages if they are offensive, creepy, or used primarily or exclusively to promote some fringe POV that the Wikipedia community does not believe is notable. (I feel we should make an exception for quality writing, but only on a case-by-case basis.) We should sanction or ban editors who aren't productive contributors &/or who don't play nice. As for the persona Wikipedians present, we shouldn't be overly concerned about that unless it is needlessly distracting. (By that, an example would be for one to claim to be a specific important politician without providing some kind of verification.) What I saw happen was that a number of people felt TechnoFaye's userpage was unnecessarily creepy, & it was deleted. (She could have presented the same information with a couple of links to her other web pages.) As for discussing the persona of TechnoFaye . . . well, IMHO it's human nature to want to gossip about other people, but doing it on WP:AN/I really doesn't contribute to writing an encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Slr, specifically brought up the issue of the image, which is what this thread should address. But, because of this thread, TechnoFaye's conduct in other places has also attracted attention. I think most Wikipedians are quite open minded when it comes to editors with some eccentricities. There are times when we even appreciate their idiosyncrasies. It seems likely that TF does have some condition that predisposes her to make anti-social remarks, whatever it is I empathize with her. But I also feel that her disruptive pattern of editing has shown no sign of getting better. When I raised the issue of TF a few months ago, I got the impression that many admins were too afraid to deal with the issue because of TFs self-diagnosed condition. Realistically, I don't see a voluntary end to this disruption.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision was recently closed with a number of topic bans issued out. TF had been involved in the controversy from early on, but following a bout of disruption, stopped editing for a while, I think this was based on advice from Tony Roberts as indicated in this thread Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 5#Why_the_changes_today.2C_and_the_end_of_this_mediation. Therefore TF was not a subject in the Arbitration proceedings, however had her drama continued, she most definitely would have. Her conduct may even have been more egregious than the conduct of some of the users who were sanctioned. So it is somewhat disappointing that shortly after the arbitration ended TF reappeared with her drama. It may be a coincidence, but I don't know. Nonetheless discretionary sanctions were authorized by Arbcom. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Slr, are you saying that any editor should feel free to do what Essjay did, that the only one at fault in the Essjay saga was the community, not Essjay, and that Essjay's behaviour should only have been judged by his content and talkpage edits? --JN466 17:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was making a general point. This is not the place to get into a tangent about Essjay. If that is what you want to discuss take it to my user talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing only - problematic or acceptable?

Per Slrubenstein's observations above - New section to focus on TechnoFaye's edits (only). Are they productive, a mixture, largely disruptive? Are they within the range we tolerate, or outside it?

I will be reviewing the edit history in depth. I invite others to do so as well (and where done above in the other-focused discussions, restate their opinions on this topic, narrowly focused...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure another section is needed for this, since users are already looking at Faye's edits above. Whatever Slrubenstein's reasons for creating this thread were, that does not mean we can't look at other possible problems with the user. However, while looking through Faye's contributions, I came across another edit, which were it from a new user, would, I expect, be considered vandalism (not in the mainspace, but file space): here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've tried to state many times, taken separately, all of the factors regarding this user independently may not warrant this kind of attention, but taken altogether strongly portray a history of disruptive editing. That's really all that matters, the disruption being caused.   Thorncrag  22:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary BLP violation by user:RolandR

user:RolandR writes about Steven Plaut in edit summaries:

1. "Removed BLP smear sourced to known libeller and extremist agitator"
2. "It is still an unacceptable smear from a known libeller"

Even, if we are to assume that the reverted edits were BLP violation, user:RolandR has no right to revert them with BLP violations on his own most of all in the edit summaries. It is anyway as reverting vandalism with vandalism or even worse. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How, praytell, are those BLP violations? Plaut has been found guilty of libel by a court of law, and a review of his biography indicates that he is an extremist agitator. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article states: "in February 2008 the court overturned all but one count relating to a publication in which Plaut had called Gordon "Judenrat Wannabe"". There's no single word in the article that names Steven Plaut "an extremist" or a "part of the extremist lunatic fringe" for that matter. I am not saying that the edits should not have been reverted because I did not look in that matter. I am only saying that the edit summaries they were reverted with are BLP violation.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"U.S.-born professor guilty of libeling colleague"; "Israeli Appeals Court Upholds Libel Judgment Against Academic but Reduces Damages". RolandR (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer this complaint more directly: Steven Plaut has been convicted by an Israeli court of libelling Israeli academic Neve Gordon. There has been constant sockpuppet vandalism on the Gordon article, with attempts to introduce not only the original libellous material, but further defamation of the judge in the case and of others. Sand has not (yet?) sued Plaut for libel, but we see the same pattern beginning to repeat itself -- make wild allegations of Nazi sympathies, then use Wikipedia, which has a much larger readership than Plaut's own mucksheets, to spread this defamation far and wide. We should not allow Wikipedia to become an accomplice in this campaign of defamation and abuse against those Plaut seeks to vilify. RolandR (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Convicted of libel otherwise, it's a violation of BLP to write contentious material about living persons, true or otherwise, without also providing reliable sources. As such, the edit summaries are a BLP violation and should be revdelled. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: regardless of the truth of the edit summary claim, it is both unnecessary and unhelpful. Edit summaries should avoid unnecessarily contentious statements because they cannot be revised, replied to or contextualised (although with RevDelete they can now be struck, but that requires admin action). Basically, make the point neutrally (eg "not a reliable source") and point to the talk page if you want to go into detail. Rd232 ^talk 09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that the latest edit summary, which the 2 uninvolved editors here (Giftiger_wunsch, Rd232) found to be an unnecessary and unhelpful BLP violation, came AFTER I had already raised this issue on WP:BLPN - here, had a consensus of people there agree that this was inappropriate behavior, and suggest that I politely ask him to stop. That I did, three times, on his Talk page ([15], [16], [17]). The response, by both RolandR and Malik (who also wrote nearly identical BLP-violating edit summaries at the same page) was defiance, refusing to even acknowledge they did anything wrong, and now the behavior continues. I think this calls for some administrative action at this point, as it is obvious the behavior will not change without one. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The first admin action necessary is to remove the inappropriate edit summaries. As it no longer takes an oversighter for this, I have done it. I don;t intend this to rule out other appropriate action DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for oversighting the summaries.

  I believe it is about time to deal user:RolandR somehow.His edit summaries is only a continuation of his POV pushing in any place he could find. His contributions are all rings of the same chain. For example he is using his user page to promote his political views, and simply ignores a few requests to remove soapboxing from his user page:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The edit summaries were wrong and the oversighting is appropriate. But I'm concerned that there's more worry about a potentially libelous edit summary, that few non-wikipedia editors were likely ever to see, than there is about content added to an article that says someone is a peddler of "antisemitic myths" popularized by "Neo-nazis," cited to an oped written by an economics professor who's (apparently -- going on what i read here) been found guilty of libel in an israeli court for similiar claims made against someone else. Those claims, in the body of an article, are likely to be seen by far more people and do far more harm to the reputation of someone than a nasty edit summary. Not saying the edit summaries get a free pass, but dealing with the insertion of such stuff into article text is the bigger of the two problems. (There is plenty of trenchant criticism of the book in question in the article -- Hastings, Schama, Halkin etc... -- from people both more qualified to criticize and without the particularly inflammatory talk of antisemitism and implication of association with neo-nazis.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  Please note this thread is not about content of the article, in editing of which you are very involved. This thread is about the conduct of the user User:RolandR.User:RolandR has problems that should be dealt with at last not to punish but to prevent them from happening over and over again.

  Here is one more of the user contributions: Here's a talk page of the user, who used language like that: "When did this version turn into Nazipedia? And why are you ... behaving like an totalitarian asshole?" "Are people really supporting his kind of fascistoid bullshit?" "Answer my questions instead of behaving like an Nazi asshole!" So what User:RolandR does to that user? Well, he gives him so called The Kafka Award desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer, and posting the image of Kafka next to the racist rant. Wikipedia is not censored, but as we see at the example of User:RolandR he will stop at nothing including BLP violation to promote his views.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Where on earth did this fantasy come from Mbz? Please note this thread is not about content of the article, in editing of which you are very involved. I've never edited that article. I'd never heard of the book in question, the author of the book, or the economist who called the author an antisemite until today, when i saw this thread. That's a patently false assertion -- so why did you make it Mbz?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my bad. I did strike my comment out, but the thread is still about User:RolandR's conduct.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Am I on trial for a comment I left on another editor's talk page three month's ago? Or even for a comment by another edoitor? What on earth is the relevance of this? RolandR (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the comments that Mbz objects to were added after I commented on the page. RolandR (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are 'on trial', but when a complaint has been lodged against you for violating wikipdia's BLP policy, it is reasonable to examine if this was a singular occurrence, or if it is part of a pattern of behavior which indicates a general lack of concern for BLPs. In that context, a BLP-violating comment made on a user's Talk page , even if made 3 months ago,is very relevant, as is your continued intransigence and refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, as demonstrated by your editing at Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are on trial for presenting a Kafka award. Marvelous. You can't make this stuff up. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The smear by association wasn't even in the ballpark (that is, the guy you gave the award to -- "desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer", made the offensive comments after you'd given him the award)? Wow. I guess Mbz has some more striking to do.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how there can be any BLP issue involved here. Even if Kafka were still alive (unfortunately, he died 86 years ago), it would be extremely hard to explain how invoking his name on another editor's talk page was a breach of the policy. RolandR (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to invoke the American football player whose name may not be spoken? A certain somebody can't deal with issues even remotely related to Israel and Palestine without becoming irrational. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there's nothing more for me to strike out. I hardly edit in I/P conflict area, and you know that. When I comment on the subject I am always rational. I simply despise all anti-Semites and antisemitic Jews in particular. Yes, I asked to remove that hate propaganda "a classic symbol from Nazi iconography" cartoon, as Jimbo put it, from the user page, and it hurt me enormously to see the picture of Kafka added to that user talk page as an award. If you believe it is "irrational" so it be.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Off topic comment...I've said before and I'm going to say it again, Wikipedia really ought to have an article about the visual propaganda of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal:

all involved agree

1. that edit summaries are a place to be careful, and to avoid writing contentious things which require more discussion and potentially contextualisation. Use the talk page as necessary to fully justify and source contentious BLP claims - whether it's about the subject of the article or someone else.
2. that people shouldn't edit war contentious BLP claims into articles. Go to the talk page, talk it out, allow a clear consensus to be reached (or existing consensus to be properly overturned).
3. Everything else in this thread is irrelevant here. WP:RFCU is that way.

Rd232 ^talk 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes³--intelati^(Call) 23:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, but I believe that the users should be at least warned about repeated BLP violations in edit summaries and reminded about the need to assume good faith too Disusing who is whose sock with no evidences at the talk pages has to stop.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"users should be at least warned about repeated BLP violations in edit summaries": that's covered by the first point, is it not? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I accept this, and will endeavour to exclude contentious assertions from edit summaries. ( do not agree with Mbz's rider, and note that she is again attempting to havbe me penalised for another editor's comment). RolandR (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

• Triton Rocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Long-time fans of ANI will recall several prior threads about this editor and their enthusiasm for the term "British Isles". WT:BISE exists to consider usages of this term through the project, and Triton Rocker has been very active at WT:BISE. They were the first (and to date, only) editor to be subject to a topic ban, and have been blocked several times for violating the topic ban, disruptive editing and edit warring.

WT:BISE brings together multiple different groups of editors. It is vital that these disparate groups discuss issues with as little acrimony as possible. In short, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are as important at WT:BISE as they are elsewhere in the project. To that end I have been removing personal attacks and warning editors. Triton Rocker has been warned before about this.

Triton Rocker has just completed a week block for edit warring at Terminology of the British Isles. Two of their first edits, post block, were this one and this one. On the face of it, a humorous edit summary: "HighKing's nuts" (in a discussion which, among other things, did involve horse chestnuts) and a mostly on-topic post in which Triton Rocker's views on other editors' motivations played a relatively small part: "This is just another ridiculous and desperate attempt in a nationalistically motivated campaign, defying logic, that should not be entertained."

I've blocked Triton Rocker for these latter two edits. The block is indefinite, as it follows on from several blocks relating to editing in the British Isles area. I feel the block is justified because these two edits demonstrate that Triton Rocker has failed to take on board the concerns expressed by the community, here at ANI, and at WT:BISE. I do not accept that these edits are minor: they were, I am certain, calculated to allow the maximum wikilawyering possible: in short, they were designed to game the system and provide the editor with a degree of deniability. I do not regard that as acceptable. I regard both edits as overt/covert attacks on one or more editors.

I have told Triton Rocker that I would have no objection their block being lifted - if they make a commitment to addressing the issues raised in this and prior blocks. That offer stands. I've also offered to copy any comments Triton Rocker wishes to make here, to ANI, so that they are able to fully participate in this discussion. The last time I did this the comment I copied was, frankly, unacceptable and attacked several editors including am admin. Nevertheless, I remain prepared to assist Triton Rocker. I believe, deep down, there is a good editor there - one who is struggling to adapt to frustrations of working in POV areas.

As this block is an indefinite block against an established editor I am seeking review here. TFOWR 11:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit severe. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Triton needs to accept that he can not make any comment on BISE which could in any way be against the rules or considered as against the rules. If he agrees to finally accept that properly then the indef block should be lifted. He knows he is going to be watched closely, he knows there are people that may want him out of the way, i do not get why he continues to act in the way he does especially after just coming off a block. The only way to play this game is by the rules. I hope Triton accepts hes got to be far more careful with his comments so he can be given another chance. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Are nuts called conkers in Ireland? This whole BISE has become a POV joke. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Conkers are called Conkers in Ireland too yes, and conkers are nuts. The problematic bit of his comments is the "nationalistically motivated campaign" in my opinion. Whilst that is exactly what has happened (often known as the Crusades), and there is a clear case of censorship now taking place on Ireland articles, we are meant to avoid any comments on possible agendas on the BISE page. If triton agrees to avoid such comments again the indef block should be lifted. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I believe Horse Chestnuts do get called "conkers" when used in sport. Part of the problem with this, as with so many POV areas, is civility - rather than work together to drive the process forward, a popular past time is to see how far one can take incivility. In other POV arenas I've even seen editors question just how far they go, without any apparent trace of irony. The reason I've been removing WP:CIVIL-vios and warning editors is that civility (or a lack thereof) has a profound impact on the overall process: once the attacks start they continue, unless dealt with. I'm not keen on civility blocks, but I see no way to avoid them in POV areas where civility is seen as just another weapon in the POV warrior's toolkit. This is basically a vicious circle in several ways: incivility spawns further incivility, just as systematic removal of a term has resulted in systematic addition of the same term. TFOWR 12:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(in reply to Britishwatcher) Thats a big troupe of elephants (herd) in the room to not be able to mention. I think it would be better for Triton if he was unblocked and topic baned for a couple of months, that way he will get the chance to watch it all and see it for the joke it is. If TRocker can leave this issue behind him he has the look of a decent contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, TR is already topic banned. TFOWR 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So here we are again at AN/I discussing more British Isles related problems. I wonder when, if ever, the movers and shakers at Wikipedia will grasp the fact that all these problems, even the current one, can be traced back to one single user, HighKing, and his relentless drive to eliminate British Isles from Wikipedia. This user has developed a whole industry around getting rid of British Isles including "guidelines" and a special examples page at WP:BISE. It's that very page which has resulted in this latest uncalled-for block on an editor who just by chance came across the diabolical situation regarding British Isles and tryed to do something about it. He is the latest victim of the continuing, subtle crusade to remove British Isles. I urge his block be lifted and an immediate topic ban placed on all the protagonists at British Isles, otherwise we'll be back here again, and again and again and other editors who stumble into the mayhem will no doubt be consumed by it in the same way Triton Rocker has. Wake up to reality! LevenBoy (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR is "topic banned" is he? So tell me - what can I do regarding British Isles that he can't? LevenBoy (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR is topic baned. What you need there is TB3 which restricts him talking about it also. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not support any form of ban which restricts people from raising matters on the BISE page, unless we are ALL banned from talking about it. Id submit to a complete ban if certain editors were included. We could then all get on with our lives or other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You can add British Isles somewhere, Highking will revert it and then we will have to debate it for the next few weeks. If Triton adds it anywhere, it will be reverted and he will also get a block, of atleast 1 week. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that a lot of people closely related to this issue are having problems with HighKing and I feel that you would be remiss to deal with Triton but not address this other user's behaviour also. Having said that, it does appear to be wikilawering of the highest order. Especially if those are the first two edits after a block. A reasonable discussion with Triton about what other topics he may wish to edit if his band is lifted seems like a very good idea. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they were the 3rd and 4th edits after the prior block. If Triton Rocker were to edit outside the British Isles arena, I gather than British motorcycles is a subject with which they have a huge amount of familiarity, but I dare say there are other areas too.

I became involved at WT:BISE after this ANI thread, which named 2/3 editors as being "problematic". Since I've been involved none of these 2/3 editors has given me significant cause for concern. These 2/3 editors include High King (and a participant in this thread).

I absolutely do not accept that dealing with one editor's problematic behaviour requires that we also consider another editor's behaviour: each case can - and should be - considered individually, on its own merits/demerits. Otherwise it simply becomes a question of shouting loudly about one editor whenever a "comrade" is threatened. Take a read of WT:BISE (and its archives) and see how many threads degenerate into a "High King is responsible for global warming"-type rants. TFOWR 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While you're taking in the discussions at BISE and the archives, pay attention and see if you can identify the core group of editors who continually disrupt with breaches of CIVIL and other policies, full stop. And you may also with to note the tactic whereby any discussions of these editors at ANI or WQA or SPI also get hijacked into an anti-HighKing tirade (just like they're trying to do here). Thankfully the community is also wising up to this and Cailil made a good point at a previous ANI. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR lasted a total of 4h 25 min after coming off his last ban before he made an edit which got him this ban. TR needs to be taught a lesson and the ban is fully justified. This has nothing to do with HK or any other editor other than TR. No one else is to blame for his actions. Bjmullan (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an indefinite ban is a bit much, but agree that he has strayed past whatever thin lines of civility exist on BISE. I recommend his ban be lifted, but that he not participate on BISE for a period of time. Hopefully this will give him time to cool down. I disagree with the attacks on HighKing, he has a POV definitely, but as far as I can tell he does his best to remain civil at all times, even under attack. Chipmunkdavis (talk)

On a point of order: it's an indefinite block, not a ban. I opted for indefinite as it was clear that short-term blocks weren't working. However, being indefinite, i.e. not "infinite", it can be lifted at any point. Indeed, I've made clear to Triton Rocker what action I'd want to see in order for the block to be lifted. TFOWR 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the idea, above, of a Third option, whereby TR is banned from "British Isles" related topics - actually all British-nationalist-related topics, including Talk pages. Perhaps if this can be agreed at the BI general sanction as TB03, the indef block could be lifted and TB03 applied. --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Far too broad. TRocker should be able to edit articles related to the British Isles and any British Nationalist articles but is only to be restricted from inserting or removing or discussing the expression British Isles and it should have a time limit of some months. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is some form of ban on stopping people from even joining a debate at BISE then it has to be for a limited amount of time. Banning someone for a few months from even joining the debate, when some editors have been involved in this dispute for years seems extreme. But if he agrees to follow the rules and avoid any comments like he made today he should certainly have his indef block lifted. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The block is appropriate. Triton Rocker should remain blocked until he recognizes site policy and standards, per normal procedure with repeatedly blocked users operating under restriction. If TR acknowledges site policy and standards and agrees to abide by his restriction then he should be unblocked and the topic ban should be given a limited duration (ie 6 months from the time of unblock). I'd suggest adding civility parole but wouldn't make it conditional on an unblock.
  On a separate point it is becoming fairly clear that editors (on both "sides") don't understand that the 'British Isles' topic is under probation and therefore any edits (to articles or talk space) in that area will be scrutinized and if out of line will be sanctioned (that includes here) [21].
  @Off2riorob, Triton Rocker is already restricted as you suggest--Cailil ^talk 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A 6 month topic ban if he agrees to play by the rules is far too extreme. (if by topic ban, it means not being allowed to even discuss the BI issues.)BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, Triton Rocker is already topic banned and it is to that ban which I'm referring (the one that restricts him from adding/removing the term BI from articles). His ban currently has no duration which may mean Black Kite was imposing and indefinite topic ban. In light of that and the fact that a 6-12 month topic bans are the norm, this would be a step forward for TR. Also abiding by the rules is a minimum requirement for all editors, it should not be seen as an achievement for anyone to do so--Cailil ^talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite restriction from the whole wikipedia is not appropriate at all user Calil, its excessive. We are a contributory website and we are obliged to do our best to allowusers to contribute in some good faith way. This isn't a police state and his disruption is for minimal than deserves a site ban. I didn't apply it so I don't have to live with it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, Rob I didn't propose an indefinite restriction - my proposal is conditional unblock on agreement to abide by the rules.
Please do not misrepresent what others say Rob. I have not mentioned a 'site ban' in my above post at all--Cailil ^talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I believe you are commenting as an independent I was not surprised to see you are flying the I am proud to be Irish flag on your userpage. We are all requested to rise above our partisan opinions and allow this user to edit in whatever way possible, I did not misrepresent your comments, ban block call it what you like yo8u supported an indefinite restriction as appropriate, I don't. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob I stated that I would not allow anyone to be subject to personalized comments based solely on their nationality. You have directly speculated on my motivations based solely on my country of origin. I said in relation to Triton Rocker that I would escalate the matter then - I will do the same now - I will give you one chance to redact that remark if you don't take it I will escalate it immediately.
Also as a point of order there is a HUGE difference between a block and a ban. And I support the indef block as TFOWR applied it (which is one based on a conditional unblock)--Cailil ^talk 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a disgraceful comment and a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --HighKing (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No its not, its a simple statement without any accusations at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The whole point of an indef is that it can be listed IF the editor concerns undertakes to behave differently. Despite multiple blocks Triton persistently refused to admit any fault and immediately reverts to the same behaviour within hours of coming back. At this stage the community needs Triton to acknowledge the issue and undertake to behave differently. Otherwise I suggest a full topic ban (at the moment he just has a sanction not to add "British Isles") on the subject so he can do good work elsewhere. The demonisation of HighKink is getting silly - that editor has abided by all the rules for well over a year now. --Snowded ^TALK 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Demonisation, bit strong isn't it. I think it is clear that if Highking was removed from the issue there would be no issue at all, no problem , nothing to deal with, no threads at ANI no BISE action page, nothing just a calmer less disrupted wikipedia with a few links to Bisles that suggest such excessive terrible things such Conkers is not the correct word for all the BIsles and flaura and fawna perhaps should be only in the Northern Ireland and Uk. and such tedious miniscule issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, High King has co-operated fully with the nomination process. Also for the last few months the vast majority of cases are British Watcher, Triton etc. inserting (or nominating the insertion of) British Islands and/or related proposals on stable issues such as Derry/Londonderry. This whole area is not one where one group can place all the blame on others, or argue that removing one editor would mean the problem would go away. --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been exposed to HighKing's previous actions, but from what I've seen, no matter what he has done in the past, he has been an active, and constructive, contributor to the BISE page. Let's stick to the discussion of TR's block shall we? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually ever read essays like WP:TE and WP:CPUSH, or considered that WP:CIVIL is a behavioural guideline that is infact about a lot more than just being polite, and then actually taken a good long hard look at HighKing's long term contributions and tactics at venues like BISE? The idea that he is being 'demonised' is frankly ludicrous, it's borderline insulting to the intelligence of everyone who is familiar with this dispute, as is the often pushed idea that the pro-BI crowd's misbehaviours exists in a vacuum unrelated to him. The only thing 'silly' about this dispute, is that things like TE are routinely ignored, let alone the total apparent invisibility of guidelines like WP:GAME, even by the people supposedly monitoring the discussions, and people are getting blocked and gamed off the issue left right and centre, for simply calling a spade a spade and then flipping out, instead of not simply bending over and taking it when facing some extremely high-end acts of gamery and tendentious campaigning. There a a hundred and one behavioural policies that he breaches all the time, practically daily, when you realise what they actually say, which is really not constructive for the pedia when the underlying issue is just his complete and utter misunderstanding of content policies like NPOV. As can be seen by this yet another ANI, when it comes to oversight in this dispute, the only thing that anybody ever bothers with is the low-hanging fruit - the people who are just being meanies!, or providing block reasons to people on a plate. Everything else is simply left alone, in the obvious favour of those who have the greatest staying power and ideological will to play the long game. And in this dispute, the outstanding leader in that respect is HighKing, 100%. He's supposedly not a campaigner. Well, has he ever, ever, put sustained editing effort into any other cause on Wikipedia? MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mick, thanks for pointing out WP:CPUSH, I wasn't aware of it. Having now read it I find it quite astounding how it so accurately describes HighKing. Let's look at the introductory bullet points:

Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers. These are editors who are superficially polite while exhibiting some or all of the following behaviors:

• They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.
• They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like (PCCTL for short).
• They revert war over such edits.
• They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information.
• They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. *They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
• They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
• They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets.
• They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.
• They hang around forever wearing down more serious editors and become expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV.
• They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors.

Every single one of those is HighKing to a T; quite remarkable. LevenBoy (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please take the advice of Chipmunkdavis and stick to the discussion of TR's block and let's try and get away from the school boy excuse of he made me do it. Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Having only registered in November 2009, Chipmunkdavis's advice is probably not informed by the fact that most arbitration cases, and certainly all the repeat ones, are always founded on what you laughingly want to dismiss here as a school boy excuse. Can we? Probably. Should we? Absolutely not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I did only register recently, which is why I said that I judged HighKing based on what I've seen. If he's no longer running his campaign or whatever it was, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Did TR continue edit-warring, upon his block expiration? If so? indef. If not? don't indef. I don't wish to see anybody indef-blocked because of their posts and/or edit summaries. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker's response for ANI

Copied from Triton Rocker's talkpage per my offer and TR's request. TFOWR 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make three things clear:

a) I was not topic banned. The only thing I was "banned" from doing was adding the term "British Isles" from topics. I am allowed to edit any article.

b) My point of view (and interest) is non-political and relates solely to non-political uses of the term. A position which I have sustained clearly and accurately with academic quotes, e.g. "used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests", e.g. see: here.

c) I have been utterly consistent in this arguing against the politicisation and nationalist use of the term from any nationalist point of view. (I am not English and do not support British abuses of power in Ireland or anywhere else).

Now, please allow us to discuss the "elephant in room" for one moment and get a straight answer.

You have an Irish editor --- supported by others --- widely recognised to be engaged in a campaign to remove the term British Isles despite the above. What is HighKing's motivation?

What cracks me up is how far out of proportion with reality, or any reasonable responsibility to check the facts, his attempts are.

• Forget the distraction TFOWR is causing by scapegoating me just like Black Kite before him --- what we are really here discussing is conkers. It could equally have been Wych Elms.

HighKing claims no true Irishman calls them conkers to remove the term British Isles. Yet the Government of Ireland promotes Conker Championships.

HighKing claims there are no Wych Elms on the Isle of Man to remove the term British Isles. Yet the Government of the Isle of Man states they are the most common (and forget too 'Flora of Guernsey and the Lesser Channel Islands etc').

Now --- this 'opposition to reality' going on and on and on at WT:BISE. I could pick out at least tens of equivalently ridiculous examples and I am sure HighKing has a list more.

Why should we really have to bear the burden that such an 'opposition to reality' for the sake of a nationalist cause is causing just to keep the Wikipedia accurate?

If they have a problem with the naming convention, they need to go to the International Organization for Standardization to sort it out.

Not skew the Wikipedia. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

May I also ask, is this a typical trick, banning someone from editing so that they cannot defend themselves on an admin page? It is not the first time. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a mightly strange thing to do, I must say. LevenBoy (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...and that's a pure load of shyte. The editor has been told in the past that while blocked, he may request to have his input into the ANI copied from his talkpage into ANI. Just because he blanks his talkpage rather than archive it, does not mean he's not already aware of the process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Length of block

I do not consider it acceptable to follow up on a 1 week block with an indefinite block. Even arbcom does not do this is handing out sanctions: they double it each time. That's normally what we should be doing here; further, this was on a talk page, not article space. And no block longer than 1 week has been yet tried. I sense the frustration of those previous involved, but as someone with no prior involvement in this entire topic area, I have therefore shortened the block to 2 weeks. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a magnanimous move but I wonder, might you consider removing it altogether? Look at what was said, and the history behind this scandalous situation. TR is no better, nor worse, than the average contributor here. The problem stems from his original, and wholly inappropriate, restriction. If it was not for that then we wouldn't be here at this page (again) today. As I've said before - look at the fundamental problem here, not the symptoms that we now have. LevenBoy (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that LevenBoy's characterisation of TR's conduct as "no better, nor worse, than the average contributor here" (I assume by "here", we mean WP:BISE) is accurate. Triton has been substantially worse than many and in fact, I would say, all recently. Others like LevenBoy are also less than helpful to a calm, rational discoursive atmosphere. I am glad to see the rules being properly enforced, which is what we need. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that procedure should be followed here. If doubling the block is the way it has been done then it only seems reasonable. Especially so if Triton can be encouraged to not repeat any action (no matter how seemingly innocuous) that might trigger a large conflict with other editors or be seen as deliberately provocative. Encouraging him to engage in other topics for a while once the block is lifted appears to be a good solution. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is standard procedure? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think DGG's characterization here is an oversimplification. Doubling is not by any means a required or even standard procedure; it's just one way that can be used. No clear opinion on this particular reduction, but the notion that a one-week block cannot be followed by indef is not supported by policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be followed by indef, but it usually shouldn't; I was referring to what seems the customary arb com AE practice, as an example for us. I suppose we have the right to be more arbitrary than they even on smaller matters than they deal with, and escalate penalties when we are exasperated, instead of being judicious. Blocks are for prevention, and no block longer than a week has yet been tried & perhaps this may make an impression. I do not want to think that our penalties here have no proportion to the situation, but rather we take it upon ourself to judge whether someone is likely to be capable of improvement. A practice of routinely blocking for indef, and then change it if someone says sufficient to make us believe they've repented strikes me of being very much like BITE--it will perhaps induce someone to hypocritical statements of conformity, but it will bot produce improvement. Slow increase pressure is much more likely to do so, without driving away editors. The only way to judge improvement is to give the person a chance to show it. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wedging this in here, as it seemed the most logical place: there's an unblock request. I'm not sure I understand it, but I suspect Triton Rocker may think I'm Scottish and consequently not impartial. TFOWR 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible fix

How about we just restrict every editor that has ever posted on WT:BISE from adding or removing the term "British Isles" from articles? Such removal or addition could still be suggested on that page, but could only be actioned by an uninvolved admin. That wouldn't prevent the usual arguments at the talkpage, and we'd probably end up with a few mysterious new accounts/IPs doing the addition and removal, but that could be reverted (again by someone uninvolved) with a link to WT:BISE ... and frankly I can't think of anything else now. The only other option is a complete topic ban and that would be a nightmare to administer and might also stop those editors doing actually useful work. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Wowsers, that's what I've been practicing all along. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some editors, mentioning no names, think it's like that already. LevenBoy (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Each has his/her own way of volunteering for these things. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what the vast majority of editors are doing Black Kite, if you check out the BISE page then you will see progress being made. If you want to make a wikipedia wide restriction then that might make sense, but penalizing all editors who have ever contributed to the page is neither fair nor needed. All we have here is one editor who is consistently refusing to change their behaviour even after several blocks. --Snowded ^TALK 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It has merit BK, placing a list of editors (perhaps, as you suggest all of those who edited at WT:BISE- although as Snowded points out there are those from both sides who are not misbehaving) on a form of probation (ie banned from adding/removing the term 'British Isles' and placed on civility parole) and perhaps explaining/outlining how the topic is also under probation could work.
  Also as an FYI Þjóðólfr popped up again asking for a block review. They're claiming to have read this thread - which is a bit odd--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object. I for one have never added or inserted the term, but have taken a case by case approach to nominations for insertion or deletion by other editors. neither have I ever broken any civility rules. That is also true for the vast majority of editors who have engaged on the page. Placing those editors under probation is the equivalent of holding the whole school in detention because one kid has scrawled an obscenity on a wall. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I know Snowded, and I sympathise, but I'm trying to think of some way to prevent this continually bouncing back to ANI with little result. Please feel free to throw some more radical proposals our way, because I'm really struggling to think how to do this. (Well, I can think of a very simple method, but it wouldn't be too popular with the subset of editors that it would affect). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be very simple to (i) apply progressive bans to editors like Triton rather than a series of one week/one day ones despite no indication he has learnt (ii) adopt a zero tolerance to any personal accusations, speculation on motives etc. A few weeks of that would do the trick. To be honest the issue which keeps coming here is Triton, otherwise although there is a civility problem its not going too badly at the moment. I'm not going to even bother with controversial pages (and I have spent a very patient two years here and put up with a lot of abuse) if the reward is to be labeled as needing a "probation". --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I regularly contribute to that page with a view to attempting to create a rational, NPOV basis for each item discussed and hopefully not be too snippy with people. Under this proposal, would I end up with a block record which any future editor glancing at my profile will think indicates bad behaviour on my part? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you end up with a block record? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it that means I wouldn't. Fair enough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Hold on we're trying to thrash this out. BK has suggested every editor, I'm not 100% behind that and as I suggested a list. (the next logical step would be to discuss what/who would be on that list).
And James - no an editing restriction is effectively a contract made with the community it doesn't come up on a block log unless said agreement is violated.
Our other potion is a stricter form of topic probation. No warnings just escalating blocks for anything out of line comment/edit/report etc - I'm not sure how I feel about this or how it would be enforced though, but it's an option--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Id suport a complete ban on involved editors adding / removing British Isles from articles, i wouldnt say that should include every single editor thats ever posted on the BISE though. It has always struck me as odd that Triton is the only one actually prohibited from adding or removing British Isles. However i am unclear from the wording exactly what is being proposed. Are we saying that involved editors like myself and highking would not be allowed to propose changes at BISE, only allowed to debate them when raised by uninvolved editors. If that is the case, again i would support that on the condition we deal with all outstanding cases, because there are a few major ones that need resolving. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand BK's suggestion everyone could suggest changes - but per my proposal the restricted would be under a strict civility parole too.
My suggestion for a wording would be:

Listed editors are on probation in regard to the British Isles naming dispute. They are banned from inserting, removing or in any way editing the term British Isles or words associate with it anywhere in Wikipedia. Listed editors may still contribute to WT:BISE where they may suggest changes. An uninvolved admin will review these suggestions and may (or may not) make such changes. Listed editors are also subject to civility parole

--Cailil ^talk 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. I would ideally like TFOWR to continue as our "resident admin" if he is agreeable, although presumably others are welcome to take an interest too. Would this mean he would still make the final change for us? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont like the sound of this "civility parole". I do not mind submitting to a complete ban on adding / removing the term BI from wikipedia articles, and i do not mind being extra careful with my comments on the BISE page, but i can not volunteer to be held to a "higher civility" standard elsewhere on wikipedia that would put those of us who agree to this at a disadvantage in debates. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Ensuring that any insertion or deletion is discussed before a change is made is actual practice for the majority of editors already. So making it a general rule is a very good idea. Making it a probation should only apply to editors who have broken laws of civility or edit warred. If you want editors to spend considerable time, and put up with vandalism etc. on controversial pages then some support would be appreciated, not a very unfair label. So if you want to organise a review of the behaviour of all editors who have contributed and only "list" those who have not behaved properly, but don't start tarring everyone with the same brush. --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've thought about this again now, and you're probably right; still, there was no harm in a bit of blue sky thinking. As far as Triton's concerned, the next block should be indef. There are only so many times one can test the boundaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand too Snowded but we need to thrash things out and yes of course listed people would be those who violated policies. I recognize the good work you and others have done at WP:BISE and consider the topic lucky to have those of you how do work within site policy there.
As BK said we need to entertain these thoughts even if we decide not to implement them. And to be clear if in future broad disruption does occur I would support the above wording being implement only for those who are repeat offenders of site policy not all involved at WP:BISE--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood; I am just contributing to the "thrashing out" and your general interventions on this are most welcome. Personally (as I say below) I think the current sanctions are fine they just need enforcing (but I don't propose thrashing there although it is tempting) --Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, as far as I can tell that has been the de facto practice all along. My only issue with a general probation about the words and "words associated with them" would that it may hinder some editors form making constructive edits elsewhere. I feel that this may possibly be abused by some to try and lock other editors up. I'd prefer a little bit of leeway for editors who abide by the rules and conventions of the page, but I guess if a blanket ban is needed, the admins would have sufficient discretion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Beats the hell out of me why for this current situation, we appear to be having trouble managing "Triton Rock" for editing violations, and the hand-wringing and heart-wrenching appeals for run-arounds on what was threatened the last time (and the time before) he violated. And has he demonstrated that he recognizes what the problem is? His Talk page tells a very different story. And it bothers me, because hand on heart, I and others know that I wouldn't be treated so leniently. I've said it from the very start - it's time we applied stricter civility and behaviour standards. I recommend a review of individual editors recent civility and behavior should be done at BISE and other BISE-related pages and BISE-related postings. Persistent breaches should result in those editors being placed on a list. After that, no warnings just escalating blocks for anything out of line comment/edit/report. --HighKing (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For a couple of weeks now we have had the strict enforcement of comments at BISE, I think its been counter productive and damaged the environment and debate there but as people think thats whats needed there ive gone along with it. The idea that strict civility stuff is spread to other articles which someone deems "BISE related" or "BISE related postings" and would only apply to some editors is totally not fair and completely unjustified. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you are one of the editors with a history of disrupting SPI and ANI threads by turning them into anti-Highking rants, and accusing all editors who disagree with you as being on a crusade to rid the WP of the term British Isles, I can understand why you'd want to prevent enforcement of a core policy like civility. And it's not even strict civility - a pattern of systematic incivility has spread like a virus from a hardcore group of editors which is only now being detected and fully appreciated, and it is only right that the community recognizes how damaging, disruptive, unproductive and time-wasting that behaviour is, and takes steps to remedy the situation. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe my comments are in line with present rules and until i am told otherwise i will continue to make the comments i do. I have been told not to use the term crusade on the BISE page, since being told not to, i have avoided all such comments on that page. The BISE page certainly now does have strict civility enforced, if that is the environment we have to work in fine but such restrictions should not apply to every conversation on the matter of BISE or articles relating to BISE. I think there is clear evidence that a crusade took place to remove British Isles from wikipedia, 100s of diffs can be provided to show this has been taking place. I believe that is at the heart of the disruption, that is the trigger that has caused us all to be involved in this dispute today. I certainly never had any intention to worry about "British Isles" when i originally joined wikipedia, that was until i witnessed attempts to rid wikipedia of the term, including totally unacceptable attempts to move the British Isles article itself as if it was no longer used. All of that of course does not justify anyone breaking the rules, and that includes Triton but the idea that it is those who support inclusion who are to blame for everything simply is not true. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Systematic incivility across a range of articles and Talk pages, directed mainly at a single editor, are hardly "in line with present rules". And I believe a review of recent contributions relating to behaviour and civility for all BISE editors will reveal a telling pattern. If the powers that be are really serious about knocking this problem on the head, it would take less than 30 minutes to identify a solution that actually targets the problems, rather than proposing a catch-all idea that penalizes those who constructively contribute. --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well according to the debate below such a catch all idea is no longer being considered. Ive said a few times i think it would be a good idea for all "involved editors" to agree to never add or remove British Isles from articles but i agree that it should not be applied to all editors, and it should be a matter of choice to submit to such restrictions as most of us have done nothing wrong. Ive certainly not been adding lots of British Isles to articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Rather than spend 30minutes examining the behaviour and civility of the editors involved at BISE across the range of articles and Talk pages, the only suggestion is to tar everyone with the same brush, or nothing. And behaviour and civility extends beyond whether you added lots of British Isles to articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Myself, I like Black Knights earlier suggest that none of the prior editors add or remove the term from where it or one of the disputed equivalents exist. But I will always oppose jumping to indefinite in situations like this--the situation could have been avoided if progressively longer blocks had been tried earlier, instead of repeated blocks for 1 week or less. We need to treat everyone fairly, & an editing ban about the term, applying to everyone involved, would be the fairest. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  At the moment only two editors, Triton and LevenBoy are adding the term without discussion at BISE, all other editors are respecting the BISE process. Not so long ago ANI agreed to sanction any editor who added or deleted BI without agreement. So far only Triton has been sanctioned, and has refused to accept the sanction, breaking it after each block. The remedy is in place and just needs enforcement, along with a no tolerance policy to breeches of WP:Civil. Fairness is all about enforcing community sanctions, it does not require treating people who have followed the letter and spirt of the rules in the same way as those who have flagrantly and persistently broken them. --Snowded ^TALK 04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose such an arbitrary restriction on editors who have just posted onto a given page, the vast majority of contributors there are trying to address the issue, to tar all of them with a topic ban is ridiculous and unjustifiable, if there is an issue with an editor address that editor not the whole of the project. Codf1977 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  At the moment the system is applied to everyone involved: systematic addition or removal of "British Isles" results in a topic ban; continued additions/removals post-ban result in blocks. I'm open to the idea that we move straight to an effective topic ban on everyone, but "everyone" is the problematic part - everyone at WT:BISE is easy enough to determine, but then there'll be editors who either have no idea that WT:BISE exists, or who know and avoid it like the plague. I like the current (topic ban) system because it can apply to any editor: an editor who has never posted at WT:BISE engages in systematic addition/removal, they get warned (and told about WT:BISE), they continue, they get topic banned. If we now topic ban everyone at WT:BISE we place the good faith contributors at a disadvantage relative to non-WT:BISE editors. I think there are issues we, as a community, need to firm up, however:

  • What scale of blocks are applied to editors who violate their topic ban? This is currently ad hoc. A quick look at TR's block log shows blocks of increasing and diminishing length, varying with the nature of the offence (some of which, in my view, were vios of the topic ban but not logged as such). I've heard at least two suggestions, neither of which provide a clear indication as to at what point we should say "enough!" and move to an indef block:
    • 1:1:1:1 (one day, one week, one month, one year);
    • Double the length each time.
  • Civility. I'm not big on civility blocks, but attacks and incivility have a tendency to escalate drama rapidly and bog down discussions. I don't believe enforcing civility is that much of an issue: we have one or two policies in place that adequately cover this. It is likely, however, to get worse before it gets better - enforcing civility is going to increase in the short term the amount of wikilawyering.
  • Consensus. WT:BISE tends to attract more participants than article talkpages, but that isn't always the case. How do we handle situations where there is a consensus at WT:BISE but article editors haven't participated?

  I still have confidence in the WT:BISE process, and the issues I've seen are all issues I've seen in other POV areas, but this is one area that seems to appear at ANI far too often. TFOWR 10:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed at WT:BISE, can I say that there is a world of difference between saying "well, you know what the procedure is, so you have no excuse not to follow it" and "you are topic banned from this activity in case you ever decide not to follow the procedure", and I VERY MUCH object to being topic banned for having attempted to make helpful contributions to something. To be a real topic ban (and to answer Jamesinderbyshire's query above which was rather brushed off), it would have to be recorded as such. Yes James, community sanctions such as topic bans ARE recorded centrally and CAN be looked up by other. The idea of adding a civility probation on top of that, due to the extreme civility restriction on the board, is just outrageous.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Elen just so you understand TR was banned for disruption edits made to to make a point in a topic area under probation. Not because of anything else.
And you are incorrect Elen. While we do retain a list of editors who are under active sanction / probation (at WP:GS) but unless they break that it does not appear in a block log. James asked: "would I end up with a 'block record which any future editor glancing at my profile will think indicates bad behaviour on my part?" and that question was answered.
As above I'd prefer any such future list comprise only those who have already and are repeating policy violations.
While I understand your objection to civility parole I don't agree at all. Over the last 6 months I have seen a number of accounts conflate people's nationality with their motivations which is in breach of every tenet of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG. Such comment creates a poisonous atmosphere and will have to be stamped out. Civility parole happens to be a uniform sanction that is easily understood by outside sysops and is therefore easily enforced. And as DGG points out if the enforcement had followed the usual escalation in Triton Rocker's case, he may have gotten the point sooner. That said I am not suggesting it be applied generally - just to those repeat offenders--Cailil ^talk 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Triton Rocker has asked to be able to defend themselves here, which obviously can't happen while they are blocked. I have advised them to make any such posting on their talk page. It should then be copied over to here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's kind of you, however Triton Rocker should already be aware of the process from a previous block as well as their current block. TFOWR 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User Talk page protection review

I just locked User talk:Dago Dazzler. The material he's been introducing wasn't that bad, but he got blocked for it once and then stuck it on his talk page. Anyway, just wanted someone else to take a look since I had already been involved in closing the unblock request. --Selket ^Talk 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection looks good. Knowledge of Wikipedia acronyms by a brand-new account (who persists in adding nonsense) does suggest socking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Toa Nidhiki05

There is a somewhat contentious RFC on BlueRobe starting up and User:Toa Nidhiki05 appears a bit upset by it. He has posted what looks to me like a PA on one of the users opening the rfc. I asked him to consider removing it but he has refused. Might be worth keeping an eye on the whole thing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of "left-wing meatpuppets" referring to established editors does seem to indicate a problem here. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The left-wingers are on an unholy crusade against anyone (particularly BlueRobe and Darkstar1st) that disagrees with them; yeah, I'm upset and angry at this whole thing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the large number of potentially contentious userboxes you've created and display on your user page. Typically we discourage political position userboxes. Yworo (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when is that policy? I can display my opinions here, and if that means ticking someone off, so be it. FYI, I've seen 'established editors' with userboxes. Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See here for content restrictions related to userboxes. They don't help collaboration on Wikipedia. In fact, they are divisive and your comment "if that means ticking someone off, so be it" displays a divisive attitude. I have no problem with the use of standard Wikiboxes available at WP:USERBOX, but self-created "issue" userboxes aren't appropriate. Yworo (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...And Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to political userboxes. Yeah, I don't think that quite fits your opinion there. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa, please read WP:BATTLE - this is not what we do here. Exxolon (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am currently involved in this RfC and feel the use of WP:Meat to be an attack. I have no relationship with the editors in question and do not edit within their wheelhouse. I became involved after monitoring a discussion at a related notice board, but did not comment until the RfC was opened. I saw another accusation of meatpuppetry by Nidhiki at BlueRobe's talk page here [22]. Some of these editors seem to feel there is a far-reaching conspiracy against them and it is disruptive to the project as their paranoia grows to every user who so much as says a word they disagree with.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I, too, do not appreciate the baseless accusations of "meatpuppetry" from User:Toa Nidhiki05. His accusations that I am "trolling" are also not appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole userbox issue was a sidetrack from the real problem here. Toa Nidhiki05, please note that per WP:NPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" can be considered personal attacks. That most definitely applies here. You can't throw out accusations without cause just to inflame a discussion, and the fact that your only response to others' concerns is to throw out more attacks is very troubling. -- Atama頭 21:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You claim I'm 'attacking' and 'battling', but I'm not; I'm stating fact, that is, that constant baiting/trolling by left-wing contributors has resulted in the block of one member and a baseless Meatpuppetry accusation against another. Check BlueRobe or Darkstar1st's talk pages, and you will see what I mean; they follow they around eveywhere. I'm angry that these members try to act like staff and make frequent threats against anyone that disagrees with their ideas, and then accuse the other side of making bad faith edits and disrupting the page (which is actually doublespeak code for 'disrupting their plans'). In conclusion, yes, I am pissed, and rightfully so. Toa Nidhiki05 00:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll point anybody interested in seeing context here to the RFC/U for BlueRobe, where they can see diffs, instead of empty accusations. I've been repeatedly accused of "stalking" or "hounding" BlueRobe due to my involvement with him on three pages I've been working on since before BlueRobe even registered as an editor, or showed up at the articles in question. A certain group of editors -- which includes ToaNidhiki, North8000, and Darkstar1st -- is repeatedly attempting to frame the issue as one of "lashing out in response to hounding/stalking". But they are essentially using the terms "hounding" or "stalking" as a misleading shorthand for "citing Wikipedia policy to an editor who is disrupting multiple talk pages, making flagrant personal attacks, and refusing to provide suggestions for article improvement which are based on reliable sources". Multiple experienced editors, including several sysops, saw User:BlueRobe's conduct as an egregious violation of all sorts of Wikipedia policy. They were also unable to find any evidence of "hounding" or "stalking", and the group listed above has not provided any evidence of it, even though asked repeatedly. I am hoping that BlueRobes recent block (which resulted from the RFC/U), will serve as an illustration to these editors (who have yet to acknowledge that they understand why BlueRobe was blocked) of what is and is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia discussion pages and articles. Again, just look at the diffs, rather than the empty accusations. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7

It has been brought to my attention that some Windows Phone 7 fan sites have been putting out a call for fans to go to the Windows Phone 7 article to "fix" it or remove text perceived as being negative.

The largest of all Windows Phone 7 sites is WMPoweruser.com, which recently wrote this article, asking fans to edit the Wikipedia article. Yes, the fan site attacked me, labelling me a troll against Windows Phone 7.

Recently, there have been more attempts at removing referenced content in the article, often by editors who edit no other articles or subjects. So I ask for advice on what can or should be done. Can some admins keep the article on their watchlists for a while?--Lester 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about the external article, but if edit warring happens on the article, it can simply be semi- or fully-protected as appropriate. In the meantime though, I'd just ignore that article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. The only obstacle is lester (talk · contribs)--intelati^(Call) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the community agrees with CalumCookable (talk · contribs) but he's afraid of a edit war with Lester.--intelati^(Call) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There has obviously been a content dispute going on for some time. Which of the processes at WP:DR have you been through? David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calumcookable has just begun the community consensus part. So far me and one other editor, have agreed with his changes.--intelati^(Call) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm that other editor. What are we supposed to do if there aren't many people (including Lester) contributing to the discussion of changing the article? We already posted up templates that gives the readers and other editors indication that there are multiple issues with the article being discussed on the talk page. Our ultimate goal is to simply make the article have a neutral point of view, and actually have the article discuss the product itself in a NPOV. Currently, that isn't that case. --Interframe (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC. Templates on the page itself help, but only catch the attention of people visiting the page. -- Atama頭 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now we wait. (Jeopardy theme song:)--intelati^(Call) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes are in the talk page. can someone change the wording (of the WP:RFC) so that it is a place for the people to place their views on the article and the changes?--intelati^(Call) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) never mind. :)--intelati^(Call) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for fan websites to change the consensus out of shear numbers? Does Wikipedia have any defenses to avoid this sort of thing? --Lester 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't meant to be based on numbers. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a windows 7 Fan. Right now, the article's title SHOULD be called "Criticizem of Windows Phone 7" The only thing I have read of the windows phone 7 is on www.maximumpc.com. Thanks.--intelati^(Call) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to get uninvolved editors in the conversation and remove the fancruft and Balance the article for a Neutral POV. (added later) Ok, now this is a user problem is now that CalumCookable (talk · contribs) is threating lester (talk · contribs) to revert back his additions until he is blocked. I want someone to intervene on the conflict before it is out of control.--intelati^(Call) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in editing this page and consider it to be very biased (against the Windows Phone 7 platform). Many changes to improve it are promptly reverted. A lot of the controversy has been because of a "missing features" section that some insist has to be there. It's a phone and a feature can't be "missing" if Microsoft knew of it and decided to not put it in the device. For instance, the phones don't transform into a jet and fly you to an island they create for you even if some tech reviewer somewhere thinks it should. My proposition is that there should be a section for announced features, features removed from Windows Mobile 6.5, and a reception section (this has been added but is very poorly structured and written). I'm tired of contributing because most of what I add gets removed in hours. This article needs someone to step in. CaptainStack (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathewignash

I believe that this is an unreasonable editing of Optimus Prime (Transformers) as I clearly wanna avoid an edit war but I have outlined my reasons to others [23]. 82.25.105.18 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For this sort of content issue, AN/I won't help you avoid an edit war. What will help is this principle, and a nice discussion on the article's talk page. Perhaps it is Scarlett's page that is in the wrong. In any case, there's nothing an admin can help with here. —fetch·comms 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the talk page approach, and wish that 82.25.105.18 would have used it before trying to completely rewrite a big article. The current format is the accepted format for the Transformera articles story section, but if the user has an alternative, please, suggest it for us to talk. Mathewignash (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding, but the thing about you and discussions in the talk page is you never respond to any ideas that approach improving any Transformers article. On at least two occasions I asked for your thoughts on the proposed suggestions to improve both the Starscream and Megatron articles, and you failed to respond. It was only when I attempted to make an unnotified drastic edit on both that you decided to respond. This gives the impression that you're only interested editing the article how you see them rather than how the guidelines dictate. So this wishing that 82.25.105.18 come to a discussion would be fruitless when you won't even respond back. I'm sorry if I'm sounding harsh. Sarujo (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Zaspino and user:Theobald Tiger and IP'S

The two following threads are really one thread; I've joined them up so as to make them easier to discuss. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Zaspino

I would hereby like to report the user User:Zaspino as I feel harassed. This user has not made any edit which was not in an attempt to prevent me from editing (see). This user is continuing an argument that was present on nl.wiki here. Since the account has apparently been created simply to counter my edits I definitely feel harassed. Since the user is asking for ridiculous things and thinks these are solid points no argument has convinced this user of the correctness of my claims in the articles morality and teleology. The user insists on retracing steps and is asking for references of the references I made and is furthermore insensitive to any changes I made, explanations I offered and references I left.

Now, I am willing to listen to most everybody, but my patience has run out with this user since there appears to be no reason in him. Unfortunately it shows that my patience has run thin, but I hope this matter will be properly dealt with since this user is not editing here to benefit the encyclopedia in my opinion, although he claims otherwise.

--Faust (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling people trolls is not nice nor does it help your situation. —fetch·comms 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask.. --Faust (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would be clearer if you would refer to the specific differences link for the places where you feel that Zaspino has been harrassing you. Pointing us just at the whole talk page doesn't make it clear which particular action it is to which you are taking exception. One problem was that you got confused as to who said what, as shown at this diff; the words in question had been added in a section heading in this earlier edit by an IP, and not by Zaspino, but you refused to accept it when Theobald Tiger explained it to you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is simply ludicrous. Faust's arrogance gets in the way of his judgment, causing him to consider any objection to his edits as being inspired by a non-knowledgeable team of conspiring users. Zaspino (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger

I would hereby like to report the user User:Theobald_Tiger as I feel harassed. This user has come to en.wiki to prevent me from making any edit here, after a dispute I have had with him on nl.wiki. Not a single edit since he has 're-awoken' on en.wiki is about anything else. Apart from that this user is insensitive to any and all arguments I have given in favor of my edits, including references, references of my references, explanations, dictionary suggestions, etc. I see no reason to continue discussion with this user since the user is clearly only interested in preventing my edits. That is why the user keeps retracing our steps and shows no recognition of changes I made on behalf of edits, nor recognition of clear sources........and worldwide recognition... --Faust (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• you will get a lot more sympathetic response if you quit calling them trolls and be more constructive in presenting your issues. Please provide some specific diffs where you believe admin action is required. Blocks are not punitive, rather they are invoked to stop future disruption. For that to be apparent i think you need to provide diffs of poor behaviour and examples where you have tried to go through the various dispute resolution stages :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask..

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, by "FTOWR" do you mean me? We've talked a bit recently, so it's possible, but I don't recall anything about this. Do you have a diff? I'll have a dig through my talkpage archives but a diff would greatly help. TFOWR 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went look at the Teleology talkpage to see the two famous "trolls" Zaspino and Theobald. I found two users who seemed knowledgeable and bent on improving the article. And one user, Faust, who was behaving in an uncivil and inappropriately condescending way: "I have adapted the above in a way that I think will be more comprehensible to Zaspino"... "Theobald, you are interrupting a discussion that might prove a learning experience to Zaspino... please stay out of this." Here is an appropriately critical post by Zaspino, and here Faust's response to it. If anybody there is to be called a troll (which we're not supposed to do anyway, yada yada), it's not Zaspino, nor Theobald. Advice to the community: it would be good if somebody kept an eye on this article (unfortunately I don't have the time myself). Advice to Faust: don't be so bloody rude. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Going by your posts on their talkpages, apparently you regard this ANI posting as a "request for blocks". I don't think Zaspino nor Theobald are in the slightest danger of being blocked. But you might be, if you carry on in the same way for much longer. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

@TFOWR, Yes, I meant you, apologies for the miswrite. I sent you several mails, but never got a reply. I also alerted Shell Kenny, but she is short on time I think. @Bishonen: I can understand your opinion, but I ask you to bear in mind that I knew I was being harassed from Zaspino's first edit here since it was a continuation of events on nl.wiki. That simply makes me lose my patience. Apart from that neither Theobald, not Zaspino are knowledgeable in the field, as is obvious from ALL comments they have made. They are only good at rhetorics. My case is made by the fact that I alerted TFOWR and Shell Kinney to what was going on at the very first post Zaspino made and predicted this chain of events. --Faust (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So you were in battle array from the very start? No... I'm afraid I don't see that as making your case. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Ah, email! That would explain it. Let me have a dig... apologies for not looking into it, I suspect yours isn't the only email I've missed. TFOWR 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, caught up with me email. Faust sent me two emails on 27 August and 30 August which raised concerns Faust had with one of the editors discussed here. Faust subsequently sent me two emails on 2 September which additionally raised concerns with a second editor discussed here. Basically, I can confirm that Faust's comment above re: alerting me is correct. Beyond that, I'm way out of my depth: this is - as far as I can see - a content dispute involving philosophy. If I were to reply to Faust's emails now I'd basically say: ask the experts. TFOWR 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Actually, it proves that I am not the one who was in battle array from the beginning and that I have been very patient without any reason for that. In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding. This explain his unreasonable denial of my references and his continual stating of falsities quite clearly. It shows that no matter what he will never accept anything other than his POV and is not interested in building an encyclopedia based on truth. Since Zaspino and Theobald are in a tagteam together, continuing a dispute from nl.wiki here I cannot understand why this would reflect negatively on me.--Faust (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IP'S 157.242.159.225 and 76.168.95.118 and 79.182.17.168 and 173.58.234.86

I would like to report the Ip's stated above, which are used by the same user. This user insists on places his personal definition in the morality article, without reaching consensus. I have undid the revision four times now and I think an edit-war is just not done. Although a majority is in favor of a revision, I am not convinced this should be done since the thoughts outlined in that revision are POV's explained elsewhere in the article, now being trumped as a general definition. I cannot escape the thought that they are in a tagteam with Zaspino and Theobald, since I can think of no good reason why such a user who would be interested in moral ethics would not have a user page, but suddenly come to the rescue of Zaspino and Theobald. --Faust (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The revisions I undid are 1, undone because of a POV posited as a definition, 2, undone because of the same reason and requested to discuss first on the talk page, 3, same reasons, 4, same reasons. Although the IP's vary I think this is the same user, if not, it is a tag team.

NOTE: if you want them, ask for the 'whois' queries I did. They are seperate companies, but the user has acknowledged to be at least two of these IP'S and any more random browser appearing saying the current version is not correc after months of never being under dispute just when there is a dispute with is transferred from the nl.wiki would make this story even more (if possible) unlikely. --Faust (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can clearly see Faust's indignation, but I fail to see what I actually did wrong. As far as I know I have broken no policy here and I have treated Faust respectfully. My concerns are with the content of en.wiki and I cannot help but notice that Faust's edits and proposals often show faulty reasoning and wobbly and untidy wording. The last few days my criticisms have been directed at precisely those defects. I have been careful not to refer to nl.wiki issues. I am not here to quarrel as my edit history amply testifies. I am definitely not the same editor as any of the above mentioned IP's (I have never contributed to en.wiki anonymously) - the anons actually know a lot more about the taxonomy of ethics than I do. By saying "In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding" Faust refers (without my consent) to an e-mail exchange with me. His conclusion is an outright lie. Furthermore, I do not form a "tag team" with Zaspino or with any of the anons mentioned above. On his talk page Faust states: "I am a horror at following policies, but a miracle at seeing what is going on..." To cut a long story short: I think Faust's ability to see what is going on as well as his ability to communicate leave something to be desired, to put it mildly. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I know I am just an anon IP, so I ask you to WP:assume good faith and hear me out. I am not any of the other IP addresses and I find it a little premature that the conclusion is that I am especially when the user that is multiple anon IP's has disclosed his conflict of interest. I am a anon user who generally performs wikignome activities, primarily stubbing and copy-edits by solely using the Random Article tool. Prior to my edit, my ISP made the unfortunate decision to change my IP rendering my past edits inaccessible to Faust. I know this is not a standard way to edit Wikipedia, but it is the way I chose to give back here. The cleanup tag on the page made me decide to investigate the talk page and I felt that a consensus existed that Faust was not interested in as well as brought the article into conformity with Amorality. However, I also sought greater consensus with an RfC. As for the Whois, I decided to check that out too. Interestingly, one of the multis that Faust is claiming is not even on my side of the world and does not appear to be a proxy either. Also I fail to see a WP:3RR violation for edit warring at least if I am figuring out the times correctly and good faith is assumed. I wish to state that I only edited the part in question a single time.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Faust never warned me with {{subst:ANI-notice}} upon my mention at the noticeboard and only mentioned seeking blocks in passing in the Talk:Morality page. I had to dig this page up myself and I find this the wrong way to offer constructive criticism of a user on Faust's part.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though. Tag team comes to mind. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do take note of my RfC however, which I do hope can eventually solve this problem once and for all. You don't have to believe me if you choose, but know that I am trying to do good.173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though, especially since you seem to be watching my edits, as is the MO of the others. There are just too many similarities to be a coincidence, also the MO you are displaying is one that can easily be considered harassment. Tag team comes to mind, but, as said, I may be mistaken, in which case I apologise. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game. Hans Adler 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Heymid

Heymid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I just blocked Heymid for one week for various unhelpful and uncivil comments. Heymid has been asked, advised and warned to stop meddling in dramas that don't concern him and I very recently warned him that his presence on the English Wikipedia would be untenable if he continued. The other day, he re-involved himself in the Marksell/Timothymarkell drama that he was advised by several admins to stay out of, resulting in yet more warnings, but today, he told an administrator that they would end up in front of ArbCom and [... lose their admin privileges]. I believe the block is justified based on the pattern of behaviour, the same pattern which lead to him being banned from the Swedish Wikipedia.

However, before anybody accuses me of being out to get Heymid, I have spent a lot of time trying to help him over the last few weeks, to the extent that I convinced another admin who was considering blocking Heymid that he should be given another chance. I am still willing to do everything I can to help Heymid, but I believe that the block is necessary to prevent further disruption in the form of fanning the flames of dramas in which Heymid is not a part. All comments are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also related discussion at User talk:Heymid#Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. HeyMid's comments were completely unnecessary and unhelpful, and a threat such as that could serve only to escalate what was at that point a fairly civil discussion between two other users of which HeyMid was not a party. HeyMid's archives for July and August are littered with warnings from many other users cautioning him against these very same things. Obviously warnings aren't enough, thus a block becomes the next logical step. Resolute 21:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I endorse the block, but FWIW, I'm not an admin and don't make a practice of following blocking policy. This editor has been so obtuse, disruptive and persistent in the "I just don't understand" responses, that I've given thought to whether s/he might be a Mattisse sock, but can't convince myself that's the case. In any case, it doesn't appear anything short of a block would end the disruptive comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the punishment fit the crime? I submit for your review that a week long block is mildly excessive and does not fit the crime. I suggest a shorter block along with a very stern final warning. Basket of Puppies 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid has had more than his fair share of warnings, stern and friendly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, but a week-long block seems a bit excessive. Basket of Puppies 21:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Eep. Maybe the long-term pattern is worse than I currently perceive, but on the face of it, this appears to be an atrocious block. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merit of the block, I really wish admins would ask for review here before making such blocks, not after. If you're really not sure about a block, so much that you need endorsement, do it beforehand. That way, if you were totally wrong at least the user won't have a spoiled block log. I otherwise don't understand the purposes of such threads - they're either a "Yep, good block" (which you thought anyway), or "Nope, bad block, why did you not check here first...". Please come here first before making blocks you feel you need support for. Aiken Drum 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The blocked user and another editor requested he make this thread. I don't think he doubts the validity of his block. -DJSasso (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but HeyMid initially accepted the block: "Last, but not least, thank you for the block. I believe it is needed, and I need to calm down." It was only after BoP challenged the block that HeyMid changed his mind on it. HJ posted the review here as a courtesty to HeyMid. Resolute 22:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't challenge the block- I asked for a review of the evidence and a review of the length of time of the block. Basket of Puppies 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is just a general comment - too often I'm seeing block first, check after threads on here. We should be getting consensus for blocks of established editors before making them, not after. Aiken Drum 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, Heymid has been singularly unhelpful in the last few weeks, inserting himself in various disagreements and dramas that he has not taken the time to understand. No individual action warrants a block on its own, but the continuing pattern certainly does given the warnings he's received. ~ mazca ^talk 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Heymid has been a pain to several users and across the project recently. Their snide remarks and comments to established users has been received with nothing but patience across the board. Heymid has received everything from polite reminders, to stern warnings, to users outright stating that they wish to be left alone. All of this to seemingly no avail. This isn't just an issue with certain recent comments, but an overall collective of issues that Heymid simply refuses to acknowledge, nor pay attention to. A week will hopefulyl give Heymid an opportunity to realize that they are just like every other user: held to the same standards, the same accountability, and the same opportunities. I previously thought an issue with language and translations were at fault, but it has become apparent in recent days that is not the issue at hand. Fully endorse. Jmlk17 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I watchlisted Heymid's talk a few weeks ago after some incident or another and am surprised that the block took this long to happen. After a thorough reading of his talk history, I'm convinced that this is a good block and that the duration isn't at all excessive. I believe that Heymid could one day become a productive contributor, but he may need to mature a bit before that happens. (Not posting his stated age here.) —DoRD (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I think heymid should stop jumping to conclusions about situations that he was not involved in. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I was on the verge of implementing a similar block no more than a week ago, but HJ convinced me not to. There are walls of text consisting of everything from friendly advice to stern warnings in his archives, none of which has been taken to heart. A week will give him time to actually read through it and hopefully reflect on what needs to change if he is to continue contributing to the project. decltype (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have found Heymid quite frustrating to deal with. This in particular was very troubling. He simply would not accept what I was saying to him. Then, in a somewhat extraordinary move, he struck through a portion of one of my comments in the request for rollback. A break will do him some good. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have had a few dealings now with Heymid, and as much as I like to go out of my way to help younger users to become productive participants on the project, I feel that this individual lacks the level of maturity necessary to be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. He does make some good contributions to articlespace, I wouldn't deny that. However, he seems almost incapable of making a post to projectspace that isn't disruptive. I'm HUGE on the idea of giving second chances (and third, and forth, and fifth) to users whose presence is a benefit to the project as a whole, even if they have behavioral issues that cause problems behind the scenes. In the case of Heymid, however, the good edits that he makes do not mitigate his problematic nature. Trusilver 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Heymid

Endorse HJ's block isn't incorrect at all; he has done everything he can in order to prevent further disruption from me. I wrote two bad messages yesterday which led to this block. The events that led to this block mean I will not accept, support, propose nor request an unblock.

Combining HJ's 2nd RFA and his prev contrib's log shows that HJ is probably an inexperienced administrator with little to no knowledge on how to handle problematic users like me. Therefore, it would be gladly appreciated with more feedback from more experienced administrators who have been at Wikipedia (and even an administrator here) for years. It would probably be greatly appreciated by HJ to recieve some good feedback on how to handle users like me in the future. Also some feedback regarding how I can solve my behavior would be gladly appreciated by me.

HJ, I would like to point out to you that I haven't ignored the advices you've written to me. I have read and tried to follow them. Like you (and other users) have adviced me, I have since completely ignored Tournesol and WP:SPI, which at least is a step forward.

Regarding my meddling with Djsasso, please note that Shirik somewhat triggered me to join the discussions regarding Djsasso, by (as seen in the diff) putting up a courtesy notice with the WP:ANI-discussion, because I was probably somewhat involved in the Djsasso case. When I wrote at his (Djsasso's) user talk page, I didn't understand that BoP was talking to him, not me. Thus, it became a case of misunderstanding each other. It's basically my history of messages that don't supply anything to the discussions that is the reason as to why I am currently blocked.

Probation terms

I have come to a few final points which I believe are worth covering. The terms are the following:

1. I am banned from editing any page in the user space, except for my own user page. However, IMO, this shouldn't include fixing of obvious typo errors. However, if I want to add or modify material or other sorts of controversial edits, which may be reverted, I have to be absolutely sure I have the permission to do so by asking for permission at the user in question's user talk page.
2. I am banned from adding or modifying material at user's user talk page. As written above, I have to ask for permission from the user in question before doing it.
3. I am not allowed to join discussions which I am not involved in anyhow. However, I think I should be allowed to post a message saying for example that the user in question has been blocked, etc. Basically, something that does supply something to the discussion.
4. I am not allowed to refactor (modify) someone else's comments.
5. Any violation of these probation terms and I'll be indefinitely blocked. Those probation terms will be instated immediately after the block has expired, and for an indefinite period.

If somebody says that they want too see more restrictions (such as a complete ban of editing any user page except for my own) I will accept it, if required. Finally, if someone decides to file in a report of me at WP:RESTRICT, I will not be angry. Thanks. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Heymid per request.

I welcome Heymid's statement, above, and broadly accept it: I'd be willing to see Heymid unblocked early, contingent upon sticking to the above promises. However... I'd like to see the above points "wiggled" slightly:

1. Userspace is sensitive. Some editors really don't like anyone editing "their" userpage. Me, I don't care. I'd like to amend the first item thusly... no typo fixing. No userpage editing ever. Except where editors have indicated it's OK (Heymid, you can edit any page in my userspace).
2. I understand where the prohibition on adding to user talk pages comes from, but I'm not sure it's healthy - Heymid will need to talk to other editors. I'd accept the prohibition on modifying user talk pages, and I'd accept a restriction on posting, but not a blanket prohibition.
3. I'd suggest that any post to discussions in which Heymid is not involved should be avoided, or should be run past someone else first (yes, I'll volunteer, but I'd suggest a number of editors should be available).
4. Refactoring other editors' comments: agree, don't do it. It's usually problematic whoever does it.
5. Agree, though note that I'm happy to see Heymid's current block lifted immediately given these commitments.

TFOWR 15:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I make something of a further recommendation. Heymid should not be refactoring user comments on talkpages etc obviously, but could I suggest that he take all project space noticeboards (AN, ANI, WQA etc) off his watchlist, and not come here unless he himself has a problem he wishes to report, or is asked to come here by another editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection here, though wouldn't it be covered by #3? TFOWR 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not satisfied with these probation terms, as they're overly specific in certain cases and overly vague in other areas. TFOWR has pretty much hit the nail on the head for me, except I don't think he should be unblocked early. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep the block instated, and we can see how Heymid does after it expires in regards to keeping up with their own set terms. Jmlk17 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• FYI user has put forth an unblock request. –xeno^talk 18:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Kind of odd, considering they were seemingly thankful for the block yesterday and actually agreed with it. Curious to see what happens now. Jmlk17 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888 misusing TWINKLE

Resolved

 – Twinkle access removed by User:DGG. –xeno^talk 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe User:Inka 888‎ is misusing TWINKLE. The user has previously marked himself for vandalism. He has on three seperate requested talk pages be speedied (and they were shockingly) for instances that weren't happening. The last was for patent nonsense, where there was none (I know, I declined the CSD). The user has gone so far as to revert and warn someone for updating templates (those being {{cn}}) and removing unsourced information...though they could have done without the edit summary. It shows the user isn't paying attention to what they are reverting.

This user was previously the subject of the far above thread Inka 888's Request for Rollback where the user showed they are not ready for Rollbackers access. I believe with the points stated above, they are not ready for TWINKLE either and it should be removed until the user matures just a tad. TWINKLE is not necessary to revert vandalism or place warnings.

I did try to speak to the user about this, but they never replied, hence I bring this to ANI's attention. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the user of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If i was not supposed to put those pages up for speedy deletion, then WHY would the deleting admin 1. go ahead and delete it 2. Not tell me that i should not put those pages up for speedy deletion. And G1 can apply to talk pages and if i remember correctly that is the criteria it fit under when put them up for speedy deletion. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is misusing it. People make mistakes... 2 hours to reply to a talk page post probably isn't long enough either, people need to sleep, and it's Labor Day in US, so Inka may have been doing something for that. All of those CSD taggings were valid, as the page itself was deleted. The admin can reject it if they want. As for the warning of user, I think that a warning may have been valid, but {{uw-agf1}} would've probably been more appropriate because saying "bullshit" as an edit summary 1.) Probably isn't Assuming Good Faith, and 2.) doesn't explain what they're changing... Pilif12p :  Yo  23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Give it a bit more time for a reply from the user. Then we can go from there as necessary. Jmlk17 23:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion can apply to talk pages correct? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#G8 I believe.--intelati^(Call) 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Other general criteria can also apply, but for other criteria (such as nonsense, vandalism, etc.) it's usually preferrable to blank the page (if that's the only content) instead, unless the only thing in the talk page's history is a personal attack or BLP violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The pages said things such as "EAT MY SHORTS" as the only thing on the page, and the other pages had things similar to that if that helps. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the almost universal practice to delete talk pages when the article is deleted, unless they contain important information about the reasons for deletion or possibilities for improvement--and , as mentioned, G8 was designed for just this purpose, & the talk p. deletion is built as an option into the deletion pages the admins use. Sometimes when there is potentially useful information, I copy it into the talk p. of the editor who submitted the article, especially when it contains a challenge to the deletion, to which I have replied with an explanation.

But in this case, the deletion reasons given were not the right one, but a variety of inapplicable reasons, indicating careless use of Twinkle. I'd suggest removing it if there are further errors. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also what you said on my talk page was not a warning, i took it as a suggestion what was i supposed to respond to? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The misuse continues. Inka 888 templated another talk page as CSD A1 ("No Context") and just as quickly removed it, but didn't remove the warning the template created. This is clear the user is either misusing TWINKLE or just hasn't a clue how to use it. I have directed them to the documentation on how to use it, but with a mistake like that, it is clear they haven't read it. Per DGG above, I again suggest TWINKLE be removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's view on this matter. And seeing how more misuse has occurred, I believe that this user's twinkle should be removed for some time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to add that this is not blatant vandalism and should not have been reverted as such. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka: as has been recommended a few dozen times over the last few weeks: slow down and do things right the first time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fastily's example was incorrect a section was blanked a.with no edit summary b. the subject was indefinite it was clearly vandalism. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

the edit that was deleted was an unsourced single sentence added to a BLP. As it was not negative, I would have asked for a cite before removing i9t, but removing it was not vandalism. "Vandalism" is a term to be used very carefully--it is not equivalent to error or carelessness or even rashness; it is defined as " a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. " I think it is clear at this point that your editing would behelped by going slower and checking policy pages before you make accusations about people violating them, I have removed Twinkle. Please also do not use any other automated or semi-automated editing tools. You need to think what you;re doing. And please realize that it remains possible to make the same inappropriate actions manually, but if you do , you will be blocked. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To blank a section is very intentional i don't think even brand new users could do that by accident. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

They intentionally blanked the section and it was arguably an appropriate action from an editorial standpoint (it's still uncited and at the improper header level). I concur with DGG above - slow down. –xeno^talk 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:94tf11

Resolved

 – 23:50, 6 September 2010 Soap blocked 94tf11 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)

Can someone indef this editor. Entire contribution history consists of attack pages and BLP violations. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done —Soap— 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In future it's probably easier just to warn the user and then take them to AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting. Exxolon (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User AnonMoos personal attacks

I removed this talk page edit per WP:NPA policy:

Hey Harlan, your ranting tirade well displays your rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases, but it has no real direct relevance to the actual issues under discussion here. [24]

User AnonMoos restored it with and edit summary that says:

Harlan, if you can indulge yourself in raw hatemongering, I can point out your raw hatemongering [25]

I'd appreciate it if that could be removed and the user in question blocked. harlan (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Per WP:RPA, "Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I don't think this qualifies.
2. A quick glance at Harlan wilkerson (talk · contribs · count)'s contribs shows WP:CPUSH and other conflict over standard Israel-Palestine crap. So the complaint and block request look dubious to me on those grounds as well. Maybe someone else knows more, or is masochistic enough to look for longer than the 15 seconds that I did. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can look at my contributions all that you want. You won't find any "religious-based hatred" or "hatemongering". My posts in the thread in question are civil and represent the published views of reliable sources. harlan (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I see in your contribs is a conflict-prone editor. If you're not hatemongering (and I'm not saying you are), then someone alleging that you are hatemongering is at worst making an invalid criticism whose wikiquette/civility level is also less than ideal. Invalid and less-than-polite criticism doesn't rise to the level of personal attack described at WP:NPA, and so your bringing it here and calling it one appears to be POINTty. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bring it here initially. I removed the comment and it was reverted by AnonMoos with a vitriolic edit summary that asserted his right to make those sort of comments. All I'm asking is that the remark be removed and the editor blocked. harlan (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a comment alleging that you have rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases. That's not a friendly thing for anyone to say, but I look at WP:NPA#whatis and I don't see AnonMoos's comment reaching the level it describes. Your complaint is overblown. At most I'd remind AnonMoos to stay civil. If you insist on complaining about it to a noticeboard, try a Wikiquette alert instead of going around asking for blocks. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a long-term pattern of harrasment. It is far-fetched to claim that editors are repeating "Arab propaganda", "making the Jews look bad", or that they are "beating up on the Jews" when they quote or cite mainstream government officials, historians, sociologists, lawyers, journalists, and organizations such as David Ben Gurion, Benny Morris, Amitzur Ilan, Avraham Sela, Simha Flapan, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Gershon Shafir, Uri Ram, Ilan Pappe, Israel Shahak, Aharon Klieman, Zeev Sternhell, Baruch Kimmerling Hersh Lauterpacht, Jacob Robinson, Raphael Lemkin, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Lucien Wolf, Carol Fink, Oscar Janowsky, Ann Mosley Lesch, Stephen Krasner, Henry Steiner, Max Laserson. Nehemiah Robinson, Marc Vichniak, the Institute of Jewish Affairs, the American Jewish Congress, and the World Jewish Congress. Here he removes well-sourced material and labels it "beat-up-on-the-Jews material"[26]. I believe that behavior is an example of both WP:Battle and WP:TEDIOUS that violates WP:NPA. harlan (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of an attack in that reversion--I see a removal of some material based on an assertion (correct or otherwise) that it's irrelevant to the article topic (the edit summary claims the reverted material is about something that happened in 1937 while the article is about a 1947 event). I looked at the article talk page and it's clear that you're a persistent content dispute with several other editors (I don't know and don't care who else is on either side). I do believe AnonMoos's debating style could use improvement (the enlarged-font all-caps shouting in the talk page hurt my eyes) but your complaint here at ANI comes across as classic WP:SOUP. Aren't there some I/P discretionary sanctions that the article should be under? Maybe both of you should be topic-banned from it for a while. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

67.122.211.178, you don't consider "your rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases" directed towards an editor a personal attack ? That seems very odd to me. What exactly is the hatred being referred to I wonder ? This kind of behavior is not even close to being acceptable under the discretionary sanctions. AnonMoos, please give it a rest. There is enough of a shitstorm in the I-P topic area already without you making it worse. Frankly, editors should just be blocked on the spot for 24 hours for this kind of disruptive crap in talk page discussions and keep getting blocked over and over and over again until they get a clue. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Clarification: When I say "I don't see much of an attack in that reversion", I mean this reversion in Harlan's message that I was replying to, not the original one complained about). It's the type of thing one sees in heated talkpage discussions. I see a level of content disagreement on that talkpage that calls for some kind of DR, but the issues under dispute are the usual byzantine mess, and I don't like when someone in that kind of dispute tries to use NPA as a bludgeon. I look at WP:NPA#whatis and it seems to me that it's addressed at quite a bit worse attacks than what we're seeing these diffs (despite the open-ended stuff at the bottom saying any insult at all is an attack). Also, under WP:NPA#Recurring_attacks, initial remedies suggested include mediation, wikiquette alerts, etc. I do see recurring hostility from AnonMoos but also well-articulated underlying complaints (whether they're valid or not) directed at Harlan. And I'm (purposely) ignorant of I/P issues but I've been around enough WP:CPUSH in other areas to see that pattern in Harlan's editing. I'd suggest formally cautioning AnonMoos against more of that type of invective, and advising him/her (and also Harlan) to seek mediation or open an RFC about the content dispute. If the insults continue, then yeah, do some blocks, and tell the recipients that they're self-inflicted injuries. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough and as is often the case, my comment missed the point of the comment being made and addressed a completely different point not actually made by the person I addressed. Brilliant. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a final warning AnonMoos was given by an Admin after another incident: [27] So, 67.122.211.178 the insults have certainly continued. harlan (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For some bizarre reason, I wasn't allowed to mention that a front-page Jerusalem Post article clearly referred to you, even though in fact it did (but not by name) -- I wonder why it is that you didn't glory in your "15 minutes of fame", instead of trying to actively suppress all mention of the article on Wikipedia...? AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I often get a little snippy with Harlan, because 1) It's really getting rather tiresome and tedious that hundreds of kilobytes of often somewhat circular discussions on Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine and its archives still hasn't resolved any issues, or hindered Harlan from advocating for his innovative personal legal theories or blatant flagrant historical revisionism. 2) Being argumentative with Harlan is the only method I've found which consistently works to some degree from inhibiting Harlan from going wild with adding the aforesaid personal legal theories and historical revisionism to Wikipedia articles. But however exasperated I am with Harlan, I generally keep to a line -- not the line of strict Wikipedia civil discussions, maybe, but a line of somewhat rough and tumble debate (on both sides) without pointless and irrelevant personal attacks (which would actually interfere and distract from a discussion of the issues themselves). In the past, Harlan has actually gone over that line more than I have (trying to smear and slur me with irrelevant out-of-the-blue accusations of being a so-called "racist" on three separate occasions). I only went over that line on this occasion because Harlan chose to go off into an attack on Judaism (for what reason, he can tell you much better than I can). AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, thank you for acknowledging that you went over the line on this occasion. It does sound like you've calmed down, which is good. You really have to remember to tone it down in general, since your civility offenses (while not that severe taken individually from what I've seen so far) do make a recurring pattern that's easy to verify, while the OR issues you're raising against Harlan can't be checked without a pile of diffs and mind-numbing source analysis. If you want to spend hours or days grovelling through edit histories looking for diffs and writing it all up, then feel free to file an RFC or arb enforcement request under the discretionary sanctions. I can't say that it's likely to be worth the headache. Has there been any mediation attempt? Maybe that's worth a try. I do feel for what you're saying (WP:SOUP) whether or not you're right about the content dispute. It's like a Wagner opera, with different costumes for each new production, but the same music every time. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos demands that other editors provide lengthy explanations and then complains about the sourced material when it is provided in good faith.

He has been over the line for quite a while. He has repeatedly been asked to drop the personal attacks by both myself, other editors, and Admins. He has not deleted the offending comments himself and has stalked me across multiple articles making the same accusations of antisemitism. He has restored those comments, claims that he has a right to make them, and continues to repeat them here at AN/I in the replies above. He is still claiming that I am part of a movement and that I am attacking Judaism. That is not a content dispute. This completely unacceptable behavior needs to be stopped and addressed right now. harlan (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, considering that in the past you've been quick to try to smear and slur other users with irrelevant out-of-the blue accusations of "racism"[sic], and that the goal of all your efforts is to add your innovative personal legal theories and blatant historical revisionism to Wikipedia articles, you're really in no position to criticize other people's behavior. And ever since I wasted half an hour of my life reading through the Walid Khalidi PDF ranting tirade, only to discover that it did NOT in fact state what you had clearly implied that it would state, my degree of patience with your perpetual cloud of alleged "citations"[sic] to alleged "sources"[sic] — that somehow never seem to support any of your more controversial assertions when examined closely — has finally and definitely come to an end. If you want to make a good faith gesture that will defuse much of the antagonism, then you can finally fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan. This is your most flagrant example of historical revisionism and denialism of what are solidly established and well accepted facts among the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars in the field — and also what has generated most of the hundreds of kilobytes of semi-pointless discussions at Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine. Doing a "a-ha, gotcha!" pounce and dragging the matter here because things didn't go your way over at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Israel.2C_Palestine.2C_and_the_United_Nations.E2.80.8E is not likely the way to settle any contentious issue in any meaningful manner... AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Background: User:Harlan_wilkerson is always trying to insert his innovative personal legal theories (sometimes flagrantly historically revisionist) into many modern middle-eastern history articles. He brings in a cloud of alleged sources to his support his assertions, but when looked at in detail such "sources" never seem to support his more controversial assertions. The conversations frequently get snippy. In the past Harlan has tried to slur me several times as being a so-called "racist".

In the current discussion, he changed the word "caste" to mean something completely different from what it meant when I first introduced it into the discussion, in order to launch some kind of attack on Judaism. Harlan's idea of "civil" discussion is apparently that he is allowed to attack Judaism, but if I point out that he's attacking Judaism, then I'm personally attacking him. AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to conflate a well sourced discussion about Zionism with criticism of Judaism. Nobody has been attacking Judaism. harlan (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I would say that that part of the comment is definitely close to WP:NPA, and considering that Harlan only removed that part and left the rest of the comment, I see his edit as perfectly fine. AnonMoos's reversion of that edit and related edit summary were clearly out of line. Silverseren^C 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The comment was ill-advised but I'd put it in "wikiquette alert" territory at most. Creating NPA drama is a favorite tactic of disruptive editors, so shouldn't be taken seriously unless there's a recurring pattern (need a lot more diffs to show that) or the attack is quite severe. AnonMoos, the reversion was also ill-advised. Better to just let such stuff go and get on with editing. If AnonMoos and Harlan have a persistent dispute that they can't work out themselves, try mediation or RFC, not this tangential stuff. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If you don't mind me asking, who are you? You just started editing five days ago and yet you seem to know quite a bit about Wikipedia policy and Wikiquette alerts (of which I still disagree with you). Silverseren^C 02:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Check 67.122.211.0/24. There're a few other IPs in the range with a similar page makeup; could easily be an IP-exclusive editor that's on a dynamic IP. Doesn't seem like a sock at a glance. Shadowjams (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes. My address has been jumping around a lot lately because of ISP instability that I'm trying to get fixed. It usually stays stable for longer than this. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to these parts so pardon any etiquette mistakes, but I saw thisand don't like seeing a group of people disparaged. There looks to be a recurring pattern but you can judge for yourself. I'd just like the talk page to calm down so we could get back on track. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- is there a reason you can't tone down the vitriol? It's not helping the situation. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a new situation. Here is a final warning AnonMoos was given by an Admin after another incident: [28]

The current discussion started after an involved Admin applied the POV tag to the article [29] and was reverted. I reapplied the tag and posted the issue at the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues page [30]

AnonMoos went into WP:Battle mode on the article talk page. He did not discuss the sources that I cited or any of his own, he simply launched a personal attack that hasn't really stopped since, e.g. "Harlan, this article isn't a legitimate field for your innovative personal abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculative legal theories -- or your really somewhat strange beliefs." [31] Here I pointed out that he had deliberately been generating editorial conflict across multiple articles and that he had admitted his arguments had not been based upon any published sources. [32] I mentioned that I've been citing and quoting standard university textbooks on International Law and Middle East Studies [33] Instead of discussing that content, AnonMoos continued to discuss me, did not mention any published sources to support his viewpoint, and suggested that I not edit any more 20th Century articles about the Middle East because my views aren't mainstream [34] AnonMoos has been making WP:Synth claims and citing an Encyclopaedia Britannica Palestine article. [35] I pointed out that my views on that passage can't be too far out of the mainstream, since I'm credited as a contributor to that portion of the Encyclopedia Britannica Palestine article (scroll down in the diff) [36] harlan (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In that "final warning", it looks like AnonMoos linked to a Jerusalem Post article saying there is a multi-way I/P content dispute on Wikipedia (which is not exactly news), and if I understand the "attack", he indicated (by referring to that article) that he thinks you have engaged in off-wiki coordination to POV-push. That kind of thing has happened other times (e.g. EEML arb case) and he has the right to voice such a suspicion if he thinks it's well-founded. So the block threat from Malik Shabazz seems like a bit much (at least out of context, like now) and anyway doesn't really resemble the current complaint, in addition to which it's months old. The NPOV noticeboard thread you started[37] didn't seem to get you any support (both you and AnonMoos got criticized). And I'm unimpressed by the Britannica thing since it looks like anyone can enroll an account there and contribute to articles (with a little more checking than we have here). So your even citing it as evidence of anything sounds like further grasping at straws, not a good sign. As for which of you is using better sources, RFC is that way. He's snarling a lot, you're wikilawyering, neither one of you is conducting yourself well. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious you are attempting to do the wikilawyering here. I don't need to coordinate off wiki. I'm very well versed on the subject, make my own edits, and I'm citing third-party verifiable content sourced from standard academic works and college textbooks on the subject of the Middle East and International Law. In most cases I also supply links to government archive materials that those textbooks cite and analyze. AnonMoos has not responded with reliably sourced opposing points of view. He has gone into WP:Battle mode and is resorting to near constant discussions about me instead of the articles. He has ignored warnings and claims that he has the right to engage in that behavior.

I think someone should close this with a civility reminder to AnonMoos, based on AnonMoos's acknowledging having gone overboard in a heated discussion but calmed down (but also having done this sort of thing before). Harlan's complaint (in the middle of a long-running content dispute with AnonMoos) has some elements of validity and some elements of trying to game the system. AnonMoos may have a legitimate OR or tendentious editing complaint against Harlan, but s/he will have to document it to make the case, and ANI isn't the right venue for that either way. FWIW, I'm going offline til tomorrow, no more responses from me (I hope). 67.122.211.178 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not discussing a content dispute here. The fact is that I have taken part in lengthy discussions, RFCs, and I/P Collaboration posts regarding the exclusion of views found in mainstream scholarly works and college level textbooks regarding "the founding myths of Zionism", e.g. [38] I didn't bring that issue here and there is no WP:OR or WP:TEDIOUS editing going on. I have always entered into good faith discussions of my edits and the sources that they are based upon with the community.

I will let you know if I ever drop my formal objections to the use of Wikipedia by AnonMoos to publish false material which says that I'm an antisemite who is attacking Judaism or that I'm part of a coordinated political movement to do that. See WP:BLP. I'm still asking nicely that those comments be deleted and that the responsible editor be blocked. Several warnings have gone unheeded and there have been multiple violations of well-known policies. harlan (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't insert words into my mouth. I didn't say you were an "antisemite" -- I said that you chose to use the word "caste" in a completely different meaning from how I had previously used the word in the discussion, in order to launch some kind of attack on Judaism. You can explain why you chose to do so much better than anyone else... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TheiGuard's odd behavior

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

This user made a very explicit and controversial edit here. I gave an only warning with a brief explanation on his talk page. The user decided to attack me by leaving the same message on my talk page, the delete the warning on his page. I will notify this user of this discussion, and leave it to the administrators to decide. Keeping in mind that September 11th articles are subject to Sanctions.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You attacked me. I made an edit you didn't like so now your trying to punish me. I don't like several edits you make, but you don't see me posting messages to you. I think you should be blocked. TheiGuard (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:Fringe and downright insulting. But it's the former that concerns me the most. Editors are free to remove messages from their talk pages, but the warning to Jojhutton was completely unwarranted. If there's further disruption I think it should lead to a temporary block. Shadowjams (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although I think he deserves a permanent block for his unwarranted judgment. I'll keep a lookout on his account and if I notice him attacking any other users I'll report back. TheiGuard (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood. You, TheiGuard, made the problem edit; jojhutton's response was appropriate.

I'll add, from a brief review, TheiGuard has productively (from my brief review) (not my subject) edited professional wresting articles.

But there are other problematic edits in the same form: [39] [40] [41]. Shadowjams (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you provided as well as the one posted by Jojhutton reek of WP:POINT. TheiGuard, that's disruptive, and you can and will be blocked if you continue. Airplaneman ✈ 03:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He should be punished not me. TheiGuard (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He gave you a heads-up for edits that you made (as evidenced by the four diffs above) that were inappropriate. Please don't take that personally; he certainly did not mean to attack you, only notify you of the consequences of making those types of edits. If you keep making those kinds of edits, you will be blocked for disrupting. If you'd like, please explain how those edits were not disruption. Airplaneman ✈ 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TheiGuard, please understand that we aren't interested in "punishing" anyone, our intention is to prevent disruption. That might seem trite but it really is true. The reason why we block anyone is to stop that person from causing problems. Everyone is reaching out to you right now to try to help you work with others to avoid the necessity of a block, but you aren't being receptive. Please listen to others' requests and take them to heart. -- Atama頭 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Extreme and unrelenting personal attacks

Resolved

 – Warned, should probably be blocked if it recurs

Blackworm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on posting [42], and reposting [43] comments accusing editors of paedophilia, even after multiple warnings [44] [45]. Blocking his account may be the only way to stop this highly inappropriate activity. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I deny accusing any editors of pedophilia. This dispute has had a lot of reason for administrative eyes on it for quite some time, and I invite anyone to read the discussions here and here, and the arguments brought to the NPOV noticeboard here. Blackworm (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Insinuating that editors are supporters of paedophilia is equally as bad as directly stating it. I have removed the statements and warned the editor. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with removal of my comments. I wholeheartedly disagree that merits a warning, and contest the warning. Is "insinuating" that editors are antisemitic as bad as directly stating it?[46] Apparently not. Blackworm (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Many inappropriate CSD F2 nominations by Avicennasis

Avicennasis has been marking multiple inappropriate speedy nominations under WP:CSD#F2 for images on Commons that have non-empty description pages. I first came across this on Abu Ghraib-related images such as File:Abu Ghraib 53.jpg and File:Abu Ghraib 39.jpg where he nominated under F2 description pages with Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. I declined these and explained why on his talk page and he mentioned he's been doing this hundreds of times already. Since I'm about to go offline, can someone with a little more time review his deleted file-space edits and restore those file description pages inappropriately nominated as CSD F2? Thanks in advance. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. This is a fine example of F2 — it is a file description page for a file on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

F2 doesn't require all Commons images to have no description page here. Only empty (0 bytes) file pages for Commons images are deletable under F2. "Files that the MediaWiki software is unable to read or generate resized thumbnails of, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images. " Kimchi.sg (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Includes, but not limited to. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK)

Not related to this issue but I just noticed that tabs appear to be disabled on his main user page, at least when viewed using Firefox and the monobook skin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Some bad formatting on my toolbar I never bothered to fix. Didn't really disable them, just covered them up. Hopefully fixed now. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 13:00, 28 Elul 5770 / 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Anti-Laser Relisting

Resolved

 – No action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to take a look at the AfD of Anti-laser [47] to see if a consensus has been reached. User:JForget has relisted the AfD for further debate, but I feel a consensus had been reached prior to this. After the relisting another editor commented on the AfD bolstering what I feel was the consensus to keep. If an uninvolved admin could look this over to see if should be closed before the full cycle of the relist it would be appreciated.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to close it early: the extra week will probably make the eventual keep more secure. Also, you previously asked for a speedy keep, but it's clear that this wasn't a bad-faith nomination, which is the main reason for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At the time I had wondered if the nomination was related to the conversation "Anti-Lasar" at [48] where Y is a bit snarky. This combined with the flood of sources made me consider a speedy keep. Knowing Y better now he seems to be snarky in general and the comments are distinct from the issues raised, I just never went back to edit my original !vote language, although I should have. Thanks for taking a look, User:Chrisrus was having a wiki fit over the relist and I wanted to get another editor to look it over because of both my own concerns and a desire to cool him down before he acted out further.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Justa Punk

Resolved

 – Pages reverted and userpage semiprotected indef.

This IP has been editing Justa Punk's userpage after JP was blocked.[49] It's contributions also indicates it has been redirecting confirmed JP socks to the userpage. Can anything be done about it? Bejinhan talks 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pages reverted & semiprotected indef. Blocking the IP is probably moot at this point, but if this reoccurs, could be blocked as a Justa Punk sock. If any admins think the IP should be blocked at this point, please feel free. Skier Dude (talk 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A geolocation check reveals the IP's isp to be the State Library of Victoria. Bejinhan talks 06:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility of User:BlueRobe at RfC

This is shaping up to be Torchwood goes to ANI day. Can an admin please look into the incivility of this recent edit at RfC [50]? When combined with the behavior that initiated the RfC it seems to go too far over the line to let go.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never once advocated a block outside of blatant vandalism or suggestion of self-blocking for cool down, but I feel this user needs some time off wiki to get their head on straight.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the comments by User:BlueRobe really indicate that collaborative editing is not something the person is interested in (and he also has been asked directly). An indef seems warranted, and indeed, even prudent, given the egregious incivility he has continued to dish out through at least 4 forms of dispute resolution (from simple talk page pleas, to article RfCs, WQA, and RFC/USER). BigK HeX (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an indef block is necessarily warranted. I agree with Torchwoodwho, that for now, a cool-off block would be better. If the behavior persists after that, then we could look at longer-term or permanent blocks. I agree with you that the behavior doesn't show any signs of improving, but I think we should give him a chance. One thing I would note though: if BlueRobe is blocked, it might be a good idea to require that as a prerequisite for being unblocked, he must acknowledge that he has understood the reason for the block, and will explain how he plans to improve his conduct. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. -- I just realized that we might be saying the same thing ... I suppose the type of cool-down block I was suggesting would technically be "indefinite", since we don't know how long it will be until BlueRobe understands the reasons for the block, and details how he will resolve them. I guess I automatically interpreted "indefinite" as "permanent", which is not correct. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd guess that requiring him to basically apologize and admit wrongdoing would amount to an permanent block, given his level of hostility to the vague "leftist meatpuppet Cabal" that he seems to be "battling". I think an indef is prudent for a user who is harboring so much contempt for the Wikipedia process, so I'd certainly be able to endorse a long-term block coupled with a stipulation as you've described. I don't think I'd be comfortable interacting with him again for at least 4 months, though. So, allowing him to return in no less than 4 months and explain how he would approach the collaborative editing process would be fine with me. BigK HeX (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a minimum of 4 months is too long. He probably won't come back, and I don't want to lose a potential contributor to the project. I would suggest a week or two minimum, and allow him to edit again once he's met the stipulations I laid out above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you arseholes shower together, too? BlueRobe (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of weeks may certainly work to resolve the matter, but I'm skeptical (and, I feel, reasonably so). Given the non-productive nature of our disputes, I personally would not feel comfortable interacting with the user in 2 weeks. However, if he is willing to assure of us civility, then I'd gladly endorse the idea that we could forego any blocking, but I would want to request other sanctions of no less than 2 months in duration. Something like a topic ban from articles on political subjects and topics related to New Zealand, as well as a voluntary agreement to cease unproductive soapboxing on talk pages or accept a temporary block upon findings of soapboxing. Something like this would allow him to become more familiar with collaborative editing, while possibly letting him build up to the point of contributing productively in the areas that seem to have drawn his ire in the past [see: his comment, ""In every Wikipaedia page where I have deep knowledge on the subject I have seen petty politics undermining the integrity of Wikipaedia pages""]. BigK HeX (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

mitigating circumstances @jr, how civil indeed. this guy had been ridiculed at every edit util he finally lashes out, then you speak up for a shortened ban, bravo. i hope before you vote here, please take a minute to view his intelligent, civil, even friendly edits in the beginning. then notice how after a stream of insults, he breaks down and speaks his mind. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Provide a diff of even ONE insult that precedes his incivility please. Three or more diffs would be very helpful. I find it fairly hard to believe that complaints about this single editor are coming in from 6 largely unrelated articles by pure chance --- the common factor seems to be User:BlueRobe and he certainly seems to jump at every chance to reinforce that notion. BigK HeX (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in searching for "insults" can easily look through the conversations listed in the RFC/U and WQAs. The only "insults" were that he was asked to provide reliable sources and be civil, and that a !vote didn't turn out the way he wanted. I'd say that considering his tone and flagrant personal attacks, most editors involved did an exceptionally good job keeping their cool. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, your ENTIRE LIFE has been out on hold for 2 days so you can obsess over me in WIkipaedia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: get counseling. Seriously. SEEK HELP. BlueRobe (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even in spite of spending several hours dealing with your incivility, over the past two days I've managed to make hundreds of productive edits in article space and upload quite a few photos; so it is hardly the case that my entire life has been dedicated to dealing with you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jr you are unable to see that your comment is only baiting blue. by replying, you are dragging out this debate. you had made your point, further comments directed at blue may be un-productive, as your last comment was. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "baiting" him. I'm responding to (another) false claim that he has made regarding myself (namely, that my entire life over the past 2 days has been spent "obsessing" over him). I'm not "dragging out" anything, either. At this point, all that's happening here is a countdown until an admin comes along and blocks him. What I say in response to him has no bearing on how long this discussion will take. I also don't believe that the comment was unproductive. As I've said above, I would like BlueRobe to stay on Wikipedia and learn to be a productive editor. I feel like pointing out how productive one can be in two days might give him ideas about what he could be doing instead of arguing and berating editors on talk pages. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

let an admin look at this. Blue clearly has a long running problem with civility (when I interacted with him on an entirely unrelated matter and asked him to source some contentious material he bit my head right off) and an admin will, hopefully, make it very clear that even under duress this is not acceptable. As to whether Wiki-hounding of Blue is going on by the others I don't know - it looks to me as if BigK and the others are getting frustrated by Blue's attitude and civility issues and so are pressing to get someone to pay attention to this. Perhaps they are being a little excessive in that - but a clear and present issue exists. Let an admin take a look. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do -- as far as the "hounding/stalking" charge, by the way, I'd be totally fine if an admin wants to look into that and determine if I did something wrong. I've edited 3 pages that BlueRobe is on; I was already involved with two these before he even started editing, and the other one I came to via an RFC link from an article I watch closely). I feel that this is hardly grounds for a claim of "stalking" or "hounding", but if an admin disagrees, I'd be fine with having them point out what I did wrong, so I can fix it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. Let's step back. Darkstar1st, could you please provide some diffs for what you're referring to, and could anyone in response provide similar diffs. I think most editors understand how unfair treatment can lead to edits that, in isolation, would seem uncivil, but in context seem, if not restrained, understandable. But please provide those diffs so we can understand what's going on, and not take everyone at their word. Shadowjams (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, ShadowJams -- if you'd like to see more context, I'd recommend taking a look at the RFC/U. The diff at the beginning of this ANI is not an isolated incident -- there are plenty of diffs, and a much fuller context at the RFC. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair answer. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that, IMO, User:BlueRobe has dropped any pretense of contributing productively, and seems to have decided to dedicate any efforts here to pure disruption. His latest comment is here: [51]. BigK HeX (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, baiting or not (which I have actually yet to find), although the actions of others may explain your own incivility, it will never excuse it. Calling others "arseholes" above and suggesting they get counseling is never an appropriate response to any form of dispute. Regardless of the theoretical baiting, I'm been 1/4" away from the block button already on BlueRobe. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's be careful that we're basing our judgment on overall behavior and not keywords. I am not convinced that an edit or editor is at fault because they swear...(I actually like it, in the right context). In fact, I think it's a useful part of normal speech. I'd be reticent to see it censored. I'm much more interested in the underlying issues, as I think we all should. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A quick look over at BlueRobe's talk page shows a history of incivility that is not restrained to the liberterian articles the editor references in his rant. Looking at this [52] you see the user interacting in an uncivil and hostile manner to editors on the New Zealand and Jersey Shore TV Show articles by openly refusing to supply sources to controversial edits.

The vast majority of BlueRobe's edits are to talk pages. In fact, 90.2% of all BlueRobe's contribs are in the article and user talk spaces [53]. This shows why it is so important that Blue be able to communicate with others. If the bulk of his work on the project is centered around collaboration and debate in talk space it is paramount that those conversations be useful and don't slowly slip toward out-right paranoid accusations and incivility.

This edit to Gulag's talk page [54] seems to be among the first instances of incivility on the fairly new account. BlueRobe polices another user's grammar. Although taken alone it is completely fine, but it shows a root of behavior which will escalate.

In March we see here [55] that BlueRobe is beginning to POV push for unsourced material to remain in an article, an underpinning of the core argument that BigK has with BlueRobe. BlueRobe then follows that up with this edit which includes a seemingly out of left field accusation of "left-wing" conspiracy in mainstream media [56]. This statement is a follow up to the editor User:TheRedPenOfDoom calling for reliable sources, a common theme of this user's belief that WP:OR should not apply to him. Neither BigK or Jr have been involved with this editor at this point. On the 26th he makes a soap box POV statement regarding his distaste for the Milwaukee Wisconsin police depart here [57]. On the 27th of the same month BlueRobe visits the talk page of Celasson to berate the editor over use of semi-colon [58] in an accusing / attacking manner. (I have up to now not seen one single article space contribution by the editor, that is why I am focusing chronologically on talk space edits).

This pattern continues for the bulk of the user's approx. 400 edits from March on to current.

BlueRobe, from examining his contribs, appears to be using wikipedia as a forum WP:NOT for discussing his political views, and even within the sphere of that he has managed to edit war, make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry [59], and litter the project with conspiracy laced rants. After going over Blue's edit history I'm in support of an indef ban. The user seems to delight in causing controversy across a variety of topics without any positive contributions to the project. When other editors disagree with him they are accused of hounding and worse.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe is currently on 31 hour block by Gadfium and one week listed by SarekofVulcan on his talk page. Not sure which is accurate.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Gadfium's block is 2 weeks old; mine is the active one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the conclusion that User:BlueRobe treats Wikipedia as a forum to advocate his self-described "intelligent, albeit politically incorrect, contributions". When disputed -- because his contributions are invariably unsourced -- he's launched into hostile actions, including: talk page vandalism, accusations of a "leftist meatpuppet" Cabal, and personal attacks. I think that BlueRobe's misuse of talk pages (in violation of WP:NOT#FORUM) and his failure to support his statements with WP:RS (in violation of WP:NOR) are the key issues which quickly lead to the incivility problems. I would also add that very little tolerance should be accorded, should User:BlueRobe return from the block with the same forum/WP:OR/incivility approach. BigK HeX (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Danielwork - ignoring consensus & others' talk

Problem user = Danielwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pie-chart of his edits: here

Suggest community ban, until such time as the user responds to the concerns that others have raised.

[issue raised by User:Trafford09 (talk)].

User User:Danielwork continues daily to ignore any concerns that others have raised on his/her Talk page. His modus operandi is to take articles from other wikis, and add them, without regard for whether their titles need translating, or for whether they have incorrect date linking. As you'll see from the pie-chart of his edits: here, he has never talked on any talk page, even his own when asked to. My fear is that he's not an English-speaker, and hence shuns consensus, communicating, collaboration, user pages & talk pages (including his own).

We have raised the above concerns on the user's talk page, but he has ignored them, and continued to flout guidelines regardless, without giving us any reason to believe he's even read his own talk page. Repeatedly notifying the user about our concerns, and correcting the user's edits is time-consuming, and hence his behaviour is seen as disruptive. Trafford09 (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

May I ask for a clarification? Looking at the pie-chart of Danielwork's edits, it looks like all of Danielwork's edits are on the main article pages without any notifications or consensus building before those edits on the talk pages of those articles. Is this the case? BlueRobe (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is right - all his edits are to article main-space, so he's never contributed to any talk page - even his own. Trafford09 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Such conduct is clearly inappropriate. He sounds like a bull in a china shop. I've encountered this before - they are either 1) well-meaning, but simply ignorant of the appropriate procedures (manynew users are not even aware that the talk pages exist, or that they have a User talk page of their own), or 2) they are a zealous moron who is hell-bent on charging full-steam ahead regardless of all attempts at compromise.

If he refuses to acknowledge all good faith attempts to address his unilateral editorial changes, that he initiates without issuing notifications or obtaining consensus in the talk pages, then some form of coercion is probably necessary. BlueRobe (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a mix up here in terminology. A ban is a community imposed sanction that's more or less permanent, although somewhat amorphous. A block is a technical limitation. A case like this would almost never lead to a ban unless you could link it to another editor. This is a block discussion, and frankly not particularly egregious. Providing diffs would be extremely helpful in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

...and I have always believed that whoever brings the issue here should not recommend a sanction as it looks like they're seeking "punishment" instead of prevention. State the case, leave evidence, let the community decide the best course of action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I take your point re not recommending a sanction - guess that was a possible mistake. But I thought an admin. may think the case was weak for an admin. block, whereas a temporary community ban forces the user to either respect or defy it, with a block surely following the latter. And if he respects it, he'll surely be forced (if he can communicate in English) to talk and argue his case (which you'll observe he's so far avoided).

Also, if I gave the impression that I was seeking punishment instead of prevention, that was another mistake on my part. I merely want the user to prove he can read & write English, and him to understand he should address others' concerns. The problem of course, if we do nothing, is that the user will carry on regardless with his disruptive editing. I'll seek sample wp:diffs, and see if user continues tomorrow to edit & ignore us. Trafford09 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackiestud/Archive

As you can see, the SPI I raised concerning 187.21.128.77 (talk · contribs) was closed as the IP hadn't edited for 3 days. However, this is a static IP and is back again today. The IP is clearly a sock of Jackiestud. I've been involved which is why I've not used my tools, but as the Admin who archived it is offline, can someone else please act on this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 187.21.128.77 IP comes from the same ISP as an IP previously confirmed as being Jackiestud (namely 201.6.43.204). Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the section heading, I've fixed it. It's clearly Jackiestud, and was blocked earlier for block evasion. So far as I can see the only reason it wasn't blocked this time was that the IP hadn't edited for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mir Haven

I request that User:Mir Harven be blocked or topic banned per WP:ARBMAC. (Or should I make the request on that page?) Other than wild accusations, the only use of the account is to push the nationalist POV that Croatian is not Serbo-Croatian. I'd do it myself if I hadn't gotten into arguments with him. — kwami (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

When I went back to notify him, I found that in the interim he had been reported here. — kwami (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are going to withdraw the notice here, remember that "you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review violations: Encantadia

• Apparently, I have reverted these pages that are clearly violating WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA and most of all, WP: REF. All pages barely have any references to provide that the characters from a television show are notable enough to have their own page. They are clearly fan-created pages. There are over 50 pages created by these fanatics, and I, took the liberty of my time to redirect them to one page, however, this user: User:WayKurat, decided to revert the violating pages back again, and accused me to be a sockpuppet of my very own IP address, I know its ridiculous. He's probably a fanatic of the show and might be angry to the fact that the pages violate Wikipedia rules.. As the matter of fact, if there arent so much of these pages, they shouldn't be redirected to the show, Encantadia. They must be deleted. User:WayKurat seem to be engaging me into an edits war.

Here are the pages created in related to the show. And I don't see anything that provides enough information to prove that they are notable enough to have their own pages, plus most of them are unreferenced. The pages were tagged to provide references over 3-4 years ago, and yet till now, nothing. This pages really ought to be deleted. It's like creating a page for every characters in World of Warcraft., ridiculous. Ornia, Memen, Naar (Encantadia) ,Lira (Encantadia), Ignis, Helena (Encantadia), Evades, Ether (Encantadia deity), Emre (Encantadia deity), Cassandra (Encantadia), Barkus, Bagwis, Odessa (Encantadia), Hagorn, Muyak, Kahlil, Armeo, Cassiopea (Encantadia), Aquil, Asval, Hitano, Anthony (Encantadia), Gurna, Avria, Enchanta, Raquim, Encantadia: Pag-ibig Hanggang Wakas, Amihan (Encantadia), Danaya, Pirena, Alena (Encantadia), List of places in Encantadia, Ybrahim, Flamara, Hathoria, Lireo, Sapiro, Jewels and Spirit-Guides, Genealogy of Encantadia, Timeline of Encantadia, Amarro, Andora (Encantadia), Pyr (Encantadia),Arman (Encantadia), Armea, Animus (Encantadia) --Beckerich (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember that "you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow there is some serious fancruft going on on that page. Unfortunately it's not an administrative issues unless someone is violating something like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP or something like that. Right now it's a content dispute. The user might want to use the article's talk page to discuss notability or take it to the notability noticeboard, but if all they have is that one yahoo article, it isn't enough to justify the article on the series let alone any characters. If they persist look at making a batch nomination at WP:AFD of all character related articles.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor request

Resolved

I thought I would have time to take care of this request today, but the movers just showed up and are packing up my computer, router, etc. and I will have very limited access for the next week. If you can handle it, you can just respond to the thread on my talk page under the thread User talk:Plastikspork#A request. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Selket ^Talk 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Help...

I am having trouble with a user that does not understand Wikipedia policy on sources. He categorically and in an apologetic manner refuses to accept my source. Here is the reference in detail:

Cohen, Philip J.; Riesman, David (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. p. 94. ISBN 0890967601

"The majority of Partisans in Croatia were Croats.⁶¹ By the end of 1943, Croatia proper - which contained about 24 percent of the total Yugoslav population - had provided more Partisans than Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Macedonia, which, combined, made up 59 percent of Yugoslavia's population.⁶² Overall, the Partisans from Croatia were 61 percent Croat and 28 percent Serb, the rest comprising Slovenes, Muslims, Montenegrins, Italians, Hungarians, Czechs, Jews and Volksdeutsche.⁶³"

• Note 61: From 1941 through 1945, there were a total of 228,474 Partisans in Croatia, of which 140,124 were ethnic Croats and 63,710 were ethnic Serbs. See Yugoslav state records, Jelic (1978), p. 304.
• Note 62: Irvine (1993), p. 171.
• Note 63: Đuro Zatezalo, "Četvrta konferencija Komunističke partije za okrug Karlovca, 1945" (Karlovac, 1985), pp. 53-55, cited in Irvine (1993), pp. 171-72. Most of the Serbian defectors returned in response to an offer of amnesty. Of more than one dozen prominent defectors brought to trial in mid-July, 1944, five were executed and the rest received long prison sentences.

He removed it from the article because he demanded I show the primary sources to him personally. I actually went out and bought the book, and posted the primary sources. He then called the notes "bullshit" [60], called me a "communist" [61], a greater Croat nationalist [62] (something like a Nazi) and continued to keep the source out by edit-warring. The most vexing of all is that he continuously accuses me of "not knowing how to source material".

Another perplexing thing of all is that, all the while he's rejecting the above source and demanding I show him the primary sources, he's replacing the content with some article he Googled which lists no primary sources at all [63] (he's calling it an "original source"). If I restore the source, he will simply revert and I'll likely end up getting blocked or something for repairing the damage. In short, I'm asking for 10 minutes Admin attention on this, and comments regarding the validity of the quoted source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, you are trying to put just one version of history into the article. All the sources conflict, and the article should tell the reader the differences. For instance, U.S. Director of Balkan Affairs Danielle S. Sremac wrote that "Modern-day myths about Yugoslav history stemmed from Communist indoctrination designed to suppress nationalism. The Communist version of events during World War II was that Yugoslavia's Partisans were the sole liberators against Nazi occupation." At the Yugoslav Partisans, you must not try to decide which version of history is correct, you must instead tell the reader that the Communist version is one way, and the non-Communist version is another way. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Um... Binksternet, I don't know what you think we're disputing here, but this whole thing has nothing even remotely to do with communism or the communist point of view. And incidentally, I am NOT a communist. (We're discussing the ethnicity of the Partisans with respect to them being mostly Serbs or Croats, a communist POV would be it does not matter/they were all Yugoslavs, certainly not what I'm saying). I would appreciate it if you 1) did not pay much attention to LAz's "ideological labeling", and 2) get more acquainted with these Balkans WWII issues before attacking my integrity in such a rash way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the sources or the content, but I have blocked LAz17 (talk · contribs) for violating his/her topic ban. Toddst1 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, I did not call you a Communist or attack your integrity; I said that you were trying to tell one version of history when there is more than one version. What I am directing your attention to is that the difference between the non-Communist and the Communist point of view is exactly the point of Danielle S. Sremac. She is a recognized expert on the historiography of the Yugoslav Partisans, and she contradicts much of what you have been putting into the article. For instance, she writes that the memory of General Draža Mihailović was subject to historical revisionism in the 1990s—that he was accused of collaborating with the Nazis. Sremac notes that the General was posthumously awarded the Legion of Merit in 1948 by U.S. President Harry S. Truman for his instrumental role "in obtaining a final Allied victory" and for rescuing and returning downed U.S. airmen. You have insisted upon just one version of history, one which identifies Mihailović as a Nazi collaborator, when what the reader needs to know is how and why there is more than one interpretation, and what those interpretations are. All notable versions of the history of the Yugoslav Partisans need to be represented. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have studied a large number of sources and discussed that issue at enormous length. The only reason the text says "Mihailović collaborated" is that - Mihailović collaborated. Sourced accounts of Mihailović's collaboration with the Axis Nedić regime are particularly abundant, as are those confirming that he gave his assent to the large-scale inclusion of thousands of Chetniks into the Axis military structure as the MVAC. I assure you, this is not about personal views or favoritism, but exclusively about COLD HARD FACTS. The medal is utterly irrelevant, as for the Allied airmen:

"For example, the safe evacuation of 417 Allied pilots including 343 Americans from Chetnik-held territories in Serbia during the latter half of 1944 [note: this is Operation Halyard] has often been cited as "evidence" of the Chetniks' strong pro-Allied sympathies. Indeed, with the Allied Support shifted from Mihailović to Tito, Mihailović's Chetniks were courting renewed Allied support and made great efforts to demonstrate their willingness to assist the Allies. However, none of these sources mentiones that the Chetniks rescued German aviators as well as indicated in a Nedić government report of February 1944, and still, on other occasions, Mihailović's men hunted down Allied aviators on behalf of the Germans."

You've gotten the wrong idea about me: I form my position according to sources, not vice versa (as the ethnicity thing might've shown). But this is not the place... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue looks to me like it belongs at RS/N rather than here. For what it's worth, though, the sourcing looks sound and I fail to see where Communist-POV comes into this. The fact that we have a source saying that there is such a thing as a Communist POV in realtion to the topic, I don't see how this can be used to object to factual statements made by mainstream academics. --FormerIP (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet is talking about something completely different than the rest of the post, while I would like to discuss it with him at length, this is not the place. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The City of London Migraine Clinic

I came across this puff piece of an article a few months ago: [64]. I considered nominating for deletion but instead tried to make it more neutral and subsantially shorter, removing long lists of irrelevant publications/attempts at duplicating that org's website, arriving at this: [65] The author of the article has spent the last couple of months slowly reverting this and insisting that changes should be 'discussed with the clinic', 'by telephone', etc. (see [66] and [67])

I am tired of reverting him, and have explained that what this is inappropriate, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through. I don't like the idea of reverting this in perpetuity.

Any ideas? Sumbuddi (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is completely unsourced and I do not think it establishes the notability of the organisation, even though I have to admit that I think the set-up of the organisation is interesting. Although "research" is mentioned, it appears to be a essentially voluntary sector specialist doctors' surgery. Through a cursory google, I can't find any secondary RS about the clinic, the nearest thing being its inclusion as a "useful link" at the bottom of the description of a BBC radio programme. --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few references in Google News, but most seem to relate to its lead doctor. There are some interesting sources such as [68], but I'm not quite sure the notability threshold for medical facilities anyway. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes! That was exactly the source we needed to ref that final sentence in the article. Now everything's covered, yay! Thanks! Silverseren^C 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given the user and IP WP:COI warnings, since they haven't already received them. Hut 8.5 17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Has anybody thought about SPIng the the IP to the User? It makes the foundation's job a lot easier when we string all the changes the identities have made so that we can use WP:BRD as a reason for disallowing changes that add the PR fluf back into the article Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Article is referenced now. Silverseren^C 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

You may know that the above article has multiple problems, in that there is a concerted campaign beign waged to alter the article so that it suggests that one of those convicted of the murder, Amanda Knox, is innocent. One editor has been indeffed, others blocked, and one topic-banned for disruption pushing this POV in an excessive manner. Recently I protected the article after a week of editing which saw half of the 70 edits being reverts of each other. The idea, of course, was to provide discussion before making changes. The talk page however, is still a horrible mess, and continues to attract NPA and BATTLE violations. This section shows a ridiculous argument over changing "has" to "had", for example.

Within the last few months, at least 12 new accounts have been created and appeared on the talkpage. All are wholly or also wholly SPAs on this article, all share the same POV, and the majority have the same attitude of "if you don't agree with us, then you must be biased and POV yourself" - they don't understand the concept of neutrality. Myself and fellow admin User:MLauba - along with the occasional other admin - have tried to police the edit-warring and general talkpage disruption as best we can, but it is now becoming difficult under the weight of SPA "consensus" and attacks on other editors.

Main issues

• User:PhanuelB (created slightly earlier than the others, in April - first edit was [69]) has been blocked three times for increasing lengths for violations of NPA, BLP and BATTLE; he has been repeatedly asked to edit collegially and will not. Requests for him to provide examples of POV in the articles are inevitably met with huge screeds of "this is what the article should say". His participation in the talkpage thread mentioned above is typical. Today, he has (a) finally suggested that a "consensus" of recent SPAs should be favoured ([70]) and has also accused myself and MLauba of bias/POV in the article, without any justification except that the protection is preventing himself and the other SPAs from editing it [71]. Obviously, we cannot sanction him ourselves for this particular PA itself, though on overall behaviour it would not be unreasonable - I would ask someone else to look at this please, and at least offer a stiff warning.
• One of the recent SPAs, User:PietroLegno, has also joined in this behaviour; [72]
• There is quite a bit more, but I don't want to TLDR - we really do need someone uninvolved to have a look at this. The talkpage is a good place to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Has a checkuser report been filed? A parade of SPAs, and in particular a claim that consensus among the SPAs should dominate the page is causing a major sound of socks quacking in my ear. If this "consensus" is all or in part supported by socks, then a CU could help and would potentially clear out some or all of the SPAs, depending on how many are socks of one person. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Main user (User:PhanuelB) notified. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some socking is possible but meat-puppetry is obvious even to the blind.TMCk (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some SPAs come from advocacy sites and most can be found expressing their POV view by a simple Google search. That wouldn't be a problem if they would stick to our policies of NPOV which the majority of those accounts don't adhere to.TMCk (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading the statements below I might should add that I'm also an involved party at MoMK.TMCk (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A number of the editors in question have off-wiki forums in common (although, I should stress, there is no bang-to-rights evidence of collusion between them with regard to WP), so think this is more likely to be an off-wiki thing than an SP thing. But I don't think anyone would query instigating an SPI, even if it does draw a blank. I'm an involved editor, BTW. Also, I think there may be one or two "pro-Knox" editors in the mix who have a POV but are not behaving unacceptably in terms of pushing it.--FormerIP (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been a bit involved in this (not too recently though), and agree with Black Kite on the issues that the article is facing. To be quite frank I don't have the time or inclination to keep up with everything that is going on but look in now and again to make sure that the article isn't being turned into a soapbox. Given that the last 500 talkpage edits only go back two weeks I am pretty impressed that Black Kite and Mlauba are still there trying to keep on top of it all. Quantpole (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, the two admins deserve a barnstar for their effort and endurance.TMCk (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but it may be seen as apple-for-the-teacher. --FormerIP (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(I won't place a barnstar to their account for the reasons you layed out (and neither should someone else doing so IMO). I merely was trying to make a point about their effort which might be unknown to those not following the case.TMCk (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

Full credit to the two monitoring administrators who are doing their best to give the talk page at least a modicum of control and restraint. External links such as this (check out the comments panel) are troubling and provide evidence to support TMCk's observations. This particular username crops up all over the internet — for example, compare the YouTube channel to a remark in this newspaper comments section (third contribution down) and spot the similarities in content. It is clear that an agenda is being pushed. Recently there has been an assertion of "pro-guilt administrators", a phrase that used to be spouted liberally by the aforementioned indefinitely-blocked user. I won't throw any more names around myself, but I find it difficult to discount suspicions of sockpuppeteering with much ease ... and the Kercher talk page is no stranger to sockpuppeteering campaigns. Since the topic is spiralling out of control, I endorse the suggestion that a checkuser investigation be arranged. SuperMarioMan 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit: as others have stated, meatpuppetry is probably mixed up in all this as well, hence a clear-cut case for a sockpuppet investigation no longer appears to exist, and I have struck through that last sentence. SuperMarioMan 19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my comment further above (even so there might be some sockpuppetry going on as well) the main concern is meat puppetry which a SPI cannot resolve.TMCk (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

With a fair wind it might. I don't think the main protagonists are socks of each other, but there have also been quite a few new editors popping up to voice their agreement and then disappearing. --FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at the precise content dispute, but i get the picture. When stuff like this happens, the whole crowd-source model fails miserably (leaving aside to what extent it "succeeds" in other situations when there are strong points of view but the "rules" are obeyed). What should happen before the few admins that really bother go crazy is that a group of five or so editors that don't particularly care who is right and wrong here be given some power to sort out sources, reflect the fact that she was convicted, reasonably reflect some of the supporters' skepticism and why (in summary, representing weight and principally understanding that it should not require thousands of words -- the encyclopedia article is meant neither to be a book on why Knox is clearly innocent or obviously guilty.) Once the "expert group" gets it sorted put that bit off limits unless or until new "evidence" or meaningful info (say, an interview with a prosecutor saying he now regrets the conviction or something) comes to light. I recognize this will never happen -- but it would yield a better article with less strife, and less stress for admins dealing with it, who i commend for their patience.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea but, in principle, wouldn't it be a bit like an enforced content decision and therefore un-WP? --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be "Un-WP" as "WP" is currently construed. I don't understand why the experience of years can't be used to tweak what WP "is" to deal with these periodic bumbertrucks. At any rate, it's a meta debate and will leave it be in this thread.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the point: What is needed are uninvolved admins who will enforce policy when those two admins are being attacked and cannot act on their own since they're an involved party in such case.TMCk (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. With regard to the other issues, the large amount of overlap on many of the SPAs contributions indicate that an SPI would not be productive. This is clearly an off-wiki campaign and can only be dealt with behaviourally, although at least two of the SPAs contributions are similar to previously blocked editors. Those editor's contributions, however, would be stale in any checkuser. But the major issue here is to get more admins involved, please. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a read-over of the talk page presents clear enough evidence for keeping the page protected. The SPA's who want it unprotected give the usual edit-warrior evasive arguments about "wikipedia standards" and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good (outside) observation, Bugs.TMCk (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, Bali. Maybe it would be better to wait until you have heard both sides of the story. I'm a little busy at work now.PhanuelB (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can place your view anytime at your convinience. There is no rush and no deadline to be met.TMCk (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use wikipedia to try to make a case for somebody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that the moderation of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article may be heavy handed and actively discouraging new editors. Rather than starting with the gently worded, low key reminders of Wikipedia rules typically given for fist offenses, the first warnings are often harsh. The message is not "Welcome to Wikipedia", it's "Go away". Specifically puzzling is the immediate block of user Gregmm who made only one edit[73] that was constructive, properly referenced and well formatted. The text from that edit remains in the article to this day. This user was also blocked from editing his own talk page, an action reserved for cases where there is continued abuse of the talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason given for the block was "block evasion" and at no point where they blocked from editing their own talkpage. I do not know which blocked editor was meant as violating their block but they could've placed an unblock request at any time. Also the only edit from that editor remained in place because of the page protection and no edit request to remove or alter it was made in the short time since then.TMCk (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(More in response to Footwarrior). Further, I'm not sure but you seem to show no worries whatsoever about all those SPAs popping up and presenting the same POV very strongly. There was only one of those new accounts (PietroLegno) in who I had some confidence till their post today: "...and our two pro-guilt administrators...", a familiar pattern.TMCk (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If the user was not blocked form editing their own talk page, why was the page template altered in this edit[74], removing the information on how to request unblocking. The users talk page also gives the reason for the block as "abuse of editing privileges". Was there an investigation leading to a sockpuppet block? --Footwarrior (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That I don't know so you have to ask the blocking admin. The block log clearly shows no removal of talkpage privileges.TMCk (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It was felt that any unblock request could be better handled through the unblock list. Are you going to answer TMCk's other points? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I second the latter and would appreciate that since Footwarrior is a longstanding experienced contributor who doesn't engage in those SPA's stereotyping. So whatever points he's raising should be responded to accordingly - and vise versa.TMCk (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should've made it clear before that I do not include Footwarrior in the bevy of recent SPAs that have invaded the talk page. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any over-the-top biting of new editors here; a flood of editors who wade straight in to a controversial article throwing accusations of bias left and right do not need 'gently warning'.  pablo 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New editors are free to post any "new" information on the talk page. They don't want to do that, because they know it won't go in the article, being based on unreliable sources. Hence they are pushing for the page to be unprotected so they can edit-war again. Check the start dates and contrib lists of some of those cats, and you'll see they are recently-created, single-purpose accounts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

When "new" editors suddenly appear on the page (and edit only that page) and start attacking other editors, accusing those that don't agree with them of bias, and demanding that their viewpoints be included in the articles, then as administrators we are obliged to explain the problems that they are causing. Footwarrior, if you can find an example where a genuine new editor was treated harshly without even a warning as to their behaviour, please feel free to point it out. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not convinced that the sanctions administered to certain users are excessive or conflict with policies (Phanuel, for example, has been invited to contribute in a constructive manner on numerous occasions despite blocks, which does not suggest that the general attitude is one of rejection), the atmosphere at the talk page often descends into unsupported accusation and entrenched bitterness in a trend that has regrettably endured past the indefinite block and topic ban handed down in June. A whole host of these allegations have originated from users who perceive the current article's treatment of Amanda Knox as incorporating negative bias — however, I've seen little or no evidence of new, single-purpose usernames instigating calls for a harsher treatment. The essential area is a deep-rooted lack of civil conduct from certain participants which, due to repeated conscious or unconscious refusals to understand the point, leads to sensible, measured sanctions adopted being frequently construed as unjustified, conspiratorial "oppression" of such users and the so-called "truth" of the Kercher case. Extreme POV is bartered about in the guise of NPOV. This poisoning of the well appears difficult to cure at this stage, but it is just the one set of like-minded users behind it all. SuperMarioMan 20:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

When you have a single edit warrior, it's usually better to block the editor. When you have a host of them, it's usually better to "block" the page. It's regrettable, but sometimes necessary, to prevent disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support MLauba and BlackKite's actions in this matter. NPOV is more important than "that anyone can edit", and enforcing protection is an excellent way to force meat/sock puppets to engage on the talk page. If they can't engage civilly on the talk page and make their points, then there's no good reason to either assume good faith or alter the article accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments A couple of things first, in terms of background. I first watchlisted the article in February following one of the so many regular ANI spillouts that have been happening throughout the history of this whole sorry mess. I took a very long time before taking any action - protecting the article with one sole intention, to avoid getting the one user who has been indeffed in the meantime from getting a (in retrospect well-deserved) block for edit warring in a "breaking news"-type headline on top of the article (in all fairness, to counter another fake breaking news inserted, maliciously, by an IP vandal). I did that because a medcab case had been opened by that same user, and until that time, I was still not entirely decided on whether the article was two opposing POV ducking it out, or a single POV trying to slant the article. What didn't help in April was that the article was a completely unsalvageable mess of opposing statements, a 'he said / she said' disaster where in the name of "neutrality" every single statement in favour of the prosecution had been countered with a wealth of counter-statements.
• The two editors advocating innocence for Ms Knox at that time both represented a very aggressive brand of POV-pushing including endless aspersions of bad faith, intimidation, harassment, violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. One of these has since been indefinitely blocked, the other one is under a topic ban that he has kept testing and is about to expire - both of these enacted through ANI without any hand of mine.
• In the climate inherited from these two editors, I do share some of the concerns voiced by User:Footwarrior above: that the view of the long-term editors of the page become tainted in a way that every single new poster advocating a POV in favour of Ms Knox is automatically greeted with extreme scepticism. We must, at all times, be able to distinguish between contributors who appear to be wanting to promote a more favourable POV for Knox in good faith (such as User:Footwarrior himself for instance) from the aggressive SPAs like User:PhanuelB who are completely unable and unwilling to compromise and have now limited themselves to snide comments, sniping, assertions of bad faith and overall just plain disruption despite countless invitations to contribute in a constructive manner. Rest assured that the burden of this toxic climate rests entirely on the shoulders of the extreme POV pushers.
• I will also point out that contrary to User:Footwarrior's claims of heavy-handed administration, I have in the recent weeks refrained, multiple times, from imposing well-deserved blocks on part of the new-comers in favour of more mild reminders and invitations to rephrase attacks directed at other editors. Those have been, to this date, ignored.
• I therefore stand fully behind every single administrative action taken on the page or on some of the users by User:Black Kite and myself and will welcome any additional administrative eyes on that article and all related pages.
• Last but not least, as expressed in the previous ANI discussion, it is by now my firm conviction that User:PhanuelB has failed to demonstrate any further use for Wikipedia, having been, without fail, a net negative to the project from the first to the last of his contributions. I will reiterate that I believe Wikipedia will be better off with this user banned, or at the very least topic banned. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Lest I forget: regarding the accusations of bias, I challenge anyone to be able to present any personal opinion of mine in regards to the topic of the tragic murder of Ms Kercher or the three people who have been convicted in Italy in connection with that event.MLauba ^(Talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• And I would also challenge anyone to the same. Whilst I do not believe it would be incorrect for myself or MLauba to remove PhanuelB from the topic (a topic-ban would effectively be a block anyway), it would be better if a previously uninvolved admin did so. The removal of PhanuelB would at least enable a far more collegial environment on the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

.... and another one weighs in [75]. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB should not be removed. He gives sound sourcing and has put in a great deal of effort to achieve a better article. I don't find his behavior any less appropriate than those that are asking for his removal. I read this desire to remove PhanuelB as a way to remove an obstical in maintaining a different point of view then what he has. I don't think this is fair or desirable.Jaberryhill (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see my name has been taken in vain here and I would welcome the opportunity to respond at great length. Unfortunately it is impossible to know what is acceptable commentary on Wikipedia these days and what is not. Evidently what I see as spirited but not unfair commentary is unacceptable to some people. So let me make four brief points:

1) PhanuelB clearly should not be banned. He has done nothing to deserve that. His proposed edits have been impeccably sourced. He is very well informed about the details of the case. He has been very intelligent and flexible in relation to certain contentious issues. He is, in short, a breath of fresh air in an article that badly needs it. 2) For reliable commentary on what has gone on in the article, I suggest that you consult the comments of user Footwarrior. His (or her) commentary has been judicious throughout. This is a veteran user who understands why some of us newcomers feel badly used. 3)While I would have to know a good deal more about the particulars, I am inclined to think there is some merit in the kind of approach Bali suggests. More than anything I would like to see the article on the Sollecito-Knox-Kercher case reflect the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case and that well credentialed observers have made telling points against the verdict. Absent this, it is impossible for an uninvolved reader to understand why the case inspired so much controversy. 4) Please recognize that, the rhetoric of Black Kite and Mlauba to the contrary not withstanding, there really is another side to this story. I am quite sure that if I could sit down with many of you individually I could demonstrate that this is true. PietroLegno (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

NathanWard1234 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)It sounds to me like Black Kite simply wants to silence someone he disagrees with. Black Kite wrote "The removal of PhanuelB would at least enable a far more collegial environment on the article" I think what Black Kite really meant to say was - I wish PhanuelB would go away because he really bothers me. This is getting pretty ridiculous. Many people disagree with the current content on this article. It is time to stop blocking those people and start listening. You have been provided with excellent sources for the suggested edits. You cannot keep the truth out of this article forever. In the spirit of Wikipedia, listen to reason, listen to the truth. No one has made any suggestion that they feel the article should be biased on way or the other. I have seen many people simply showing concern that the article is not accurate. There are many intelligent people here. Presenting an article that is as inaccurate as this one currently is, undermines the intelligence of all involved. It's time to stop with the back and forth bickering. It's time for both sides to set aside the defenses that are currently up and take an honest look at all suggestions. The truth is available. This article needs to present the truth. There is no other solution. Restricting someone's ability to participate is no way to resolve issues.

I too have seen many people "simply showing concern that the article is not accurate." I am one. We discuss changes on the talk page and attempt to improve the article with each change. Then there is another bunch of editors, yourself included, who show concern because the article does not say "Amanda Knox never done it not her boyfriend neither it was the other guy honest". There is a difference.  pablo 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia suffering because it's the soft option?

I noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#PhanuelB Challenges Allegations of WP:BLP Violations by Administrator MLauba that there was documented appalling behaviour across the WWW that really has no place at Wikipedia. I wonder now, after some further research, whether our continuing problem is that Wikipedia, now, is the soft option. I notice that several of these self-same people with the same agendas and the same pseudonyms have had their contributions to various discussion fora, from the comments section of this article on The Economist (where a PhanuelB comment no longer appears) to Michelle Fabio's web log, variously blocked, restricted, or erased. We seem to be having this continuing trouble because Wikipedia hasn't proven to be as strict on shoving this campaigning and disruption out of the door as the rest of the world; hence the campaigners congregate at Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• You're very likely right; the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and ranks very highly in Rome Google must be v. tempting for any campaigner.  pablo 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is moving beyond the "take it or leave it" phase and more of the world is taking it seriously as a source of information. This comes along with mixed blessings. Agenda-driven editing is going to become a major issue, and my impression is that Wikipedia's current governance structure is simply not equipped to handle this impending threat.   Thorncrag  23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Uncle G: I agree that this is an issue, but perhaps it merits discussion somewhere other than here. I also think there may be a thing of editors with certain POVs finding in WP talkpages a place where they can give their opinions and will not be ignored or ridiculed, because of WP:NPA and WP:BRD. I think User:PhanuelB has no agenda here to improve the encyclopaedia, only to soapbox on one particular talkpage. I can provide an account with diffs to show this (won't TLDR for now), but can this be dealt with from here or would it require someone to launch an RFC? --FormerIP (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Let's make us less of a soft option, then. I notice that across the web logs and suchlike there's a perennial "Oh pseudonym A and pseudonym B are just person C doing some astroturfing.". They don't have a mechanism for this. Wikipedia does. So let's start using it. Let's start with that sockpuppetry case that was suggested above. Let's clear out the single-purpose accounts that turn out to be sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPCGuru perhaps? Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that will give thin pickings in this case, actually (in spite of my above comments). We need a hard line on soapboxing and (IMO) a topic ban on PhanuelB, who adds nothing of value and prevents any constructive discussion between editors with different takes on the article in question. --FormerIP (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Prior to even reading the latest discussion here I had made a unilateral offer to PhanuelB here. If it becomes necessary I will bring the indef block I issue here for review. I hope he will have the sense to back down and stop soapboxing and then it won't be necessary. I would happily modify the disincentive offered to a topic ban if we felt that would be kinder; it seems to me like the user would experience one as badly as the other but YMMV. --John (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kauffner

I have warned Kauffner (talk · contribs) about BLP violations before (and removed a post of his [76])and he reacted negatively. Yesterday it was brought to my attention that there were problems at Talk:Elena Kagan. I decided after reading it to revert most of the content (same type of subject, lesbianism), retitled the section heading and asked that no one post. I also posted to Kauffner's talk page. He posted again on the article talk page, and on his talk page replied "Let me get this straight. You are leaving lies about me on the page, and asking me not to respond?". I'd like others to review my actions and his. I've left him an ANI notice. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh I asked him to remove the allegations the other day, I note I was called a "troll" for doing so, how nice. I collapsed/archived the thread to stop any more posting. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit on the jumping-to-conclusions side going on it seems. Let's see if they'll come and respond here. Jmlk17 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your actions, Dougweller. That was really over the line as far as BLP violations go. I can understand Kauffner's frustration about having only a portion of the thread available, so that nobody can review all of their arguments to determine the validity of their claims, but we really can't allow that kind of stuff on Wikipedia, even on a talk page. -- Atama頭 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Dougweller's actions. Jmlk17, I'm not sure whether you are saying that Kauffner might be jumping to conclusions. If you are, I agree. He jumped to conclusions on the Kagan talk page, and jumped to conclusions about other editors who tried to reason with him. At the very least, Kauffner is combative. If he will stop making inflammatory remarks on the Kagan talk page and stop attacking other editors, this might resolve with no further incidents. I hope so. Cresix (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Transformers articles

I need advice. In the last week about a half dozen editors have taken on the task of "cleaning" up the Transformers ficiton related articles. By cleaning I mean deleting without even trying to improve them. I don't know if this is an organized effort of just happenstance that all of them suddenly started nominating different Transformers articles at an amazing rate, and then voting to 'DELETE for each other's nominations, but it has gotten become near impossible for us few working in the Transformers wiki project to keep up with (many of us just started school and are busy). What bothers me is not a single one of these deletionists has offered any improvements in any of the articles they work to delete, and just today about 30 articles were nominated for deletion by this crew. I don't know that anything can be done get them slow them down as nominating articles is their right, but the limited resources of the wiki project (many of us just started fall classes) means we can respond to their demands for proof of notability quickly enough. I'm sure a lot of the articles being nominated deserve to be deleted or merged to larger articles, but others do not. Is there any thing I can do for couple of articles I know just need additional citations and work, and shouldn't be deleted quickly? Often times I don't even know an article has been nominated for deletion until after the fact as these guys often forget to list the nominations at the wiki project. Would it even be okay to ask the Transformers Deletion Patrol to voluntarely limit their nominations for deletion to a certain number a week to be polite? Mathewignash (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Can you provide links to some of the articles in question please? --Selket ^Talk 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with any of the deletion debates, but this recent discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard may be informative. If these Transformers-related articles up for deletion are sourced with the sort of sources up for evaluation at the RSN thread I've linked here, they deserve a lot of scrutiny. — e. ripley\^talk 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Here's some advice: stop throwing around words like 'deletionist'; all you're doing is painting someone who wants an article deleted as someone trying to destroy the project. Placing you as its saviour, I suppose? There is nothing wrong with deleting articles that don't belong here. → ROUX ₪ 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• You can see the nominations for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Meanwhile, it is my experience that tagging Transformers articles for improvement hardly ever results in them actually being improved. I tagged a large number for non-free image overuse a long while ago and practically none of them have been fixed; indeed in some cases the tags were actually removed. Some of these articles have been unsourced for years, and many have been tagged as such, as well as having other long-running maintenance tags. There are well over 1,000 (yes - one thousand - that's not a typo) Transformers articles (as an example, Category:Autobots has 357 on its own) and the vast majority are non-notable on their own - some might qualify for inclusion in "List of minor characters in..." type articles. But no-one seems to want to do the work there. Sometimes the only way to get the attention of editors that articles are deficient is to nominate them for deletion, unfortunately. And I haven't seen a single article yet nominated that was at least dubious in its notability. Ha, just saw the two very poor nominations mentioned below. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In question here is the sudden constant bulk deletion nominations in such a short period of time by a couple editors, who all vote with each other to delete. It's CLEARLY meant to get the articles deleted without any chance of fixing those worth saving. There are articles worth saving as a couple that have had work done to them have been kept. Deleting so many so quickly is clearly not in the best interest of writing good articles. Mathewignash (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm guessing that the ones being deleted, happen to be stubs that haven't been expanded in months or more. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. Jazz (Transformers) and Soundwave (Transformers) got nominated today. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Wowsers, those articles shouldn't be deleted. Has Wikipedia decided to do away with fictional or animation based articles? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Bumblebee (Transformers) and Grimlock now too.
      • (edit conflict) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked I was pretty sure Wikipedia isn't run by one person. Please, tell me what's wrong about nominating articles for deletion if you (reasonably) think they should be deleted? Isn't that the whole point of the discussion part of AFD? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I admitted in the opening that editors have a right to nominate. My question was as to whether politeness can be expected in nominating only articles that deserve it (instead of the seemingly random nominations) and if this is an organized effort (it seems to be the same guys over and over) whether they can be asked to voluntarily limited their nomination to those that can be addressed in time, for the sake of improving the articles over trying to get deletions. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Shirik is right, but I agree those two are two very poor nominations - probably two of the most notable Transformers articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Mass nominations tend to catch people eye. Were these nominations brought to WP:TRANS? GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Although I feel that the notice on my talk page is enough, the nomination for the Transformers article was not meant to be disruptive. Just thought I would say this before someone left a message. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks both here and on the AfD pages. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think that the AfD process is working. There is healthy debate on those AfD entries and the consensus on several seems to be to keep. If I'm missing something, let me know but it looks like the debate should really be on those AfDs and not here. -Selket ^Talk 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • User talk:Mathewignash flocculated mediocrity of Transformers articles when others try to remove fansites or fancruft. He puts it back and says the article is OK and the sources are too. How are the articles ever to improve if the inclusionist cliché keep putting ever useless piece of fan cruft and saying its ok. He probably objects to my adding Dinobots sources which is alot more than the inclusionist cliché have done. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the nominator of these article, has nominated them in good faith. This ANI report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • ...and hereby is. --Selket ^Talk 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I got an answer. If there seems to be a concerted effort by a small group to delete a project's articles so quickly the project cannot respond, can anything be done by it? Is it considered suspect that suddenly a couple guys all started nominating articles together, and voting for each other's deletions? I know I'm to assume good faith, but I'm not seeing it here. Mathewignash (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unless you can prove editors have specially have ASKED to vote a certain way or some other method you accusations are baseless Mathewignash. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• There are any number of consensuses that can be achieved through the AfD process. Some examples are:
  • Keep all
  • Delete all
  • Keep some, delete others
  • Keep some, merge others
• etc. But AfD is the place to work that out. -Selket ^Talk 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the direct answer.Mathewignash (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mathewignash, your repeated characterization of other editors as a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" is unacceptable. You are going wrong in two places:
  1. You are tarring everyone with the same brush. There's a gulf of difference between Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs), for example, and other editors.
  2. You are ignoring the warning rumbles about this that were on your talk page years ago.
• I've gone back through the history of User talk:Mathewignash, and in amongst the reams of warnings about non-free content, I find that in September of 2009 you had a conversation with TTN about transformers articles. Instead of thinking "I'll stop TTN dead in xyr tracks and cite sources showing that xyr claims are wrong." you just carried on blithely, regardless, for another year. (I notice, given that these articles are now being nominated for deletion, that Black Kite came to your talk page to talk to you about list of characters articles with too much non-free content back in February 2008. You had another conversation about these multi-character list articles in August 2009.)

  You talk of "writing good articles". Good Wikipedia article writing involves using and citing sources. You've had conversations about that on your talk page in August 2008 and January 2009. You had a further relevant conversation about sourcing for fiction on your talk page in January 2010.

  This is far from being a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" versus all the poor put-upon editors who are being surprised at suddenly have a lot of work to do. This is you having over two year's notice that there were problems here, including from some of the editors who have now made deletion nominations, not doing pretty much anything about it, and then complaining when the rest of the world runs out of patience waiting. You shouldn't be surprised that you're in the pickle that you're in now. You had at least a year, after you knew without question that there was a problem looming, where you could at leisure have rectified this situation and prevented this from happening. That you are now pressured into working hard to cite sources at a time that you find personally inconvenient is a bed of your own making. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • If you have a problem with me, that's fine. I'm only a so-so editor at best. This still fails to explain the sudden deletion nomination of 10-30 articles a day for the past week by a small group, which is the subject of this talk. Sadly it's been explained to me that there is nothing I can do but ask that some of the editors slow down so we can address issues. Some have. I appreciate that. Some have even sided with keeping and improving some of the major articles. It's a nice change, knowing they want to improve, not just delete the articles. Thanks everyone for that! Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You don't get to dictate a narrow discussion focus in your favour, here, Mathewignash. This is very much also about you, and your continuing failure to do something about a problem with the articles that you've been contributing to that you knew was coming for years in advance. Even now, when someone points out sourcing that xe considers problematic, you utterly fail to get the point and completely fail to address the actual issue. You've had years of warning about this. Learn! Or the discomfort and pressure will continue. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Whether Mathewignash fails to get the point does not justy the mass nomination of over 90 articles in a very short time. That seems rather WP:POINTy to me. —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This isn't about justification. It's about how this could have been prevented altogether by taking action a year ago, and gross mischaracterizations of a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol", that you, too, appear to be erroneously buying into. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buyinG into anything. I'm just point out that these mass nominations are very disruptive, if not WP:POINy. No one is going to "improve" the articles if they have to go through over 90 articles at once. It doesn't matter how much "time" Mathewignash was given, there is simply no excuse for nominating so many articles at once.

And please stop refactoring my comments into a format you prefer. Plain indents are less trouble to work with and looks neater —Farix (t | c) 00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My issue here is that so many articles are being nominated in such a short time. Is there really an immediate need to nominate over 90 articles in just two or three days?[77] This is simply too much for anyone to deal with and salvage content that is worth saving. The nominators should be told to "back off" for a while. 10 articles per week is a lot of articles to have to cleanup and search for reliable sources, but it is workable. However, 90 articles at once gives noone a chance to look for reliable sources or determine which articles are better suited to be merged into a list. While I do support the cleanup of the Transformer articles, there is no deadline here and there should be no rush. —Farix (t | c) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have seen that these deletions seem to be planned. One editor will nominate, then post on the other user's talk page that they "may be interested" in these nomination. Now these are to pages that the second editor has never edited before. I thought you were supposed to notify Wiki projects, article creators, and maybe those involved with the editing of an article about a deletion nomination. Why are people notifying those whose only interest seems to be a history voting DELETE with them on other articles? If you look here User_talk:Dwanyewest#Transformers_AfDs you will see an example. someone nominate a bunch of Transformers articles for deletion, then notifies the user with a history of deletion votes about how they may be interested (in an article they never edited before!) a few memoents later votes for delete have been added. What was the provocation to tell this individual about the deletions besides their history of voting delete? Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[78] These kinds of comments are extremely unproductive and uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So I have been told. It was a reaction to coming home and finding 30 articles nominated for deletion by the same group of guys who have been at it all week. Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any good reason the article for Sideways (Transformers) is under TWO nominations for deletion at the same time? Mathewignash (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be called an error--looks like a double click on the tool. :-) I've administratively closed the "first" one, the "second" one is ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Danke shane. Mathewignash (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• My problem with Mathewignash and like minded inclusionist when someone tries to remove fansites or fancruft. The immediately cry "notable" and claim fansites are good sources of information. I also the resent the what seems like an accusation that there's some sort of cabal of deletionists or the insinuation I just started editing Transforemers. What about about the inclusionist who go notable but will have a article which merely mentions a subject once in a sentence and call it significant coverage as evidence of notability. I have added alot more actual reliable third person sources on Transformers than alot inclusionists have see the edits of the ones I did below if you doubt me. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The Transformers (TV series)
2. Transformers: Armada
3. Beast Wars: Transformers
4. Dinobots
5. Transformers: Energon
6. Transformers: Cybertron

I still don't understand why the other editors who nominate for deletion are notifying you on your talk page that you may be interested in those nominations, when these are articles you have never edited in your life. Why would they think YOU are the person to notify? If it walks like a organized effort to delete, and talks like an organized effort delete... Mathewignash (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I can't speak for others motivation maybe it like you say there think I will vote a certain way. I neither endorse or encourage others to vote a certain way. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Focus on outcomes...

What do we really want to see for transformers? I doubt there's really one answer, but a consensus answer is probably going to look something like...

• Separate articles for the most important characters, as demonstrated by reliable sources, with as much real-world commentary (e.g., how Bumblebee was bought by GM) as possible.
• List articles of the fictional characters not notable enough for their own articles, with verifiable content.
• Less plot information than what we currently have, by a long shot.

But for the life of me, I'm really not seeing how a mass deletion crusade is actually accomplishing any of this. I mean, sure, I suppose it's possible to raise the quality of Wikipedia by deleting poorly written articles... but that's like expelling the struggling students to improve a school's average performance. What I really don't see in all this name calling (cruft, deletionist... they're all pejorative) is a way forward to improve the Wikipedia coverage of Transformers characters. Sure, there's some excision due, but this much? In this haphazard a manner? There's gotta be a better way, really. Have we remembered nothing of POKEMON? Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to fully agree Jclemens. I can't for the life of me see why we would delete an article on the character Jazz. Pokemon, betacommandbot... i guess we don't learn. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on some of the comments above, I believe that the rapid-fire nominations are the results of personal vendettas against Mathewignash. That's not to excuse Mathewignash's unwillingness to bring these articles in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but two wrongs don't make a right. —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I did think I was bring the articles in line - I just don't want them deleted out of hand, and I don't discount every sites as easily as others seem to. You may notice my voting history isn't to always KEEP, I often vote to redirect or merge minor articles. One of the users who is usually pro-deletion just made a suggestion to me as to a source for many of the articles I might use to help improve them. This was helpful. THANK YOU! Perhaps we can keep some of these articles by actually improving them. Mathewignash (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That does it. I can't stand it. I'm not going to keep quite about this any more. I have no vendetta against Mathewignash, and I take offense to such a statement Farix. I only to fix what is dealy broken. I've asked for his help and incite on my proposed edits on the Megatron and Starscream articles, but they turned a blind eye. Second, can't you see why anybody delete or redirect Jazz, DJ?? Is everybody blind??? A lot of the sources there come from fansites like TF2005 and their message board which as I recall fansites are unreliable sources. So what, are we now going to look away cherry pick guidelines that suits us? Sakes alive the articles damaged goods and you know it. How am I or anybody suppose to clean up this mess form and push the usable stuff to GA or FA if everybody's making excuses for such sorry pieces of work? I'm sorry, but I can't take this molycodling of bad articles anymore. Sarujo (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen when others to reorganise or make some editors will object and say its fine the way it is. In regards to sourcing and removal of info. Besides User:Mathewignash you seem partly responsible for some of the proliferation of mediocre articles such as Transmetal Driver, Mutant (Transformers),Longhorn (Transformers). Besides I am sceptical if any improvements can be made because recommendations were made a year ago, [79] but no action seemed to made. We need to have a minimum agreement of what format Transformers articles should take and what needs to removed. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

CU results

 Confirmed:

• Claritas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nefesf9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anton dvsk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blest Withouten Match (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If I have not mentioned an account, consider it  Unrelated unless a reason comes up to justify running a CU. I will leave to uninvolved admins as far as blocking is concerned. –MuZemike 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

 – Block applied Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY
User:DavidAppletree18 Someone Wanna play "whack a Sock?" Block evasion and Community ban evasion Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Found a sleeper

I'll just list them as I find them. I'll only list ones that aren't already blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• DavidAppletreeApology (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Blocked --Selket ^Talk 00:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to add these to his sock drawer. Going to bed, I'll be off Wikipedia Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Langston Bonasera - Image issues

Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a troublesome editor who just doesn't seem to get the message about uploading non-free images. As of right now, I have counted 47 unheeded warnings that have been posted to his talk page, most about images that he's uploaded. He has also been involved in several content disputes but the main issue here is images. Editors have tried to provide advice over that provided in warning templates,[80][81][82][83] but he has ignored the advice, going so far as to place a warning on his talk page to other editors, telling them not to complain about the pictures he's uploaded.[84] Most recently, he uploaded a new version of File:Homicide life on the Street.jpg without updating the source information for the file. I reverted the change and warned him.[85] Instead of following my advice, he simply reverted the to the image he'd uploaded, still without updating source information.[86] With so many similar warnings over the seven months that he's been editing here, he should have gotten the message now but hasn't. It seems that he needs a more firm advice in the right direction than I can give him. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed their contributions, I'm seeing a general lack of willingness to communicate overall, despite being warned multiple times that this isn't appropriate. If Langston continues to be unresponsive to discussion about the issue (including this thread), I think a block may be in order, but I'll leave some time for them to weigh in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)